Handsome Rob

You're right. But the RPG in the video sure looks like an RPG. The AK looks like an AK too. Because they are. Remarkable. If you watch the raw tape, you can hear callsign Bushmaster 6 collecting the ordnance after the engagement. Cool! You've flown an Apache? Or sat in the cockpit? What was it like? Innocent people carrying large scale weapons?

My question is, this seems like a pretty clear cut case of actually getting the bad guy, RPG's are pretty good evidence at that. Yet their is plenty of evidence available in print media, books, etc, of things like Air Strikes and Artillery being dropped on 'suspected' targets. Things like buildings & hamlets, with god knows what inside. So such things get printed quietly into the night, but this causes a furor? This makes no sense to me. Is this because a very selectively edited WikiLinks video makes it easy to take a stance, evidenced by people too lazy to watch the 40 minute raw footage, or read reports? That's not much of standing up for a cause.

I see. So from behind your computer screen, you've arrived at absolute certainty that the gunships were not called in for any reason, there was no prior firefight causing them to be on the look out for such a group, and the group was out to trade their RPG's for lollipops. So you suggest what? The helicopter lands, the crew gets out and politely asks those individuals with assault rifles and anti-tank munitions to move to one side of the street, and those individuals without the other, so they don't have to worry about being hit? I suspect you wouldn't last very long in a warzone. Common sense tells that standing beside somebody with a large weapon in an area of conflict is a pretty good ticket to getting killed.

I completely oppose the war in Iraq, but I don't understand what the issue is here. The only real question I have, is if it was really necessary to put those three missiles into the building. But I am not one to judge.

No they didn't. A direct quote, "There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force." -Spokesman Lt. Colonel Scott Bleichwehl They didn't shoot civilians. Unless you're suggesting that they had a legitimate reason for a Sunday stroll with an RPG, and a very tactical peak around a corner with what may or may not be that said RPG in hand, at a US HumVee parked up the road. Have to be a heck of a reason in a place like that. It isn't counterstrike. If you don't pull the trigger, you don't get another life after he does.

True, but such things get out of control. As an employer with the responsibility of hiring, decisions are influenced by fear of consequences. It is easier to hire a lesser employee, and not fear reprisal, than to not hire them, and face potential and often likely, punishment. An obvious case of the problems, is the firefighters in the states, New Hampshire I think it was? Not enough people of the correct skin color passed the test for promotion, so it was thrown out, costing many people benefits. The idea of Religion having any role in the workplace is obscene. Like the English bus driver stopping to pray 18 times per day in traffic, or the hairdresser that wouldn't take off her hat and received something like 20,000 quid over it.

By all means, I would trade the Charter back for the Bill of Rights if it meant entrenching the constitution in an acceptable manner with a functionable amendment formula. The BCHRT recently elected to ignore a ruling from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I cannot imagine a stronger death sentence than that. Agreed. A court of law, not a kangaroo court of hurt feelings.

They didn't want more insurgents picking up the weapons and picking up the other insurgents. The greater reason is that the bodies are often rigged with traps and IED's, not allowed to touch.