Video of US backed rebels blowing up Russian helicopter with US made TOW missile.

[Jesus Malverde]

Many snakbars, you can tell these are Jihadists.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=27a_1448375727

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW

[LittleBlue]

1. Nice to see us once again supporting Islamists

Disgusting. I sincerely hope a congressional investigation is opened.

[Glassunion]

2. Islamists or Jihadists?

[Marr]

4. There's not much difference, if any.

An Islamist wants to install a theocratic government under Sharia law.

[IsItJustMe]

56. I am sure a Republican Congress and Senate will do that in short order. No worries there LittleBlue

[trumad]

3. Helicopter kills people, people kill Helicopter.

[polly7]

5. It was a search and rescue helicopter, ffs. nt.

[trumad]

7. Where does it say that?

Oh---and this:

Rami Abdulrahman from the Observatory, which tracks the conflict in Syria though a wide network of sources, said at least ten people were on the helicopter when it was hit by the insurgents but they were all evacuated when it landed and before the missile destroyed it.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=27a_1448375727#53Efyu168BzBzhhV.99

Looks like no one died FFS!

[polly7]

9. Do some reading.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141269979

[trumad]

12. Anyone die?

Reports I've read---the answer is no.

[polly7]

13. What does it matter if anyone died?!?

Shooting down a search and rescue helicopter is about as disgusting as it gets!!!

'Helicopter kills people' - YOU said that.

[trumad]

24. War is hell.

No comment about the fucking Fighter Jet?

You do know that a Search and Rescue helicopter has people in it that will kill your ass in a heartbeat?--AKA, Special Force type troops.

What---you think it was Red Cross...FFS

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Here

This is a properly marked search and rescue helo.

I did not see any markings on that chopper. Under the rules of war, for the record, Syrian rebels are not signatories, ergo not subject to them... that helo is a valid military target. It does not matter if it is carrying combat troops... or civilian medics. It still needs to be property marked to be subject to the protections of the Conventions.

I know it may seem low but even properly marked vehicles are shot at in conflict zones. What protects an unmarked one? What? That I tell you it's a rescue helo

Here

https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule29

And yes, war IS indeed hell. Here is one for you to mull over... the Star of life



IS NOT contrary to what many people think in the US, protected under the Geneva convention either. I am giving the currently recognized emblems, though there is discussion to add a few more.

[polly7]

37. Yeah, I know all the emblems, Nadin.

I've worked in EMS for 16 years.

It makes sense that any helicopter landing after two men had been ejected from a targeted plane and parachuted down would have a search and rescue attempt. Anyone not believing this was anything but that doesn't give one single fuck about those two men.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I worked in EMS in what was considered a low level conflict zone

I lived those conventions. The stand back for police over the radio did not exist for us. It is a very different environment than that of American EMS. We pretty much went to places that you would never, ever in your wildest dreams, should find yourself in, unless somebody made a very serious mistake. It is not that people do not care It is the reality of war. It is not a movie.

The men on the ground watched an attack helicopter coming at them Yes, combat craft are seconded to rescue in combat zones if that is all you have, but that does not mean they are not valid targets. It is not about caring about the people on the ground.

War is hell. And if (when) American troops are on the ground, that is the reality of the messy asymmetrical war with non state actors that they will face. It is even more brutish and nasty than when fighting people who supposedly are drilled on the rules of the game, and their states signed the play book.

[polly7]

39. Yeah, yeah ...... 'war is hell' ........ heard it for 13 years now. Fuck 'war'/regime change/

purposeful terrorism against millions of innocents backed by the same old - over and over ad fucking nauseum. Sick of it, and I don't give a shit who doesn't like my opinion, including you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. That is fine, your views are not based on the realtiy of the GENEVA CONVENTION

that was a valid target, from a MILITARY PERSPECTIVE, even if that chopper was at that moment engaged in a rescue mision.

And that is the damn point.

[polly7]

41. Ah leave me alone with your justification of this horror. Take it somewhere else.

That is MY DAMN POINT.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. I am not justifying a damn thing

but explaining to you how the world actually works.

You can always trash the thread Because people who understand this will tell you, already have, why you are wrong.

This is a HIND, they usually are not coming to caress and be nice to people on the ground. This is what a HIND carries



I do not know of ANY proper rescue vehicle that carries that OFFENSIVE arsenal.

[polly7]

43. Whatever, nadin. I don't need or want your explanations for this horror.

I completely understand it all and have from the sickening start of it ...... no worries there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Well I guess you think

An assault helicopter is a protected rescue unit just because the home government says so. Several other people tried to explain this to you. You were nowhere as nasty with them. But hey, whatever. Water and ducks come to mind.

By the way, in your avoidance of reality our non stste actors actually violated an actual war standard. (It is actually in the conventions and everything). It is breaking. The two, the pilot and WZO were shot while decending to earth on their parachutes. (I am guessing this was a Fulcrum, pretty much a WAG on my part though)

Guess what? That is actually, like for real, a violation of the Geneva Convention. Since you are an expert, tell me...how do you hold non stste actors accountable under the conventions they did not sign?

Oh and spare me the I am justifying this. Because you know, understanding how the world works does not mean one justifies shit...two very different things.

Edited, the plane was an SU 24

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-24

[polly7]

45. Guess what ........ take it elsewhere. White noise to me. nt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. So pretty much no answer

Thought so.

[polly7]

47. Ding ding ding. nt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Again, thought so

[11 Bravo]

50. Got it. Fingers in ears going "NA NA, I can't hear you!"

Nadin is trying to explain to you the legal reality of the situation. Said reality apparently offends your sensibilities. So there really doesn't appear to be much left to say other than, "Tough shit, deal with it."

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Well if I were as nasty to Polly as she has been to me I could

I get it where she is coming from actually. CIVILIAN EMS personnel tend to react with horror when rescue personnel are shot at anywhere in the world. American civilian medics tend to get even more emotional as well and refuse to understand that just because you say you are in a rescue mode, that does not mean everybody else has to respect that. Especially in what it looks like an ad hock mission, with an offensive gun platform. It is natural, the but my peeps are under attack.

In war zones there are certain legal fictions that keep things more civilized than they would be otherwise.

And yes, some of us have been doubly blessed, god loves fools and idiots.

Just a slight edit... this happened to an actual well marked under the conventions ambulance in Culiacan Mexico a couple years back

http://www.noroeste.com.mx/ver_fotos.php?id=44512819&foto=44842273

One of the medics was buried and she died in the line of duty. And Polly expects allies of the Free Syrian Army (who incidentally are our allies), to not shoot at an attack helicopter with zero markings?

[uppityperson]

53. ++++

[IsItJustMe]

54. Your argument is extremely faulty.

I just wonder how you expect the people who shot the helicopter knew that it was search and rescue. Do you think they have ESP powers or perhaps a mind reader in their pocket. The irrationality that I see from some of these posts is profound.

War is not black and white. Never has been and never will be.

[polly7]

55. The irrational hatred I see here is profound, but not surprising. nt.

[Kaleva]

21. There were no markings, that one can see, on the helicopter identifying it as such.

[Glassunion]

15. It appears to be an attack helicopter that was being used for search and rescue.

Best guess is that it is an Mi-35.

[polly7]

16. I don't give a shit what appeared, it was sent to search for those downed pilots. nt.

[pampango]

17. The people on the ground may 'give a shit' if they think an attack helicopter is coming to kill them

The same would be true if the US has a plane shot down in Iraq or Syria, especially if it happens over territory it was just bombing. The rescue helicopter had better assume it will be welcomed in the territory of the people they just bombed.

[polly7]

18. Fuck them. nt.

[trumad]

25. Wow!

An Attack Helicopter flies in and you're supposed to just chill?

You really don't know what you are talking about.

[IsItJustMe]

57. You might give a shit if that helicopter had just killed your family.

But then again, I don't know you.

[polly7]

58. Anyone with a brain would believe a helicopter landing immediately after the downing

of a plane and knowing two pilots had parachuted down would be a rescue attempt.

But then again, I don't know you.

[dumbcat]

22. So what? It tries to rescue pilots

that can then go back into another attack aircraft and continue killing people.

[Igel]

28. You know that.

I know that.

Did the rebels on the ground at the time know that?

(I can't get to the video, so the next question isn't snarky.) Was it sporting a large Red Cross or Green Crescent symbol? Was it widely reported in media available to those on the ground that any and all helicopters in the area were solely on a SR mission, and would only fire back if persistently fired upon?

Hindsight is a great thing, and quick, easy thinking often projects our knowledge back in time and assumes others knew it. Esp. when it makes our enemies look worse and our allies look like good guys or, these days and better yet, victims.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. From the video there are no markings

On that bird. Given more recent developments it was most like an emergency rescue mission using available units already loitering in the area. That looks like a Hind to me as well.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. I believe this was a recovery helicopter sent in for the downed jet pilots. nt

[trumad]

8. Where does it say that?

And no one died it appears.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. Reddit, Twitter. No, I don't have a link handy & can't confirm.

...but I don't think it's a controversial or contested claim.

[jberryhill]

10. "you can tell these are Jihadists"

I have no idea who these people are, but I'm interested in how you can tell.

I gather that anyone who uses "Jesus!" as a common expression or "God bless you" after a sneeze, is a fundamentalist Christian. It's not as if saying "Allah Akhbar" is some kind of unusual habit of a peculiar group within Islam broadly.

[Xithras]

34. If you follow the Syrian war vids regularly...

If you follow war vids on sites like Liveleak at all, you'll quickly notice a recurring theme. Videos showing battles by the FSA, the SAA, and even the Turks show cheering and celebration when they get a kill, but they it's fairly rare to hear people snackbar. Even the Kurd videos don't do it much. When you watch videos released by ISIS fighters or the other jihadi groups, there is ALWAYS a crowd of snackbarring idiots in the background.

It's not a foolproof way to tell the difference, but there's a very real difference in how often it shows up.

On edit: For what it's worth, this particular video is probably from one of the independent SAA defector groups. The logo in the upper left is a variation of the Syrian Armed Forced logo. Most of them joined up with the FSA, but some stayed independent and are basically independent roaming armies at this point (Syria has around 100 of these). Because they're not using the FSA logos, it's a fair bet that these are independent Syrian Army defectors, which come in both jihadi and non-jihadi varieties.

[EdwardBernays]

14. I can't be bothered to care about this

I mean, the ramifications are potentially awful, but really... no group involved is worthy of pity... Russian troops, the same ones in Ukraine? Nope. Syrian Rebels, who have committed god knows what atrocities? Nope. Turkey, the country that ships weapons to ISIS and shells Kurdish civilians? Nope.

Of course it's not like the US is above any of that either... it's just... military jerks to stuff to other military jerks for no reason is not enough for me to care.

[RobinA]

31. Some People

probably said that about the Archduke.

[EdwardBernays]

32. like I said

"the ramifications are potentially awful"

But that doesn't mean I care about the act itself...

Seeing the US immediately back Turkey is a bit absurd as well... not that Turkey wasn't in the right, but... unless the US thought Russia was deliberately being aggressive towards Turkey this will just fan the flames...

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

19. That is soooo 80s. nt

[TwilightGardener]

20. Well, it is a war. Opponents try to kill each other. That's how it works.

Russia tries to kill Syrian rebels, Syrian rebels try to kill Assad's forces and Russians.

[trumad]

27. LOL

You'd think some would understand that.

One up above thinks it's some sort of red cross mission. It was an attack fucking helicopter.

[KingCharlemagne]

36. With help from their BFFs, I.e. the Turks - nt

[Blue_Tires]

23. That helicopter was already abandoned/disabled...

so it was pretty much "Let's have some target practice and make a youtube vid"

And "U.S. made" doesn't necessarily mean the U.S. gave them the TOW directly...

[trumad]

26. Yep

Some here have no concept of war and what happens.

[Texas Blues]

29. More specifically, US war equipment put in place by Bush and the GOP, promoted by Cruz

This is more of an indictment on the Republican party of the United States for destroying any sense of foreign policy in the 00's, with Reagan destroying the Cold War threshold in the 80's. Snce then, everything that happens emanates from the Bush/Cheney/Haliburton wing of the Tea Party jihadists that Ted Cruz will inherit and take to new despicable heights.

[Oneironaut]

30. Allah snackbar! We destroyed a parked helicopter!

Too bad the Russians didn't give them the Snickers bar they wanted.

[Renew Deal]

33. Crazy

[brooklynite]

51. Russians have been bombing non-Jihadist territory, in support of Bashir Assad...

...one can imagine they might not be happy.

[IsItJustMe]

59. I lived through 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

The one lesson I learned from all of that is to never trust anything at face value. That includes our government, our politicians, our media, or Putin.

So the poster says these were rebels using tow missiles that were given to them by the US government. Is this possible? Could be. Does the poster or I know this, absolutely not.

Also notice that different cameras were used to shoot this footage and how the helicopters never appear in the same frame as the person firing the missile. Also notice how this film has been edited. To me anyway, this film is extremely suspect. By who and for what reason, I only have guesses.