Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

I unfortunately came across this while I was having lunch and lost all appetite ! Dumb@ss G.I's sounds like all fun and games to them. Youtube comments are a joke but I think this dude just about sums it up pretty right

" Sad but true, our f**king troops are nothing more than a bunch of sick f**ks who enlist hoping to have a chance to kill whoever or whatever they want. TRIGGER HAPPY MOTHER F**KERS.
You'll all come back to America just to find out you ain't worth sh*t.
That isn't patriotism, that's TERRORISM!!!!!!"

www.collateralmurder.com

The shooting up of the van who stopped to help the wounded man was clearly a war crime - and the fact that there were children in the van is sickening.

No wonder the US didn't want to officially release the video and internal findings.

What part of urban warfare don't you get?

If you're in an Apache gunship, watching a group of AK-47 walking accross the steets, with a guy hiding behind a corner of a building with an RPG, looking to hit your gunship...what would you do?

Engage or get killed?

Second attack is debateable. But those fooks aren't exactly dressed like medics. More like individuals helping their militant buddies. If you're a good civilian, why help militants?

The rules of war are clear. If you are visible in outfit and transportation as medical personnel, you can't be fired upon. This simply wasn't the case here. Besides, we don't have any idea about the intel that preceded these actions. So be real and continue eating your dinner/lunch.

This is daily news in urban warfare. Militants hiding between civilians.

G I know what your trying to do here, you trying to rub people the wrong way to get something stirring.

P.S : I sincerly hope that these are not your geniue thoughts on this matter

shafique wrote:The shooting up of the van who stopped to help the wounded man was clearly a war crime - and the fact that there were children in the van is sickening.

No wonder the US didn't want to officially release the video and internal findings.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/index.html

Here if you watch the second full lenght video, you can see the troopers carrying out the small children out and also hear how badly wounded one of the chlld is and that Bushmaster ( Ground Control ) denies the request for a medvac and tell them instead to Iraqi police !

Also the comments by the apache flier and gunman, Thier fault they should not bring their children to war !...Sick MOFOs !

Sickening to the stomach !!!

From an unbiased viewpoint, I really can't see what went wrong in the decision making to engage. Guns and RPG are all confirmed on video.

I honestly can't understand why people with children would help militants that are fired upon a minute ago. Normal fooks wouldn't do that, unless you're so naieve that one must be a pacifist, who thinks the world is full of good intentions and your help will be appreciated by the army. Think again.

I didn't get the part where the Reuters crew is hit. Probably in the building attack with 3 hellfire missiles when the AP sign lit up. Hard to judge what went wrong there. Nevertheless, journo's in warzone's know the risks of being out without embedded supervision. Its high risk.

Question: Have you considered thinking about the reasons why the medivac is denied and care is being given to IP's?

What did you come up with?

http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/index.html

Watch the shprt version in this link Its got everything labled out for fooks like you. Those are not RPG's and AK 47's dumb@ss but a video cam and a digital camera and those are the two retuers journalists ( Black pants ). The one supposedly with an RPG ducking arond the corner is Namir the photgrapher with a CAMERA !. And the poor fellow who survived the first barrage is Saeed the cameraman who the van people were trying to help.

And the " come on all you gotta do is pick up a weapon " cowboy attitude ?

And what about refusing the Evac on the injured child ?

Seriously Rob G ? I thought you were the informed and educated one. If your the informed one I dread to see the dumb@sses Oh wait I just did in the video.

You're missing my point.

In hindsight its allways easy to judge. Now think about how the judgement is made from the perspective of the military. Not all is what it seems in advance.

What do you do when someone aims a lens at you behind a corner? Shoot!



The military does the same. Yes yes, war is not a happy operation. Better to sell lollypops on a street corner, right?

So, reporters carrying cameras and civilians are going about their business in Iraq - walking around in public. Suddenly they are buzzed by a helicopter and they don't run for cover but continue to walk on the street.

They get shot up, one of them survives and crawls up on a kerb - all the while being watched by the helicopter crew (and filmed).

A van pulls up with children inside and unarmed men get out to put the wounded man in the van (one would assume so that they could get him medical help) - and the helicopter shoots up the van.

Now - what is the excuse? The men were guilty of looking like terrorists/insurgents? Or were they just guilty of looking like Iraqi citizens walking normally near their homes?


Robby - pull the other one, it has bells on.

Cheers,
Shafique

desertdudeshj wrote:http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/index.html

Watch the shprt version in this link Its got everything labled out for fooks like you. Those are not RPG's and AK 47's dumb@ss but a video cam and a digital camera and those are the two retuers journalists ( Black pants ).

No RPG right? How do you explain the report of the soldier speaking at 19:19 in the second video?
http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/index.html

shafique wrote:So, reporters carrying cameras and civilians are going about their business in Iraq - walking around in public. Suddenly they are buzzed by a helicopter and they don't run for cover but continue to walk on the street.

They get shot up, one of them survives and crawls up on a kerb - all the while being watched by the helicopter crew (and filmed).

A van pulls up with children inside and unarmed men get out to put the wounded man in the van (one would assume so that they could get him medical help) - and the helicopter shoots up the van.

Now - what is the excuse? The men were guilty of looking like terrorists/insurgents? Or were they just guilty of looking like Iraqi citizens walking normally near their homes?


Robby - pull the other one, it has bells on.

Cheers,
Shafique

Dude, look at the group mentality of those people together. Suddenly they walk in spreads. Thats suspect.
One geezer points a camera (or rpg, I can't tell the difference in advance) at the helicopter from behind a buildinger corner (see video!) and the military thinks its just a business as usual in an urban warzone? Righttt.

I would have pulled that trigger also if I had the same information as those in the gunship.

RobbyG wrote:You're missing my point.

No buddy your missing the point and that too by miles !

How do you justify denying medical assitance to a child who you just shot up minutes ago, She is lucky to be alive in the first place. And then you push them over to the Iraqi Police, not our problem, so what if we were the one who shred her to pieces in the 1st place ?

Took them more than 100 30mm rounds ( you have any idea how big and powerfull those are ? ) to kill 8 unarmed Iraqi civillians, way da go U.S.A armed forces, you must be real proud of yourselves now.

RobbyG wrote:

shafique wrote:So, reporters carrying cameras and civilians are going about their business in Iraq - walking around in public. Suddenly they are buzzed by a helicopter and they don't run for cover but continue to walk on the street.

They get shot up, one of them survives and crawls up on a kerb - all the while being watched by the helicopter crew (and filmed).

A van pulls up with children inside and unarmed men get out to put the wounded man in the van (one would assume so that they could get him medical help) - and the helicopter shoots up the van.

Now - what is the excuse? The men were guilty of looking like terrorists/insurgents? Or were they just guilty of looking like Iraqi citizens walking normally near their homes?


Robby - pull the other one, it has bells on.

Cheers,
Shafique

Dude, look at the group mentality of those people together. Suddenly they walk in spreads. Thats suspect.
One geezer points a camera (or rpg, I can't tell the difference in advance) at the helicopter from behind a buildinger corner (see video!) and the military thinks its just a business as usual in an urban warzone? Righttt.

I would have pulled that trigger also if I had the same information as those in the gunship.

Oh so now walking in spreads is a reason to be shred to peices, The lamest thing I've ever heard. You think if they were insurgents they would walking around in board daylight carrying Ak's and RPG's all the while two Apaches hovered ( I seen Apaches fly, one of the noisest choppers after the double rotor chinooks and can be heard from miles away ) It was not like they were caught in the open by surprise. No one even made a slightly threatining guesture. There were a thousand places to hide in that urban sprawl and smoke the apache with an RPG if it truly was the case .

Robby your attitude and attempt to even remotely justify this is sickening to say the least. Even after all the crap you put out I thought you did have a basic sense of humanity and morality. Guess I was wrong.

You think what ever you want to think. Thankfully the majority is not like this and a persuing this matter as far as they can.

desertdudeshj wrote:

RobbyG wrote:You're missing my point.

No buddy your missing the point and that too by miles !

How do you justify denying medical assitance to a child who you just shot up minutes ago, She is lucky to be alive in the first place. And then you push them over to the Iraqi Police, not our problem, so what if we were the one who shred her to pieces in the 1st place ?

Why don't you answer my questions first about the potential reasons for letting the IPS handle the child to the local Rusty hospital? You are so shallow in your reasoning.

Took them more than 100 30mm rounds ( you have any idea how big and powerfull those are ? ) to kill 8 unarmed Iraqi civillians, way da go U.S.A armed forces, you must be real proud of yourselves now.

I don't see the significance of the amount of rounds shot. The threat is the target. Mission safety doesn't count rounds during action. Your emotion speaks loudly again here.

desertdudeshj wrote:Oh so now walking in spreads is a reason to be shred to peices, The lamest thing I've ever heard.

You never had a police training or army education have you?
If not, study a bit about how to identify suspect behavior. I have and you'll understand how to identify suspect behavior. It is the first threat indication in this video that makes me back the gunship in its decision making process. Check one.

The second indication is the positive identification of possible weapons on shoulders and RPG threat from the geezer hiding behind the corner of the building. Check two.

You think if they were insurgents they would walking around in board daylight carrying Ak's and RPG's all the while two Apaches hovered ( I seen Apaches fly, one of the noisest choppers after the double rotor chinooks and can be heard from miles away ) It was not like they were caught in the open by surprise. No one even made a slightly threatining guesture. There were a thousand places to hide in that urban sprawl and smoke the apache with an RPG if it truly was the case .

They have envelope settings that can reduce bladeslap and engine noise around 30%. Its called a 'whisper mode'. Very little is written about it and you don't hear this option at airshows. Its a stealth mode especially used in mission at night.

I'm sure the reporter (with the RPG, lol) heard the loud noise.

Robby your attitude and attempt to even remotely justify this is sickening to say the least. Even after all the crap you put out I thought you did have a basic sense of humanity and morality. Guess I was wrong.

You think what ever you want to think. Thankfully the majority is not like this and a persuing this matter as far as they can.

My thoughts are with the innocent people who got hurt.
It doesn't change a cent about the judgement that was made by the gunship officer. He saw people grouping, and scatter. He identifies AK-47s. Then he sees an individual hiding behind a corner aiming at him. Threat confirmed, he asks for permission to mission control, is confirmed and tackatackatacktacktacktacktack... 100x30mm rounds up yourzzz. By the booklet.

If I were the driver in that van, with children (sick), I would get out and put my hands up and shit in my panties instead of pulling bodies in my van. Honestly.

What question ???

19.19 says I THINK I found and RPG under one body, just like they mistook a camera lens for an RPG he could be too and thats the only time its ever mentioned. And if you notice intially how the fictionary AKs turn into RPG's and then Back to AKs and then finally both Laterthere is no talk later of actually finding any weapons. As you can see in the video the infantry later did a detailed sweep up of the area including taking pictures of everything.

If any weapons actually would have been found don't you think the the US military would teh first one to pulish those pcs, Saying look people here are the weapons we found !

Then no matter how sad and regretable this incident was it could be somehow justified that two journalist were embeded in a group of combatants and were killed in teh crossfire.

This whole scenario stinks. From how casually and calmy the chopper crews are just hovering about while there are hostiles with RPG's in the area. And the "insurgents" them selves are clamly roaming around in the middle of an open space with choppers enemy buzzing around when clearly just a few yards away there is a labrnyth of narow gullies and urban bulidings and houseS to hide and attack the choppers from

Ahmad Sahib, an Agence France-Presse photographer also reported that day that they were fired upon aswell by choppers few block down fron there when he got down to take some pics and a few people gathered, so clearly a mob mentality was at play with these chopper crews as they were firing willy nilly at any gathering of people that day.

" All you gotta do is pick up a weapon " cheez man.

Also you can see the disregard for civillian casulties when the blow up the building with their hell fires. 1st round a pedestrian gets blow away, Second round what looks like a man and woman walking towards the bulding, also get blown away !!!

I'm sorry man no kind of explination short of the chooper crew were blind justifies this.

So once again just walking in certain manner calls for getting torn to shreds ? Just as wearing the wrong colours gets you whacked in the hood ? Oh please spare me your ignorant and lame justifications.

" postive identificaton " ??? The apache crew himself has stated he could not identify what it excatly was slung across their shoulders ?

Around the corner : I being a layman can see that snout cannot be a RPG or a AK-47. Both of them of very distinct and diffrent shape. So much for military education !

And even in stealth mode I bet they are pretty noisy. Like I said I have Apaches fly overhead on several occasions, and only second to none in noise to the chinooks. Choppers by nature are very noisy even a regular light civillian one can be heard from a great distance. And there were atleast two in that area.

Rob G your but grasping at straws in a far fetched effort to somehow justify this ( why ? I can only guess at the moment you have nothing better to do, and enjot making a mockery of others peoples misery ? )

I have one big problem with your reasoning. And that is that you aren't able to admit the reality of decision making. You constantly use arguments that are only part of the decision making process AFTER the ground team came in. The gunship has to decide if action is needed based on camera imagery (visual) and objects that move in certain suspicious ways.

Besides that, you are absolutely right that war doesn't make sense, its awful, civilian bystanders are secondary to targets and everything else about war is crappy. I agree. How many times do I have to condemn the usual.

Are we friends again?

desertdudeshj wrote:What question ???

I suspect you deliberately missed it:

Question: Have you considered thinking about the reasons why the medivac is denied and care is being given/handed to IP's?

What did you come up with?

Thats what I am also pointing at the descesion making process. As you can see from when the men are first sighted. Oh is than an Ak 47..yeah oh wait is that an RPG . yeah it is. I'm just glad the dude didn't say. Oh wait wait a minute is that a Howizter ??? Yeah boss and I think I see a nuclear silo aswell !

Come on man, They were calm, cool, collected, relaxed and clearly enjoying the carnage. Not under fire. No friedly lifes at stake, not in a middle of a heavy engagement or gun battle that they mistook a camera for RPG in split second wrong choice in a high stress situation.

And " Come on, let me shoot " like an excited 6 year boy dying to go another round on his favourite shoot em up.

They saw exact;y what we saw. Infact they saw better as this was in daylight and not night. I couldn't see any identifiable weapons. Saeed the camera man in his dying moments " all you got to do is pick up a weapon " when clearly none or anything that resembled any were around. Two children in the passenger side of the Van. BTW I think its even against the geneva comvention to shoot on injured or surrenderd combatants unless they are still putting up a fight aswell as Ambulances, Red Cross or anyone or anything that is transporting the wounded or dead. Just like shooting at a pilot parachuting after having his plane shot down.

As for not evac'ing the children to "rusty" and handing over to IP instead ? Maybe I missed something ? You tell me ?

Like I said Rob your reasoning doesn't make anysense at all whatsoever.

Just a bunch of rednecks living out their Playstation fantasies !

desertdudeshj wrote:Thats what I am also pointing at the descesion making process. As you can see from when the men are first sighted. Oh is than an Ak 47..yeah oh wait is that an RPG . yeah it is. I'm just glad the dude didn't say. Oh wait wait a minute is that a Howizter ??? Yeah boss and I think I see a nuclear silo aswell !

LoL, you are biach sometimes.
But seriously, I just watched a program on tv where they showed zoomed still images of the video and now it is clear to me that there were two camera men, with a strap on their shoulder. In hindsight, those men had no weapons but cameras.

A still image later they show the other individuals walking behind the cameraman with an AK type weapon, clearly visible in the video still images. Weapons confirmed!

Then they show the still image of the individual (militant or cameraman, not visible) hiding around the corner of the building with something in his hand, getting ready to aim at the gunship. These are all identifications from still images of the moving video imagery. The gunship has to make the decision to engage in a short time frame or get hit if they really are militants.

Come on man, They were calm, cool, collected, relaxed and clearly enjoying the carnage. Not under fire. No friedly lifes at stake, not in a middle of a heavy engagement or gun battle that they mistook a camera for RPG in split second wrong choice in a high stress situation.

I agree that they were not under fire, yet. The cool, calm and collected attitude is an attitude of a professional. If they were stressed, the decision could be more irrational. I rather see them relaxed and make the right decision. This was clearly a wrong decision, but engagement was according to the rules. Since 2009, those rules of engagement are tightened under Obama.

And " Come on, let me shoot " like an excited 6 year boy dying to go another round on his favourite shoot em up.

It wasn't meant that way in my opinion. I think he said that to get an easy target instead of chasing a van through the city with millions of civilians. After all, they were convinced it were militant buddies collecting their wounded in the van. You want to get a shot in the optimum moment.

I surely didn't get that enjoyment you try to plant in their decision making.

They saw exact;y what we saw. Infact they saw better as this was in daylight and not night. I couldn't see any identifiable weapons. Saeed the camera man in his dying moments " all you got to do is pick up a weapon " when clearly none or anything that resembled any were around. Two children in the passenger side of the Van. BTW I think its even against the geneva comvention to shoot on injured or surrenderd combatants unless they are still putting up a fight aswell as Ambulances, Red Cross or anyone or anything that is transporting the wounded or dead. Just like shooting at a pilot parachuting after having his plane shot down

Weapon is confirmed. I just saw at least one on tv in a still image of the video information.
I agree that shooting at wounded targets is a bit tricky. A trooper would get caught for that, a gunship with 30mm rounds may have less accuracy to avoid that. Debateable. Close to warcrime indeed.

As for not evac'ing the children to "rusty" and handing over to IP instead ? Maybe I missed something ? You tell me ?

I don't know, but we can only speculate about the possibilities. The medic said that he couldn't help the kid on the spot, so they decided to take her in the Bradley. That changed as the IPS could do the job for them. Its a logistical decision, perhaps considered a better alternative to bring the kid to a nearby hospital where the IPS are most familiar and regulars. Movements in a Bradley is another threat to the crew and the kid as the Bradley is a potential target for real militants. All part of the risk assessment. Troop safety first and outsource as much liabilities as possible under the circumstances.

Like I said Rob your reasoning doesn't make anysense at all whatsoever.

You must be an awful leader mate. If you were squadleader, you probably pose a high risk of team casualties following your logic.

I think I would drop you off at the Sissybar of the Pacifist team.

Just a bunch of rednecks living out their Playstation fantasies !

Welcome to the world of Computer Based Training.

RobbyG wrote:
Dude, look at the group mentality of those people together. Suddenly they walk in spreads. Thats suspect.
One geezer points a camera (or rpg, I can't tell the difference in advance) at the helicopter from behind a buildinger corner (see video!) and the military thinks its just a business as usual in an urban warzone? Righttt.

I would have pulled that trigger also if I had the same information as those in the gunship.

You say 'urban warzone' I say 'residential area'.

You see 'walk in spreads' I see a group of people crossing a road.

I really can't see your logic - the men didn't run and hide from the helicopter, if they had done so, it would have been more in line with the theory that they were up to no good. Yet your logic seems to be - 'they acted as if they had nothing to fear, so they must be up to no good'?

I'm sorry, I don't see the logic.

The only thing they seem to be guilty of is appearing to resemble targets in a playstation game.

RobbyG wrote:What part of urban warfare don't you get?

If you're in an Apache gunship, watching a group of AK-47 walking accross the steets, with a guy hiding behind a corner of a building with an RPG, looking to hit your gunship...what would you do?

Engage or get killed?

Second attack is debateable. But those fooks aren't exactly dressed like medics. More like individuals helping their militant buddies. If you're a good civilian, why help militants?

The rules of war are clear. If you are visible in outfit and transportation as medical personnel, you can't be fired upon. This simply wasn't the case here. Besides, we don't have any idea about the intel that preceded these actions. So be real and continue eating your dinner/lunch.

This is daily news in urban warfare. Militants hiding between civilians.

How about I come to your house and your street to conduct "Urban Warfare" to liberate you from your horrible leaders who are denying me the rights to mine the infinite reserves of treacle pudding you have buried in your backyard? I am sure that you will then excuse me for mistaking you for a militant.

"it's their own fault for bringing their children into battle"
exactly. sneaky Iraqis populating their entire country with kids, women, old people, building hospitals, schools and whatnot. just so they could get in the way of Americans saving them.

shafique wrote:

RobbyG wrote:
Dude, look at the group mentality of those people together. Suddenly they walk in spreads. Thats suspect.
One geezer points a camera (or rpg, I can't tell the difference in advance) at the helicopter from behind a buildinger corner (see video!) and the military thinks its just a business as usual in an urban warzone? Righttt.

I would have pulled that trigger also if I had the same information as those in the gunship.

You say 'urban warzone' I say 'residential area'.

You see 'walk in spreads' I see a group of people crossing a road.

I really can't see your logic - the men didn't run and hide from the helicopter, if they had done so, it would have been more in line with the theory that they were up to no good. Yet your logic seems to be - 'they acted as if they had nothing to fear, so they must be up to no good'?

I'm sorry, I don't see the logic.

The only thing they seem to be guilty of is appearing to resemble targets in a playstation game.

Yes yes, war is not my game either.

The logic is how you wish to see it. I accept that Iraq was/is a warzone and people make mistakes.
You would have a point if you questioned the rules of engagement. But under current circumstances, the gunship acted by the rules.

Horrible outcome though. That should be clear.

And there is more

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/world ... ?ref=world

RobbyG wrote:Yes yes, war is not my game either.

The logic is how you wish to see it. I accept that Iraq was/is a warzone and people make mistakes.
You would have a point if you questioned the rules of engagement. But under current circumstances, the gunship acted by the rules.

Perhaps I'm just being too simple here. Civilians walking around a residential area get mown down by an apache helicopter and then a van helping the wounded is similarly shot at, and it had children in the van.

I can't see how this is anyone's fault but those who did the shooting. I was following orders is a weird excuse when the video shows the gunners gagging to be allowed to shoot. The rescuers were clearly unarmed and the killing there was gratuitious.

I can't make a moral distinction between the blood lust shown graphically in these clips and the glee of suicide terrorists. It is one thing to fire back when attacked (which is how the US military initially spun the incident) and quite another to see the turkey shoot in the clips.

But hey, perhaps it is just that the 'rules of engagement' should be questioned?

Cheers,
Shafique

This is just another case of fish in a barrel. As for all the people who keep saying. It was their job, they were following orders, they were within the ROE.

Wern't the Nazi guards at the death camps also follwing orders then ? Oh wait ................

here is a quote from a response to that video

"im sitting here literally ashamed of my country.

you know what happens when you gun down innocent people? you make 'terrorists' out of scores of others who, upon hearing of this atrocity, have no choice but to conclude that we are not Good People. you make martyrs and suicide bombers out of their families. in short, so long as you remember to kill a few civilians here and there, you'll never run out of terrorists to justify your presence there."

What do you think people living that area who migth even have witnesed it from the windows in thier house think ? They just saw some journalist walking aound in front of their house and before you knew it. They were turned into minced meat, then when some tries to save one of the wounded surviours also gets turned in salami.

What do you think their opinion is about the occupying forces is ? And I'm quite sure this is just the tip of the Ice berg here. Hopefully all will come to light.

shafique wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Yes yes, war is not my game either.

The logic is how you wish to see it. I accept that Iraq was/is a warzone and people make mistakes.
You would have a point if you questioned the rules of engagement. But under current circumstances, the gunship acted by the rules.

Perhaps I'm just being too simple here. Civilians walking around a residential area get mown down by an apache helicopter and then a van helping the wounded is similarly shot at, and it had children in the van.

I can't see how this is anyone's fault but those who did the shooting. I was following orders is a weird excuse when the video shows the gunners gagging to be allowed to shoot. The rescuers were clearly unarmed and the killing there was gratuitious.

I can't make a moral distinction between the blood lust shown graphically in these clips and the glee of suicide terrorists. It is one thing to fire back when attacked (which is how the US military initially spun the incident) and quite another to see the turkey shoot in the clips.

But hey, perhaps it is just that the 'rules of engagement' should be questioned?

Cheers,
Shafique

The threat was there. At least I saw it too. In hindsight, the threat was not there.

The only reasoning that we can make to avoid such instances is the improve the rules of engagement. After all, the guy around the corner did pose a threat to the gunship. Problem is that you can't separate militans from civilians these days. Some militants even hide under the cover of medical personnel.

What to do?

These IPS guys sure won't help the Americans. Check out this 'motivational speech' of a US marine to the coward team, diving duty when the going gets tough.

http://www.youtube.com/user/bl4kec#p/a/u/0/r1GrdTakvl8

desertdudeshj wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QEdAykXxoM

And there is more

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/world ... ?ref=world

Why don't you post all the US errors in this post? You must think that war is 'halal'

At least the US military has strict rules and tries to improve those rules of engagement. Terrorist only scream Allah Allah behind somebodies back and hope for as many victims. Try and debunk that for a change.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1215962/j ... e_bombers/

Enjoy.