You are reading a single comment by @fallschirmjäger and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@fallschirmjäger
EDIT: Lpg that isnt an RPG, Looks like a Stinger to me. Hence the fact he managed to hit the heli from such a distance. Most insurgents couldnt hit a fucking barn door. Still, It doesnt change the fact that they do pose a very real threat to aircraft (especially low flying ones) But more specifically to ground troops/vehicles. (e.g. The small arms contact that is ongoing in the video)
I did mention the footage earlier, everyone ignored it. To summarise for those that dont know/choose to ignore the facts.
The ROE that apply in this instance were followed as well as they could have been regarding the initial firing, the ground callsign asked for air support after a small arms contact near the location of the journos (about 50-100 feet away iirc).
The pilots identified the group and percieved them gathering as a threat (There are armed men amongst them, close to a group of us troops under contact and which had been under constant fire for the morning - Also what in christs name is the bloke lying down doing? how did he think he wasnt going to look like a fecking insurgent!)
They asked for permission to fire, and the OIC clearing the strike would have no reason to suspect that the call was not legitimate (based on the radio transcript, weapons are identified within the group and with aircraft flying as low as an apache there is no reason for the clearance not be granted by the or the pilot/observer to be doubted). This was also not their first engagement with a group in the area, and before shooting at the van.
I can see no reason for the second engagement even from the pilots point of view. But people take one look at this after briefly reading that there were photographers there and instantly assume that everyone is innocent. After playing it back many times they can confidently say that the pilots should be lynched or other tripe. Guardian reading buffoons at it again. At the end of the day it was an unfortunate error that the reuters guys got killed, but It is perfectly understandable how the error occurred.
WikiLeaks claims to seek to shed the light on the truth, yet continues to allow such gross errors in reporting stand unchanged. There are many serving and ex-personnel with thousands of hours experience in both analyzing aerial video and understanding the often-garbled radio transmissions between units. It is not unreasonable to think any number of them would be willing to make sure everything is identified correctly, and all jargon is translated appropriately, before things go to the presses.
Promoting truth with gross errors is just as shameful as an unnecessary engagement.
But hey, lets not let facts get in the way of a good outrage.