DU shells versus chobam armor?

I didn't say that, I said that when he is firing at you and you injure him, and when you can clearly see he is injured BUT still got his gun in its hands you are not allowed to kill him, maybe he can't comply with your demands because he can't hear you...

That is illogical, if he knows he is that badly wounded he can drop his gun, I have never heard of anyone being wounded in a manner that prevented them from letting go of their weapon.

If he is still holding his gun, he is still a combatant, he is still a legitimate target. If he drops it, and makes no effort to rearm himself and makes it as clear as possible that he is no longer armed, then no he is not a legitimate target.

You don't understand, he used his magnification on his thermal-sight, he accidently set the cannon on close range, but the civilians where at long range, so he shot his cannon on short-range so you can't see the tracers, it fired low below the angle of the thermal-sights. So it IS a clear explenation...

I am not overly familiar with the Apache weapons systems, why would this make such a huge difference that there is no visable indication of the gunfire at all.

OMG, you are naive, that doesn't make sence, than every video of hellfires or some other kind of missiles could have been from Russian gunships or airplanes, this way you could turn every single video in the world around! Do you seriously believe thats not a US Apache crew on the video? Did you even boughter to read the comments of the US Army General or the military experts???

Why are you so adamant that it is? Why does it not make sense that it might not be?

I am simply bringing up a question. How do we know that the video footage (ignoring the sound completely for a moment) is from an Apache in Iraq?

Please tell me what there is in the video that clearly and undeniably shows that this is a US Apache in Iraq? I cannot see the helicopter's exterior, I am not familiar with what a thermal imaging video from an Apache looks like nor what sets it apart from, for example a Hind, or for that matter any cannon armed helicopter?

My point is simple, if you showed me that video (and just that video) under the title of "Russian attrocity in Chechnya" I would have no way of differentiating it between a Russian helicopter in Chechnya or an American helicopter in Iraq.

We are assuming that it is an Apache because the website says it is.

It is you who are being Naive for unquestioningly accepting that it must be true because the website says it is.

Did you even boughter to read the comments of the US Army General or the military experts???

Yes I did.

OKay, I agree THE FIRST ONE COULDN'T BE SURPRISED AT ALL BECAUSE 2 APACHE CREW IDIOTS BLEW HIM IN 300 PIECES!, you can see how 1 searches cover behind the tractor and one underneed the truck, so what do you mean ''the just carried on with their business, did you forgot the fact that they all died in this murder?

At the start of the video one man runs over to the tractor, you hear gunfire, the two of them are around the tractor for a while, then one walks back over to the truck. Why if the had already been gunfire from a helicopter gunship in their direction did he act so calmly? He dosn't even look up!

Can't you come up with another useless fact, those army experts that haven't seen any action in reallife ad that US General, don't they know where they are talking about????? that is what you are saying right now!

No I am not, do not try to put words into my mouth that I have not said. What useless facts are you refering to exactly? Why are you getting so aggressive?

I read the comments of the General, the entire paragraph, and I read the reference to unquoted thoughts of an anonymous German Lawyer.

All I have done is questioned what else the General said and what questions he was asked.

Aha really scared he sounded...
''It gave me a good feeling to kill them, I want to do it again''

really scared Simonr1978, really scared...

Now, stop putting every piece of prove/evidence/military expert and General opinions aside and just admit that they where wrong and should be in jail, this atleast for the Apache crew.

I am not putting anything aside, I am questioning the evidence. There is no irrefutable indication of location or date or type of aircraft involved for the "Apache Killing". Nothing other than that it occured around mid-morning in a field.

There is so much garbage on the internet, why must a website be true?

How difficult would it be to fabricate this evidence? The motive for fabricating it is clear, anti-american propaganda, and I am not claiming that it must be fabricated, I am just withholding my own personal judgement on a whole army as being "Trigger happy idiots" based on a total of around 1 1/2 minutes of footage, around 2/3rds of which I have questions about the validity of.

As for the soldier, ask yourself how you would feel in his situation, he is in a warzone in a foreign country with people trying their best to kill him. Of course he's scared. To be anything else would be inhuman. He might hide it behind machismo, he might be pent up on adrenalin, but I would almost guarantee that he's still scared. Why do you think he's not?

I am fortunate to have never been in that situation, but I would imagine that in the heat of the moment shooting a man who was trying to kill you a moment previous might well feel good, satisfying.

 

Tis Apache incident is a well known cae, if it was fake they would know it and tell it, ITS NOT FAKE, ITS A US APCHE WITH US CREW, but if we start at this imo rather bullshit argument I can start also:

For example:

A bank in the US is robbed, we got images than ill ask:

How do we knew that it was in the US, proof it!
Or how can you say that its Saddam Hoessein they cought, you only see him on videotape!

Even better: How can you say that all those Americans are decapitated by terrorists, maybe they are US Soldiers, after all, its only a videotape!


If we gonnna talk your way every piece of video evidence ever used in court does not count as evidence as it could be fake...it doesn't work that way, there is enough proof that it is a US Apache, now stop saying it isn't, that is complete bullshit.

am simply bringing up a question. How do we know that the video footage (ignoring the sound completely for a moment) is from an Apache in Iraq?

Yes, and i'm sorry to say it but it is a very naive and stupid question, it really is, you got a great fantasy...
Just ask a Apache crewmember and he will give you the answer ass russian thermal-sights are different that the US sights...


''am not overly familiar with the Apache weapons systems, why would this make such a huge difference that there is no visable indication of the gunfire at all.''

I'm getting tired of this...
They use a certain ammount of magnification, if they didn't you could probably see the trcers, but in this case you can't, so, I can't explain it more easy than this! And can't you hear its the 30mm from the Apache, you can even see the thermal-image sight shaking because of the firing!


How difficult would it be to fabricate this evidence? The motive for fabricating it is clear, anti-american propaganda, and I am not claiming that it must be fabricated, I am just withholding my own personal judgement on a whole army as being "Trigger happy idiots" based on a total of around 1 1/2 minutes of footage, around 2/3rds of which I have questions about the validity of.

I have NEVER said the US army soldiers are trigger-happy idiots, some may be trgger happy, but these apache crew and US marine are BIG idiots, only they and soldiers that are doing similair things like this!


All I have done is questioned what else the General said and what questions he was asked.

It was clear what he said, the apache crew ineed murdered 3 unarmed Iraqi's and should be in jail right now!

At the start of the video one man runs over to the tractor, you hear gunfire, the two of them are around the tractor for a while, then one walks back over to the truck. Why if they had already been gunfire from a helicopter gunship in their direction did he act so calmly? He doesn't even look up!

2 explenations:

1: They didn't hear the Apache because it was to far away!

2: They did hear it but didn't care because they knew they weren't doing anything illegal!

And again, the 30mm was set on close range, but the civilians where at long range, so the grenades hit the ground at a great distance from the civilians!

AND EVEN IF THEY WHERE COMBATANTS, WICH THEY WEREN'T FOR SURE THAN THE 2 KILLS COULD BE JUSTIFIED, BUT THE 3TH ONE WOULD STILL BE A COLD-BLOODED MURDER ON AN UNARMED COMBATANT!

''why are you so agressive''

Because you are turning everything upside-down to defend these murderers!

 

I am going to attempt to draw under under this from my own point of view.

What the video does appear to show is the killing of three apparently unnarmed men by a cannon armed helicopter. What I will maintain is that there is nothing, and I mean nothing on this video that ties down what helicopter is involved or where it is, only the website's say so.

It is not clear to me what went on before the incident, it is not clear who these men were. They appear to be "Innocent Farmers" but in a guerilla war such as is being fought in Iraq appearances can be deceptive. As I say, I have no idea what went on prior to this incident and I cannot open the long version for some reason.

Even better: How can you say that all those Americans are decapitated by terrorists, maybe they are US Soldiers, after all, its only a videotape!

Glad to see I'm bringing out the conspiracy theorist in you!

You are in some ways right, they could be, and I've even read it suggested somewhere that they are not Iraqi insurgents because they're carrying the wrong guns. I am not suggesting that is the case.

To clarify my point: I will assume (For sake of argument) from this point forth that there is something that someone has to tie this video to being from an Apache in Iraq, however I maintain that from the video alone this is not apparent, and even taking the sound into account all that can be said with any certainty is that the crew sound American.

If I appear sceptical it is because with the internet it is all too easy to fake things, be they images or videos, and the website clearly has a partisan viewpoint since if they wanted to show any kind of balance I'm sure there are any number of videos they could pick to show Iraqi attrocities.

It's a Guerilla war, the accepted rules of war are rarely followed by the enemy and regardless of the benefits or otherwise of maintaining the moral high ground, sometimes it is impractical, even dangerous, for other troops to be hamstrung by these rules.

I am going to end my participation in this here, I have no wish to carry on a debate with an individual who seems incapable of posting without using the words like "Idiot" or "Stupid" in his posts.

You have your opinions, I have mine, I do not call you "Stupid" for disagreeing with me and I would appreciate in future if you could find someway to accord others the same courtesy.

 

Jeffrey wrote:

As of yet I have zero evidence when it comes to murder. The things you point to as evidence are mostly opinion.
I will come back to the video later first lets see if we can make some sense of this debate by narrowing the focus somewhat. Too many issues are being discussed at once without first defining our terms.

An interesting issue that has arisen may be key to deciding several of the ancillary issues as well.

You stated:

How about snipers? Are they required to stop shooting if the enemy drops his weapon as he falls?

This is a rather interesting interpretation of the rules. Not much else can be addressed until we clear up this issue.
Are you suggesting that an armed soldier who does not move ceases to be a target?
Can one render themselves immune to attack by holding very still?
If attacking soldiers are faced by defenders who remain very still what should they do?
How are they to determine which soldiers are still because they are wounded and which are taking aim?
At the Normandy landings as the men were struggling up the beach under fire, if they returned fire at defenders who were in emplacements and holding very still, moving their trigger finger only... then all those soldiers were in violation of the Geneva accord rules?

I must admit this is rather a novel interpretation and not one that I have encountered before.

 

I feel a need for me to step in and stipulate the above. Watch yourself, Jeffrey. I don't want you calling other people's arguments "bullshit", "stupid" or anything like that. Present good arguments instead and leave the insulting remarks out of it.

 

If I called anyone of you stupid i'm sorry, but the most times I said stupid it was aimed at unprofeesional murdering ''soldiers''...


To clarify my point: I will assume (For sake of argument) from this point forth that there is something that someone has to tie this video to being from an Apache in Iraq, however I maintain that from the video alone this is not apparent, and even taking the sound into account all that can be said with any certainty is that the crew sound American.

Let us put it this way:

Nothing aims to a fake video, everything looks real, experts have looked at the video and I have not ones seen an article about this video being fake, if it was fake don't you think the US Army would do anything to tell the people its fake? The only thing they are saying is ''no comments'', so IF it was fake than they would have said its FAKE and not a US ARMY APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTER, this kinda proves it is NOT fake.

They appear to be "Innocent Farmers" but in a guerilla war such as is being fought in Iraq appearances can be deceptive.

Even if they where fadayeen warriors or seomthing they are still not allowed to kill them as they are unarmed...

As of yet I have zero evidence when it comes to murder.

Take another close look at the video and watch 3 unarmed man being murdered...

 

Jeffrey wrote:

Because of your abusive language Simon has indicated he doesn't wish to continue this debate. If you expect me to do so then please address the issues I raised in my last post and we can go from there. I don't debate using a shotgun approach wildly throwing out accusations while exploring none of them in depth. If it isn't murder to shoot a wounded or unarmed enemy soldier( and I maintain that it is not , necessarily) then it may be immaterial whether man #2 was armed or man #3 was wounded.
First we need to come to an agreement on what the accepted standards of behavior in war actually are before we can conclude whether or not the soldiers in the video meet those standards, don't you agree?

 

*Puts Moderator hat on*

Ok, Jeffery, please note something.
Some pretty good arguments have been put forward as to why it is hard to accuse the crew of this helicopter, let alone a whole army, of being murderers / trigger happy / etc.
These arguments you have ignored, or rejected.
Both forum members that were debating with you have threatened to stop bothering because you refuse to accept anything other than your view.
I don't expect you to suddenly believe the opposite of what you now believe, but I do expect you to have the curtesy to read the opinions of others, the facts they bring forward, and to either accept them, or present effective counter-arguments.

Also, I'm afraid to say that a lot of your opinions on the USA (not just in this topic) seem to verge on bigotry. Please please please prove me wrong here.

 

Ok, a few points.

1) We really do not know enough to form an answer here. Experts have looked at this & cleared it...

2) It is quite hard to not hear an Apache, especially when it is within gun range.

3) In daylight, in Iraq, thermal imaging would show the ground as much lighter, as it is hotter. Therefore, it is at night. Plus, why would the crew use thermal imaging in daylight? They would be sacrificing visibility.

4) hmmm, forgotten what my 4th point was. Hey, it's been a long series of posts!

 

I think sometimes we are all liable to allow passion to overrule reason.
Returning to reason and logic
An important issue has been raised here (probably more than one).
What are the accepted standards of behavior for men in combat in regard to wounded enemy soldiers. I think it has ben accepted that there are 2 conditions for the hors de combat prohibition to apply. First the enemy soldier must be incapitated and second they must be in your custody or under your control.
Everyone knows that wounded soldiers can and do continue to fight. Virtually every award for valor is accompanied by a narrative relating the circumstances of the valorous act. If you haven't read them I recommend that you do so (google Medal of Honor for instance) and you will discover that soldiers wounded 4 and 5 times continued to fight effectively and have even turned the tide of a battle.

We must understand what the purpose of the prohibition is, i.e. what behavior is it attempting to proscribe. It has long been recognized that it is better to wound and enemy soldier than to kill him. A wounded soldier requires manpower (to transport and treat him) and resources (transportation and medical supplies not to mention a medical facility).
Even better is if one can get the enemy to devote his own manpower and resources to taking care of your wounded. This problem is important because out of it arises the temptation to dispose of the enemy wounded in order to relieve this burden. Of course the hot blood of battle comes into play also in that men in combat conditions might be more likely to execute wounded enemy soldiers under the brutal and violent conditions of battle wherein even the most even tempered can feel anger and even hatred for the enemy (usually a temporary condition).
It is clear that this prohibition is not so much to regulate the selection of targets during combat based on nonsensical distinctions like; is he moving? is there a weapon in his hand? Is he an immediate threat to me? but instead to prevent incapacitated soldiers from being executed after they are rendered helpless by wounds or having thrown down their weapons and voluntarily placed themselves in your custody.

No sane person in combat would assault an enemy position and attempt to apply such silly distinctions as to whether an armed enemy who has been trying to kill him up to that point had ceased to move thus became immune from attack.

Furthermore we must look at the effect on other aspects of battle. Using such distinctions all artillery and aerial attack would be so indiscriminate as to be a violation of these rules. Artillery and air attacks are likely to kill or wound anyone within range of their lethality regardless of health status or state of being armer or unarmed.
All attacks on logistics would be prohibited since most soldiers providing logistical support are not even armed while performing their duties.
Officers are often unarmed. As they speak on the radio (calling in air and artillery strikes) are they immune from attack? Of cours not.

Obviously no one is going to follow such proscriptions.

The point of this is not even to address the alleged Apache video but to recognize what the accepted standards of behavior are for soldiers before we attempt to apply those standards to a particular case. How can we judge if they meet the standards if we don't agree on what the standards are?
Even if we establish the standards for acceptable behavior towards enemy soldiers we must not mix them up with the standards regarding civilian non combatats.
Jeffrey has maintained that the men in the video were civilians while attempting to apply the rules relating to soldiers who are hors de combat.
This is comparing apples to oranges. Before one knows which standard to apply you would first need to decide the status of the persons involved.
In this case, and in any case involving guerilla or insurgent troops that determination is not easy. However if one is to make judgements on their actions that determination must be made. Men in battle are forced to make such judgements in split second encounters often upon which their lives depend.

 

''In daylight, in Iraq, thermal imaging would show the ground as much lighter, as it is hotter. Therefore, it is at night. Plus, why would the crew use thermal imaging in daylight? They would be sacrificing visibility.''

How do you know its much lighter in daylight?

Of you look at the video you can see the tractor is plowing its country/farmland, you can seen the ground heating up behind the tractor...

No sane person in combat would assault an enemy position and attempt to apply such silly distinctions as to whether an armed enemy who has been trying to kill him up to that point had ceased to move thus became immune from attack.

That depends on the situation ofcourse, but a well trained soldier will make a right dicision on what to do most times...

Some pretty good arguments have been put forward as to why it is hard to accuse the crew of this helicopter, let alone a whole army, of being murderers / trigger happy / etc.

I was talking about the Apache crew, and show me the ''pretty good arguments''

I agree with one thing:

If the 3 persons where firing at the Apache than it would be a logical decision to take them out, but these 3 people did nothing wrong!

And I will keep to this opinion and I have read the Convention of Geneva ROE and it was a triple murder.

 

Jeffrey wrote:

I was a well trained US Marine and I can tell you that the kind of distictions you are referring to are silly and would be laughed at by most any soldier (of any nationality IMO). No such standards are taught in training and for good reason, to try to apply them would only get you killed.

Do you now maintain that soldiers must allow the enemy to fire first before they may fire? You know you are climbing farther and farther out upon a logical "limb" do you not?

What provisions of the geneva accords are you attempting to apply?
Those for civilian non-combatants or those for wounded combatants?
You should not fail to note that even the biased individuals noted at the website you cited do not make conclusions calling the soldiers murderers instead they call for investigation and a trial basded on their opinion that enough evidence of guilt exists to investigate and possibly try them.
So far you are alone in having tried and convicted these soldiers without benefit of hearing evidence, or of giving them an opportunity to present a defense. I don't know about the legal system of the Netherlands but in the US we have a presumption of innocence where individuals charged with a crime (and these soldiers have not even been charged) are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

 

was a well trained US Marine and I can tell you that the kind of distictions you are referring to are silly and would be laughed at by most any soldier (of any nationality IMO). No such standards are taught in training and for good reason, to try to apply them would only get you killed.

I've completed the first mond of basic army training and this is the first thing learn you here in the Netherlands, so I think its the lack of training in the US Army.


Do you now maintain that soldiers must allow the enemy to fire first before they may fire? You know you are climbing farther and farther out upon a logical "limb" do you not?

NO, READ!
I said that that would be the only logical explentation for the Apache crew to fire at these 3 people.


What provisions of the geneva accords are you attempting to apply?

From The Geneva Convention 3-1: 1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria

They in account that these 3 man weren't even armed, that makes it even worse for the Apache crew...


(and these soldiers have not even been charged)

Aren't they, these days so much US soldiers are being brought to court that this incident slipped trough the media for some ''mysterious'' reason, maybe the US didn't want this incident in the media because this would make the Iraqi people more angree, or maybe some other ''mysterious'' reason...

WHen it comes to this kind of things I don't trust the US at all, and I think it would be a great country with some people being ''removed'' like President Bush or that slick Rumsfeld, it started with saying that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 737, but that impossible as the ammount of damage is 3 times smaller than the whole airplane...
And than they came with the lie that Saddam Hoessein has Weapons of Mass Destruction, a complete lie, all kind of false evidence was shown to tel people Saddam Hoessein still has this weapons, and they keep going with there lies, now they hated some people from uncovering the abbuses in the Abu Graib prison, wich they knew about (i'm sure) and they keep going trying to prevent any ''bad news'' coming in hands of the media, so the Iraqi people won't become any more agressive...

And about that video being from an Apache or not that would be very easy to prove by viewing it to a Apache gunner, he can show you if they thermal-sight is from a Apache or not.

And again, if it was fake the US would have done anything to tell the people its FAKE, but they didn't did anything, the whole video-thing is again a ''mysterious'' incident covert up by the US government.

 

I'm getting a bit lost now.

We had an earlier comment saying that the video has been called a fake because 'the guns were wrong', but they were unarmed?

Maybe I should watch the video. Where is it?

Oh, and:

possibly a different training system, rather than a lack...

 

That was me and I was refering to something else...

 

No wonder I got confused.

 

Jeffrey wrote:

A person who has only completed the first "mond of basic training" (whatever that is) in any army in the world would be considered a recruit i.e. not a soldier at all. You are in no position to judge the level of training in your own army at this point much less compare it to other armies around the world. You will have to become much more seasoned to even rise to the dizzying height of a green FNG (not the poster by that name)

I did read. What you are saying still makes no logical sense. If they are considered enemy soldiers then the alleged Apache crew do not nead ANY justification for firing at them. In combat when you sight enemy soldiers you open fire immediately in order to achieve surprise and gain fire superiority. I repeat you DO NOT need to wait for them to fire at you first.
Furthermore it is IMMATERIAL whether or not they have a weapon in their hands.

This provision applies to enemy soldiers who have "laid down their arms" which means ceased fighting and surrendering. Perhaps there is a language problem as well as an intrerpretation problem that causes you to misunderstand. If an enemy solder "lays down his arms" in order to urinate..or lays down his arms in order to scratch his crotch..or lays down his arms for any reason other than the express purpose of CEASING HOSTILITIES and placing himself in your custody then you are entitled (and should) continue to fire at him.

Again you are mixing up provisions of the Geneva accords. Unarmed combatants refers to CIVILIAN noncombatants. It does not refer to enemy soldiers who happen not to have a weapon in their hands at the moment.

None of this diatribe is worthy of a response nor does it address the issue of the alleged Apache video incident. Like the erroneous statement regarding the threats by the US to invade the Netherlands (which is quite humourous I must admit) it would only unjustly dignify it were I to treat it as worthy of a response.

 

I'm going to see if I can put a stop to this now. Neither side is going to surrender his standpoint even to the slightest amount; meanwhile you are both moving further towards smear and (implicit) insult as a means of arguing. If you can't argue without saying things you know the other will find insulting, just to provoke him, then stop arguing at all.

I won't interfere again, as soon as I need to I'll just lock the topic.

 

Roel wrote:

I won't second guess you Roel in your duties as Mod however I have repeatedly attempted to further debate on specific issues regarding the accepted standard of behaviour for combat soldiers not just because this particular case involves American troops but because the issue is an interesting and very misunderstood one. I would happily cease discussing this particular incident and merely discuss the Geneva accords and how they relate to this accepted standard of behaviour if I could get a response that addressed the issue without becoming passionate about this case or one's feeling of hostility towards a particular country. I can assure you that I hold no feelings of hostility towards the Netherlands or it's military despite the fact that I have differences of opinions with one (or more) of it's citizens. I have become more declarative in my recent [posts out of frustration rather than hostility or anger. Perhaps I should have use bold instead of caps to empasize certain points within my comments
Furthermore, although I do not like to personalize most issues this one kind of lends itself to personalization since comments are made regarding training of which I have first hand specific knowledge and, to some lesser degree, so does Jeffrey due to our military background.

Please note that I have not resorted to name calling despite the more aggressive tone of my last few posts. Also my comments regarding a possible misunderstanding based on language problem s was sincere and in no way insulting. After all we are debating provisions of the Geneva accords that are written in the English language. It might very well be that people who's first language is other than English might not pick up on the connotation of "lay down their arms" meaning surrendering rather than the literal denotation of the word i.e. the physical act of laying down your weapon, which of course soldiers do all the time with no intention of surrendering or ceasing hostilities.

 

person who has only completed the first "mond of basic training" (whatever that is) in any army in the world would be considered a recruit i.e. not a soldier at all. You are in no position to judge the level of training in your own army at this point much less compare it to other armies around the world. You will have to become much more seasoned to even rise to the dizzying height of a green FNG (not the poster by that name)

Other than the US we got a kind of ''army education year'' you learn there pretty much.

This bold part, this reaction is based on what???

you said:

No such standards are taught in training and for good reason, to try to apply them would only get you killed.

I was quoting a Sergeant First class, so what you are saying is that this Sergeant First class doesn't know where he is talking about...
And where did I say I am a soldier, that was not a reaction on this: I've completed the first mond of basic army training and this is the first thing learn you here in the Netherlands, so I think its the lack of training in the US Army.

So, before you post a reactuion on it first read it a couple of times to understand it.


I did read. What you are saying still makes no logical sense. If they are considered enemy soldiers then the alleged Apache crew do not nead ANY justification for firing at them. In combat when you sight enemy soldiers you open fire immediately in order to achieve surprise and gain fire superiority. I repeat you DO NOT need to wait for them to fire at you first.
Furthermore it is IMMATERIAL whether or not they have a weapon in their hands.

I understand what you are saying, you don't understand what I mean, maybe its because I'm dutch and I can't understand it clearly enough in english, but I'll try again: Nothing indicates that these 3 people did something wrong, so imo they killed the 3 people without any reason, but if the Apache crew had said something like: ''This are the people that just attacked us'' that all would make sence, than its logic that they attacked them (although the 3th kill is still a murder), but the only thing they said was: ''big truck over here, he's having a little pow-wow." so out of this you can clearly sate that they didn't attack them at all, you can also see they farer plowing his country would a farmer go and plow his country when he just attacked a Apache gunship that is right on there tail?