The view from America

[TimberWolf]

The Americans have always been gung and bomb-ho. Whether against enemies, allies or on a quiet day even themselves. Blue on blue, translated means Yanks shooting the British again.

[Paddy]

He specifically saw something he thought was an RPG, or at least I did in the video. The fact he was wrong is one thing, but personally the moment I in a helicopter thought an RPG was around I'd be VERY nervous.

RPGs have a maximum range of 1,000 meters and are very slow and would take 3-4 seconds to get to that distance furthermore the helicopter was out of range.

Even in a war situation it is a war crime to shoot the wounded when they are not firing weapons.

[hyperD]

Even in a war situation it is a war crime to shoot the wounded when they are not firing weapons.

I watched the full 38 min video. Terrible tragedy. High emotions, mistaking a photo lens camera for an RPG. Confusion. I don’t think you can say “gung-ho”, this was a bad decision resulting in the loss of innocent lives. We have no idea what the air crews experience in combat and their reactions and emotions in the utter confusion of war.

One thing though, they did not shoot the wounded guy on the ground and stated that had he picked up a weapon they would. They shot the van when the people put the wounded man inside it and were leaving.

I interpreted the pilot’s words of “Nice” as complimenting the gunner’s accuracy and tight firing pattern.

Was pretty depressing to view it. Wish I hadn’t now.

[d000hg]

RPGs have a maximum range of 1,000 meters and are very slow and would take 3-4 seconds to get to that distance furthermore the helicopter was out of range.

Was the chopper really over 1km away? Based on how fast it circled the building I figured more like 100m but that would explain the lag when shooting.

[hyperD]

Interesting comment from a better informed opinion.

[minestrone]

Can't really see British professional soldiers opening up on civilians like that.

Bollocks, the IRA spent years trying to kill as many soldiers on one day as the army killed civilians in Derry on one day as revenge, eventually achieving their aim at Warrenpoint.

You have been taken in by our media as they have by theirs.

[Spacecadet]

Can't really see British professional soldiers opening up on civilians like that. Or owning helicopters.

They're to busy receiving friendly fire from our special relationship allies

[expat]

I will just draw attention to the fact that in this post I did not criticise the US military action, but rather the American reporting of it, which seemed to me to fall short of what I would expect of impartial and in-depth journalism.

Compare the Guardian and the Telegraph, as I do often (and have done since print days), and you will find some clear differences; but there is a common theme of an aim for journalistic impartiality, if not (thank goodness) editorial impartiality. IMHO a confirmed Guardian reader would have no trouble reading the Telegraph and saying that the news reporting was excellent although the political bias was all wrong; and similarly vice versa. I would think that the New York Times would aspire to this standard of journalism, but it seems to me that in this case they would be best not to claim to have achieved it, because they have been blinded by the flags that they are waving.

[sasguru]

I will just draw attention to the fact that in this post I did not criticise the US military action, but rather the American reporting of it, which seemed to me to fall short of what I would expect of impartial and in-depth journalism.

Compare the Guardian and the Telegraph, as I do often (and have done since print days), and you will find some clear differences; but there is a common theme of an aim for journalistic impartiality, if not (thank goodness) editorial impartiality. IMHO a confirmed Guardian reader would have no trouble reading the Telegraph and saying that the news reporting was excellent although the political bias was all wrong; and similarly vice versa. I would think that the New York Times would aspire to this standard of journalism, but it seems to me that in this case they would be best not to claim to have achieved it, because they have been blinded by the flags that they are waving.

Very good point. Unlike most on here I make sure I read all political viewpoints as none has a monopoly on the truth. (In this respect Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay " The conservatives" is a good read even though it was written AFAIK in the 19th century. it shows plus ca change.).

The Times is now basically a Murdoch mouthpiece.

[minestrone]

I will just draw attention to the fact that in this post I did not criticise the US military action, but rather the American reporting of it, which seemed to me to fall short of what I would expect of impartial and in-depth journalism.

Compare the Guardian and the Telegraph, as I do often (and have done since print days), and you will find some clear differences; but there is a common theme of an aim for journalistic impartiality, if not (thank goodness) editorial impartiality. IMHO a confirmed Guardian reader would have no trouble reading the Telegraph and saying that the news reporting was excellent although the political bias was all wrong; and similarly vice versa. I would think that the New York Times would aspire to this standard of journalism, but it seems to me that in this case they would be best not to claim to have achieved it, because they have been blinded by the flags that they are waving.

You seem to be more focused on the appraisal of abstract viewpoints of the event rather than the event itself, shooting the messenger as I would see it.

But what do you expect from the yanks, the chap who ordered the shooting of a whole village in Vietnam ( 500 women and children according to the yanks, the Vietnamese say 880 ) got 3 years house arrest and then was allowed to work in the trinket shop outside the army base.

I do not see it as surprise people are willing to strap bombs to themselves to get one back on them.