This is topic Wikileaks releases leaked video of murdered Reuters journalists in Baghdad in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Wikileaks has been talking about this cover up of a 2007 US military operation that killed two journalists in Baghdad for almost two weeks. Today they finally released the video and it's pretty bad. Not only are a couple of Reuters guys killed, the US soldiers fire on a minivan trying to assist the wounded. Even worse, the minivan had two kids in it. Probably not work-safe unless you have the sound down.
quote:"There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force," said military spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl at the time.
But the video appears to confirm the firefight was entirely unprovoked and one-sided.
quote:The Reuters staffers, a respected photojournalist by the name of Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver Saeed Chmagh are seen walking down the street with a group of approximately eight other people when the helicopters open fire on them.
When the dust settles, one individual, a driver for Reuters by the name of Saeed Chmagh, can be seen crawling away, wounded. One of the U.S. crewmen can be heard encouraging the wounded man to pick up a weapon so he could shoot him again.
quote:The van was reportedly being driven by a local man taking his children to a tutoring session when he came upon Chmagh crawling across the street.
The driver was duly killed and his two children were shot in the passenger seat.
A U.S. vehicle is then shown driving over a body as the crewmen laugh about it.
The timing is especially bad due to the following as well
quote:After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid.
quote:And in what could be a scandalous turn to the investigation, The Times of London reported Sunday night that Afghan investigators also determined that American forces not only killed the women but had also “dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath” and then “washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened.”
The military was trying pretty hard to harass wikileaks before this came out.
Guess it didn't work.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ha haha aha hahahaha haha ha haha ha.
This is hilarious.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I don't believe that's a proper reaction.
quote:The driver was duly killed and his two children were shot in the passenger seat.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Ha haha aha hahahaha haha ha haha ha.
This is hilarious.
If by hilarious you mean some definition of the word that an astronomically small fraction of the human race shares.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah. The only way this could be funny at all if there had been something particularly ironic about the coverup, but even that was pretty straightforward. There's nothing hilarious here at all.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Firstly that the military has actually been successfully embarrassed by a wiki of all things and apparently tyrant style tried to suppress it is inherently hilarious.
Secondly militaries shooting unarmed civilians for kicks and making bond one liners is also inherently hilarious, made funnier by the Team America World Police doing it.
Thirdly anything in real life that begins to resemble grand theft auto on crack is inherently funny as well.
Whether or not others share my mirth is also what makes this funnier imagining your shocked horrified faces.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I don't like the way you see the world. In fact, I find it disturbing.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
You know Blayne, I don't care if you're serious or not... I'm going to have a hard time listening to anything you say from here on.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That probably throws about half of the good dead baby comedy out for you. Not that you really listened to anything I've said previously with any degree of seriousness anyways.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
There's a difference between dead fake babies and dead real people.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
And I'm certain thats probably a tragedy to someone somewhere who hasn't been completely desensitized to all violence and death so why not find the inherent humor in it?
Although looking back on it I probably should have stopped the post at "Thirdly anything in real life that begins to resemble grand theft auto on crack is inherently funny as well." and left out the fourth line, bad delivery on my part.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Stay classy, dude.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Firstly that the military has actually been successfully embarrassed by a wiki of all things and apparently tyrant style tried to suppress it is inherently hilarious.
Secondly militaries shooting unarmed civilians for kicks and making bond one liners is also inherently hilarious, made funnier by the Team America World Police doing it.
Thirdly anything in real life that begins to resemble grand theft auto on crack is inherently funny as well.
Whether or not others share my mirth is also what makes this funnier imagining your shocked horrified faces.
I guess TV Tropes doesn't have an entry on wikileaks?
Huh.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And I'm certain thats probably a tragedy to someone somewhere who hasn't been completely desensitized to all violence and death...
This is not a personality trait that will make you well-liked. Perhaps you should see a therapist for it, actually.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That's so last millenium, Tom.
Sociopathy is the new normal. I guess nothing causes jading faster than being exposed to the entire world (via the internet) without a filter.
EDIT: Oh, and Halo, I shouldn't forget Halo.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Deaths are sad. Deaths from incompetent military operations are doubly so. The comeuppance of the people who ordered the coverup may, at least, be worthy of a bitter chuckle at the thought of justice being done. A leak, however, is no justice; I will laugh, or at any rate twist my mouth in satisfaction, when I hear of people going to prison.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
The cameras do kinda look like guns from that far up. But shooting up the van was pretty ridiculous.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Military personal like pilots in the airforce are trained to accurately determine what sort of blip on the horizon is not only an enemy plane but what type of plane down to the model and variant based on its profile I would be flabbergasted if ground military wasn't given similar training to at least tell a gun apart from a camera.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Just observations, that may not be welcome here, but whatever:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:"There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force," said military spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl at the time.
But the video appears to confirm the firefight was entirely unprovoked and one-sided.
These two things are not mutually exclusive. When someone calls in close air support, the firefight *is* often unprovoked and one-sided. That is the point of close air support.
I haven't read all the links. I did watch the edited (17 min version) of the video and read the first linked page. I am not aware of the situation, politically or on the ground. I am not an expert, but I am an informed and interested amateur.
The footage appears unusually clear for combat footage. It strikes me as very odd that the people in the video are completely ignoring the helicopters. I wonder if the video came from an RPV... I know RPV operators will change their magnification as happens in the video. I don't know if helicopter gunners have that capability as I'm pretty sure they use their helmet to aim (the gun points where they look)and I don't know where the magnification would be projected.
Assuming the video is legit (I'm sorry, but a site with the URL "collateralmurder.com" inspires about as much confidence as "fakedmoonlanding.com"), the Forward Air Controller or Air Liason Officer explicitly clears the pilots to attack these guys. That makes it a combat operation against a hostile force, whether they shoot back or not.
The question is were these people, in fact, legitimate targets. They do have weapons. In certain circumstances, that may be enough to meet the Rules of Engagement. Wikileaks says they have released the Rules of Engagement for "2006, 2007, and 2008" but I did not see them anywhere and they were not linked in the article. Also, Rules of Engagement tend to be specific things to a mission, though generalized rules are out there as a default. It would not be unusual for the specific mission to have different RoEs from the standard.
As I said, I don't know the situation, this could have been a war crime, a mistake, or an unfortunate bit of collateral damage. I don't see enough to pass judgement here, or even have a comfortable opinion, but it *is* possible, in my inexpert opinion, that everything on the video is legitimate operation, however tragic the outcome.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be honest, I'm just tired. This happened in 2007. It's taken three years for the truth to be leaked, and there will never be any sort of justice done that could possibly atone for the mistake.
We invaded Iraq in 2003. Four years later, we were shooting journalists for carrying camera cases and vans for being in the wrong place.
Three years after that, we're still in Iraq. And still shoveling s**t.
I'm actually perfectly willing to accept that the two guns being carried by the escorts did in fact fit the Rules of Engagement, and thus the brutal assault is completely within the rules of warfare. What I am not willing to do is to pretend that something is not "murder" simply because it happens to be arguably legal.
War is ritualized murder. After ten years of it, you'd think we'd have had enough.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Mistakes do happen, though. I doubt all these individuals were well-rested and operating at 100% under ideal conditions, at the time. That's been pointed out by many people.
There's also some context information missing from the video. What were the conditions in the area where this was recorded? What had happened in the neighborhood, recently, that justified a gunship patrol? If there were ground troops nearby, why didn't they intercept the van? Until someone fills in more of the gaps, I'm left with confused feelings about this.
None of the above should be misconstrued as an apology for events that occurred. Any resemblance between my questions and those of more intelligent people are coincidental. Batteries not included. Some assembly required. Consult your doctor before watching Wikileaks videos or reading Hatrack.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Assuming the video is legit (I'm sorry, but a site with the URL "collateralmurder.com" inspires about as much confidence as "fakedmoonlanding.com")
Collateralmurder is directly run by Wikileaks which has been reported by MSM sources running the story.
As for the rest, the details of the engagement matter less to me than the cover-up in this case and in the more recent case of the five murders in Afghanistan. They point the to unreliability of the already disturbingly high civilian death counts which may be much higher once wrongly classified insurgent deaths are fully accounted for.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The cover-up is more troubling to me, too. It's the sort of thing I'm most draconian on, actually. If it turned out that there was a war crime committed, honestly I would be in favor of those covering it up to receive a worse punishment than the actual offenders themselves.
---
Blayne, having some idea how much time you spend in front of a computer from your own posts...you are not remotely desensitized to violence and death, much less all of it. You're desensitized to watching violence and death, perhaps.
Case in point: when was the last time you did violence to another human being, or saw it being done with your own eyes (and heard it with your own ears)?
This is one of those times when your instinctive defensiveness towards group criticism is making you come off quite badly. It's made worse by the fact that it was completely avoidable, and could even now be mitigated quite a bit. But by all means, keep lashing out in defense of finding hilarity in tragic death.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Now that's just nitpicking, obviously I meant watching it.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Not obvious at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK Blayne, follow along with me here. What kind of violence and death is this? TV/Internet violence? Or real violence and death shown on TV?
Just because it's on the Internet does not mean it ought to be treated like a blurb on the Daily Show.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yes it was. Which is easier to believe or more likely that yes I casually have killed people or have been in close proximity (In Canada) to enough killed people to desensitize people or that through average life experience encountered enough of it through visual and non visual media to not care about it?
From this context then yes it is obvious and yes it was nitpicking, no ifs of buts.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
By all means, pull a total malanthrop and narrow your focus to the small aspect you can defend while changing the subject.
Fine, so I was nitpicking. Even though I was nitpicking with the words you actually said, and that nitpicking was done in order to highlight why you got into this little dustup in the first place: that you were treating this violence like it was Internet violence.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: You don't owe anybody specifically an apology, but your comments were tactless and offensive by any standard of those words, and I'm saying this as somebody who thinks the universe is big enough for sardonic humor.
The helicopter pilots were in the middle of a war zone, and they made a mistake. In the heat of the moment they probably did what they thought would ensure their safety, and the safety of their comrades on the ground. I'm not surprised they clapped themselves on the back for good shooting and laughed at the APC running over a body. Soldiers for thousands of years have found that one way to deal with killing human beings is to stop thinking about them as human beings with faces, families, or as similar to themselves. They are just the bad guys they have been trained to knock over and forget about. They saw the children being carried away, it stung them, so what did they do, they absolved themselves from the responsibility,
"Shouldn't have brought their kids with them." "That's right."
Those men, women, and possibly children are dead because they found themselves in a circumstance beyond their control. Our military, which may be the very best military in the history of the world, made a mistake. Instead of acting honorably, something that I would expect a class act outfit to do, they lied to newspapers and buried the truth. This is why we even have the Freedom of Information act, this is why after those helicopter operators fired those bullets, ground crews were required to converge on the location, take pictures, and document the scene. In this instance, at least we got the truth, rather than just believing the lie and moving on, as I am sure has been done innumerable times before on battle fields at all times.
It was a powerful video, powerful in that it told a story that needed to break out of the military archive it was relegated to. Of all the things that could have been said about it you elected to just laugh, and then explain your mirth in a most cynical fashion. You had nothing but contempt for the soldiers involved, and the Iraqis were likened to pixels on a video game.
Now some people have chosen to express disappointment, outrage, and even anger at you. In your heart of hearts do you really feel that what you said was perfectly acceptable and that all of us need to just get over ourselves and cut you some slack? Or is it possible you happened to post before you had a chance to really think about the import of your comments, and then when called out, your pride persuaded you to stand by them rather than revise or rescind?
You're not a bad person Blayne, take a step back and recognize you blundered, and that all that is required of you is to admit to that and to feel regret for it. I promise I'm more than happy to just forget you said that, and I am sure others are too. There might be some who submit to their baser natures and bring up this comment in the future, if that is the case, and you have earnestly tried to fix this mistake here and now, I will stand by you and defend you.
But you can also choose not to do any of that, and continue to pretend that what you said was a sincere and positive contribution to the thread. The only down side to that is that you will persuade more and more people that you are not worth conversing with, and I know that is not what you want to accomplish.
Do the right thing Blayne, please?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Just so long as we understand, I may have said something but meant something else.
The rest me cracking bad jokes on an event that happened 3 years ago may have been over the line.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Blayne, if you saw a video thirty years old of a woman being raped, would you make a joke on the grounds that, hey, it's been thirty years?
Yes, time dulls all wounds. That three years has elapsed since these people were murdered does not mean that enough time has elapsed that the situation -- in which the U.S. Army screwed up, murdered some people, and then lied about it -- can be considered anything but tragic.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*cough may not have been the best example for you to use since yes, rape can on a somewhat narrow list of situations be funny*
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Blayne, stop linking to tvtropes every damn second and speak for yourself. I'm disgusted by what you said above, and I've told my fair share of dead baby jokes. Telling jokes to friends who you know and who know you is not the same as going on the internet and being a jerk.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I stand by the entirety of my previous post.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Firstly that the military has actually been successfully embarrassed by a wiki of all things and apparently tyrant style tried to suppress it is inherently hilarious.
Secondly militaries shooting unarmed civilians for kicks and making bond one liners is also inherently hilarious, made funnier by the Team America World Police doing it.
Thirdly anything in real life that begins to resemble grand theft auto on crack is inherently funny as well.
Whether or not others share my mirth is also what makes this funnier imagining your shocked horrified faces.
Blayne, you are a freaking moron. Just for the record.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Is there any explanation as to why the Reuters employees were mixed in with folks armed with RPGs and AKs? I watched the video but didn't see any explanation on the collateral murder site.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
??
quote:An investigation of the shooting found that the crew of the two Apache helicopters at the scene might have erroneously identified photographer's cameras as weapons, NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported.
According to U.S. officials, the pilots arrived to find a group of men approaching the area of a battle with what looked to be AK-47s slung over their shoulders and at least one rocket-propelled grenade.
The investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47.
msnbc link Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Ahh. They were approaching the scene of a battle. That might explain the maliciousness and, well, trigger-happiness of the soldiers.
However, it doesn't excuse it. This was a grave mistake, and a horrible one. You know how we keep hearing about accidental civilian deaths in these wars for all these years? Watching these good people being slaughtered on video has shown me at least one small inkling of how.
The worst thing? If this was WW2, I might be able to accept it. After all, this sort of thing happens, and though its still painful and tragic it at least would have happened in the context of something at least trying to be noble.
But with this war? This really pointless war over really nothing of true value compared to that one? Watching this just makes me sick.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Also, Blayne?
Don't try to defend yourself. Just give a full and clear apology. Say this, as I said to a friend I hurt recently:
"I'm sorry, what I did was wrong, I won't do it again." Then don't do it again.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So wait, how many of them had cameras then? In addition to the two named employees the video points out, there are at least two more individuals with what do appear to be assault rifles. It's definitely pretty hard to tell.
Without having read any articles about this, just seeing the video with as little preconceived notion as possible, what the soldier in the video says about it being an RPG seemed reasonable to me. I didn't question it.
But I guess the idea is that the RPG is a telescopic camera? Huh. I can kind of see that. Sure does resemble an RPG though. Guy carrying it is also peeking around the corner in a very weird and disconcerting way...
It's certainly tragic that two innocent journalists lost their lives due to friendly fire. That the US Military tried to hide this footage is, if possible, even more upsetting. But now a few passes through the internet have revealed people touting this as an example of how the US Military are a bunch of psychopathic murderers, and I just don't see that here at all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But now a few passes through the internet have revealed people touting this as an example of how the US Military are a bunch of psychopathic murderers...
It's the joking afterwards, which is unquestionably sociopathic.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Firstly that the military has actually been successfully embarrassed by a wiki of all things and apparently tyrant style tried to suppress it is inherently hilarious.
Secondly militaries shooting unarmed civilians for kicks and making bond one liners is also inherently hilarious, made funnier by the Team America World Police doing it.
Thirdly anything in real life that begins to resemble grand theft auto on crack is inherently funny as well.
Whether or not others share my mirth is also what makes this funnier imagining your shocked horrified faces.
Blayne, you are a freaking moron. Just for the record.
For the record insulting me doesn't make me want or encourage me to be more apologetic and also I believe a violation of the TOS.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Nobody cares if you apologise, Blayne. You are a freak who deserves to be mocked.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:For the record insulting me doesn't make me want or encourage me to be more apologetic and also I believe a violation of the TOS.
From just a few days earlier:
quote:From Blayne Bradley: ...you were being entirely a disrespectful whiny little douche...Care to go away you whiny cancerous little blight?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So wait, how many of them had cameras then?
One has a long-range lens, one has a camera, confused for a AK-46 and RPG respectively. I don't see any more weapons although some US outlets have claimed to see one AK-47 that I haven't seen confirmed.
quote: Guy carrying it is also peeking around the corner in a very weird and disconcerting way...
He was taking a photo, they actually have that photo online. If he seems cautious and nervous, thats probably because the US military as of this point already has a reputation for shooting civilians (and journalists for that matter).
quote: ... an example of how the US Military are a bunch of psychopathic murderers, and I just don't see that here at all.
You don't see that. You hear it, loud and clear.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Just so long as we understand, I may have said something but meant something else.
The rest me cracking bad jokes on an event that happened 3 years ago may have been over the line.
That was pretty good Blayne, but a bit too Asian for an apology to me. None of this, "I may or may not have said things that are not necessarily to my credit."
But then again, if that is how you feel, I'm not going to yank something else out of you.
------ Jebus202: I certainly care if Blayne apologizes, you should too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You don't see that. You hear it, loud and clear.
That's one way to look at it, that this indicts the entire US military as a bunch of psychopathic murderers.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not to drag in completely unrelated matters, Blayne, but this sort of thing is exactly what got you banned: Not so much the original tasteless and idiotic joke, but the total stonewalling refusal to man up and admit that you might have been in the wrong.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Firstly that the military has actually been successfully embarrassed by a wiki of all things and apparently tyrant style tried to suppress it is inherently hilarious.
Secondly militaries shooting unarmed civilians for kicks and making bond one liners is also inherently hilarious, made funnier by the Team America World Police doing it.
Thirdly anything in real life that begins to resemble grand theft auto on crack is inherently funny as well.
Whether or not others share my mirth is also what makes this funnier imagining your shocked horrified faces.
Go be edgy~ somewhere else. This isn't the place for you to be all :smug: about how very jaded you are because you've Seen Things On The Internet. SomethingAwful has several active threads about this where you can go and chortle about this with the rest of the sperglords. I don't even know why you're here, you're obviously too cool for Hatrack.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So wait, how many of them had cameras then?
One has a long-range lens, one has a camera, confused for a AK-46 and RPG respectively. I don't see any more weapons although some US outlets have claimed to see one AK-47 that I haven't seen confirmed.
quote: Guy carrying it is also peeking around the corner in a very weird and disconcerting way...
He was taking a photo, they actually have that photo online. If he seems cautious and nervous, thats probably because the US military as of this point already has a reputation for shooting civilians (and journalists for that matter).
quote: ... an example of how the US Military are a bunch of psychopathic murderers, and I just don't see that here at all.
You don't see that. You hear it, loud and clear.
Towards the beginning of the video at around the 3:45ish mark you can see two men carrying AKs who are walking well behind the journalists. There is the front group of four people, two of whom are carrying cameras and are the journalists mentioned in the video. There is also a group of four or five people behind that group, and two of them are carrying long objects that look a lot like weapons. Links:hereand here. Later they try and catch up with them. I'm not saying that this excuses the military's actions here but let's give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't think it would be unreasonable to propose that the area where this incident occurred may have been some sort of bad neighborhood or a place where those soldiers have encountered insurgents before. In that case, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the men carrying AKs are indeed insurgents. I also don't think that it would be unreasonable to speculate that the two journalists mentioned in the clip were in the area looking for photos or whatever, and perhaps had a few bodyguards with them for protection. Now, assuming that the two men I mentioned earlier are indeed carrying AKs and that the area that these men are in is indeed a bad neighborhood, then you have two men carrying what look like AKs, and two people nearby carrying unidentified long black objects in a bad neighborhood. I'm not sure what the rules of engagement for this situation are (I'm pretty sure that they were broken in this case anyways), but looking at this as objectively as possible I think that this may simply have been a case of mistaken identity, albeit a very tragic one.
EDIT: Didn't read the msnbc link that stated that these men were headed to an area of battle. That only strengthens my point that these men could easily have been mistaken for insurgents.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Not to drag in completely unrelated matters, Blayne, but this sort of thing is exactly what got you banned: Not so much the original tasteless and idiotic joke, but the total stonewalling refusal to man up and admit that you might have been in the wrong.
Except I did admit I was in the wrong and once again you completely miss the context of me getting insulted afterwards contributing to my supposed stonewalling.
"Dude not funny" is constructive calling me a moron ain't and is the reason why I lashed out at carillon for calling me an asshole for not doing anything wrong.
Do you have this magic 'blayne getting insulted' filter that you wear all the time to selectively avoid having to deal with the useless goddamn crap I deal with on a daily basis that you ignore every goddamn time because it suits you?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Gah, I should have known better than to try engaging with you when you were already in turtle mode. Never mind.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think, to an extent, all combat soldiers need to develop a little (hopefully) temporary sociopathy. How else could one stand it at all?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: EDIT: Didn't read the msnbc link that stated that these men were headed to an area of battle. That only strengthens my point that these men could easily have been mistaken for insurgents.
I don't really disagree with that. From the little information I've seen, the initial conclusion seems reasonable.
The conduct afterwards and the coverup seem a lot worse to me than the initial attack.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... bad neighborhood or a place where those soldiers have encountered insurgents before. In that case, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the men carrying AKs are indeed insurgents.
The city has a population of 7.5 million. If the city is anything like a bad neighbourhood in the US, there is probably one gun per person. It is just as reasonable to assume that they were normal Iraqi citizens hanging out around home (and thats assuming that diagram is correct, which I really don't see as being conclusive as opposed to the aforementioned military investigations which didn't find anything).
quote: ... but looking at this as objectively as possible I think that this may simply have been a case of mistaken identity, albeit a very tragic one.
Perhaps, but if I flew around a bad neighbourhood in the US randomly bombarding people that I thought had guns (and very well might), I don't think I'd be getting the benefit of the doubt even if I was in the military.
The van I find especially dubious.
But as I said before, the cover-up and the fact that cover-ups are still going on are more troublesome to me (and perhaps the fact that this is hardly the first photojournalist killed due to a camera being mistaken for a RPG is severely biasing coverage toward embedded "journalists").
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think, to an extent, all combat soldiers need to develop a little (hopefully) temporary sociopathy. How else could one stand it at all?
I was going to post something like this. Insofar as we want an effective armed forces (which I do), they need to be trained to have a certain amount of disassociation in order to function. I am sure this is the fallout from the study (and follow-on studies afterward) that some significant number of soldiers on WWII battlefields never pulled the trigger during battle, on both sides.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Gah, I should have known better than to try engaging with you when you were already in turtle mode. Never mind.
If you want to engage me constructively answering my emails in a timely fashion and politely discussing the issue or alternatives to the issue like adults would be a great way to start, I've accepting my fate in regards to the Hoi2 game and ostensibly in the CK game but just coming out here and posting this seems more like rubbing salt in the wound rather then actually trying to help me deal with my anger issues.
Your replies to me in private correspondence have not been particularly encouraging that any changes from me would actually change any of the situations I care about and also do not seem like its possible to civilly discuss any issue and reach some or any kind of middle ground.
You have my email if you wish to continue the discussion to see if we can get something or anything resolved, "I'll think about it" and similar 1 sentence replies doesn't make a conversation.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sometimes you change not to fix what is in the past (or present) but to improve the future.
Just saying.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's true, the reason being that you don't want a conversation, you want to be told that all your demands will be obeyed. I don't really feel like gratifying you on that point, so I keep the interaction to a minimum. This also has the happy side effect of minimising the annoyance-inducing spam in my inbox.
To answer your underlying question, however: I have consulted some of the other players and there is cautious agreement that you could be an asset to the game if you played as an Immortal. (Under the constraint, naturally, that you remain polite.) There's a few people whose feedback I still await.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think, to an extent, all combat soldiers need to develop a little (hopefully) temporary sociopathy. How else could one stand it at all?
I believe this is true and I think some of the training for modern military is designed to achieve this. To put it in more narrow terms, they try to condition soldiers to be willing to shoot other humans, since in past wars it was something many soldiers couldn't bring themselves to do, even if they were under fire themselves.
Of course being hundreds of yards away, so you can't hear any screams or really see the gore probably helps in this regard as well.
The distance, detachment, and easy superiority (of force) exemplified by that video are really disturbing and frightening.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hum. Not to change the subject completely, but: I just used the phrase "There's a few people". Expanding the contraction this becomes "There is a few people", which is clearly bad grammar. But the contraction "There're a few people" also looks wrong to the eye and rings wrong in my ear. Should I conclude that it's simply a bad idea to use a contraction in these circumstances, or that "there's" is no longer a contraction, but a special form which does not necessarily indicate the number of its referent? What do you think?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... bad neighborhood or a place where those soldiers have encountered insurgents before. In that case, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the men carrying AKs are indeed insurgents.
The city has a population of 7.5 million. If the city is anything like a bad neighbourhood in the US, there is probably one gun per person. It is just as reasonable to assume that they were normal Iraqi citizens hanging out around home (and thats assuming that diagram is correct, which I really don't see as being conclusive as opposed to the aforementioned military investigations which didn't find anything).
quote: ... but looking at this as objectively as possible I think that this may simply have been a case of mistaken identity, albeit a very tragic one.
Perhaps, but if I flew around a bad neighbourhood in the US randomly bombarding people that I thought had guns (and very well might), I don't think I'd be getting the benefit of the doubt even if I was in the military.
The van I find especially dubious.
But as I said before, the cover-up and the fact that cover-ups are still going on are more troublesome to me (and perhaps the fact that this is hardly the first photojournalist killed due to a camera being mistaken for a RPG is severely biasing coverage toward embedded "journalists").
I think you're missing the point that these guys weren't just in a bad neighborhood, but that they were heading to a battle taking place and several of them were or appeared to be armed. That doesn't excuse anything, but what I am trying to say is that they very well could have mistaken the journalists and their group to be insurgents. The shooting of the van is disturbing. The cover-up is disturbing. But as far as the initial engagement I'm on the fence.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hum. Not to change the subject completely, but: I just used the phrase "There's a few people". Expanding the contraction this becomes "There is a few people", which is clearly bad grammar. But the contraction "There're a few people" also looks wrong to the eye and rings wrong in my ear. Should I conclude that it's simply a bad idea to use a contraction in these circumstances, or that "there's" is no longer a contraction, but a special form which does not necessarily indicate the number of its referent? What do you think?
"There are" and its contraction sound correct to my ear. "There is" does not.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
How about shouldn't've.
As in "I shouldn't've done that."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hum. Not to change the subject completely, but: I just used the phrase "There's a few people". Expanding the contraction this becomes "There is a few people", which is clearly bad grammar. But the contraction "There're a few people" also looks wrong to the eye and rings wrong in my ear. Should I conclude that it's simply a bad idea to use a contraction in these circumstances, or that "there's" is no longer a contraction, but a special form which does not necessarily indicate the number of its referent? What do you think?
"There are" and its contraction sound correct to my ear. "There is" does not.
I agree about "There are" sounding correct, but the contraction feels weird. I think it's the way it tries to make you separate two 'r' sounds without any intervening vowel. You almost have to pronounce it "Therar", a very short 'a' sound indicating the contraction by negating it, which annoys me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. This may be a situation where the contraction, while correct, isn't helpful and shouldn't be used.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... but what I am trying to say is that they very well could have mistaken the journalists and their group to be insurgents.
Well, of course they made a mistake, I'm not missing that at all (or that the claim is that they were headed for a battle). What I'm also suggesting is that they were fighting in an urban area, filled with civilians and the occasional journalists and they should have been much more careful.
The voice-over on the tapes hardly indicates that they were being careful and were looking for excuses to kill. Also, as additional information on the reporting of that day, they were shooting at journalists again just an hour after the incident.
quote: “When we reached the spot where Namir was killed, the people told us that two journalists had been killed in an air attack an hour earlier,” said Ahmad Sahib, the Agence France-Presse photographer, who had been traveling in a car several blocks behind Mr. Noor-Eldeen but was delayed by the chaos in the area. He said he was in touch with Mr. Noor-Eldeen by cellphone until his colleague was killed.
“They had arrived, got out of the car and started taking pictures, and people gathered,” Mr. Sahib said. “It looked like the American helicopters were firing against any gathering in the area, because when I got out of my car and started taking pictures, people gathered and an American helicopter fired a few rounds, but they hit the houses nearby and we ran for cover.”
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: Go be edgy~ somewhere else. This isn't the place for you to be all :smug: about how very jaded you are because you've Seen Things On The Internet. SomethingAwful has several active threads about this where you can go and chortle about this with the rest of the sperglords. I don't even know why you're here, you're obviously too cool for Hatrack.
Best advice on hatrack to date
blayne, you're a spergbabby, go be babby somewhere else.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... but what I am trying to say is that they very well could have mistaken the journalists and their group to be insurgents.
Well, of course they made a mistake, I'm not missing that at all (or that the claim is that they were headed for a battle). What I'm also suggesting is that they were fighting in an urban area, filled with civilians and the occasional journalists and they should have been much more careful.
The voice-over on the tapes hardly indicates that they were being careful and were looking for excuses to kill. Also, as additional information on the reporting of that day, they were shooting at journalists again just an hour after the incident.
quote: “When we reached the spot where Namir was killed, the people told us that two journalists had been killed in an air attack an hour earlier,” said Ahmad Sahib, the Agence France-Presse photographer, who had been traveling in a car several blocks behind Mr. Noor-Eldeen but was delayed by the chaos in the area. He said he was in touch with Mr. Noor-Eldeen by cellphone until his colleague was killed.
“They had arrived, got out of the car and started taking pictures, and people gathered,” Mr. Sahib said. “It looked like the American helicopters were firing against any gathering in the area, because when I got out of my car and started taking pictures, people gathered and an American helicopter fired a few rounds, but they hit the houses nearby and we ran for cover.”
Yeah from what I'm gathering, after they initially engaged the group of people they automatically decided to light up anybody who came near the area. Pretty awful stuff anyway you look at it I guess.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Well, of course they made a mistake, I'm not missing that at all (or that the claim is that they were headed for a battle). What I'm also suggesting is that they were fighting in an urban area, filled with civilians and the occasional journalists and they should have been much more careful.
Well. The thing is, if they had taken an extra five seconds to ensure that those really were guns, and in fact the people on the ground had been enemy troops, then they would (with high probability) have been shot at and possibly killed. Is that really a reasonable standard for us to demand? It's true that these are soldiers who have chosen to put on the uniform and take risks in what they see as the service of their country; but we usually consider it fair enough when they act so as to minimise the risk. And if the answer is "yes, they should have risked their lives that extra bit for the cause", consider that this might just as well apply to the journalists, who after all didn't absolutely have to be in a war zone and running to the sound of the guns.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hum. Not to change the subject completely, but: I just used the phrase "There's a few people". Expanding the contraction this becomes "There is a few people", which is clearly bad grammar. But the contraction "There're a few people" also looks wrong to the eye and rings wrong in my ear. Should I conclude that it's simply a bad idea to use a contraction in these circumstances, or that "there's" is no longer a contraction, but a special form which does not necessarily indicate the number of its referent? What do you think?
In formal speech and writing, "there is" or "there's" with a following plural noun is still considered incorrect, but it's very common in speech and less formal writing. Note that this is, I believe, the only construction in English where a verb agrees with a following noun rather than a preceding one in a declarative sentence. My opinion is that it will eventually become a standard fixed phrase that doesn't agree with the following noun, somewhat like French "il y a" or German "es gibt."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: Go be edgy~ somewhere else. This isn't the place for you to be all :smug: about how very jaded you are because you've Seen Things On The Internet. SomethingAwful has several active threads about this where you can go and chortle about this with the rest of the sperglords. I don't even know why you're here, you're obviously too cool for Hatrack.
Best advice on hatrack to date
blayne, you're a spergbabby, go be babby somewhere else.
Seriously, .
[ April 06, 2010, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Seriously, enough about Blayne being an Internet Tough Guy. This story isn't interesting enough without that?
I'm particularly disturbed by how intelligence services harassed the Wikileaks staff. The police state is growing way too powerful... and like a ratchet, it never moves backward.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
People honestly have nothing better to talk about then jump onto a train wreck.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I would point out you just jumped on your own train wreck (and I couldn't resist a comment).
Yes Lalo, I'm not sure which part of this story I'm more worried about. The event itself, or the cover up that has followed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The police state is growing way too powerful... and like a ratchet, it never moves backward.
I wonder what it would take. I've been wondering for years.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... consider that this might just as well apply to the journalists, who after all didn't absolutely have to be in a war zone and running to the sound of the guns.
As of 2007 the whole country is a war zone and not only were they Reuters employees but the country is their home. And even if we accept the fractional equivalency between the risks that a reporter accepts and military duty to protect civilians, the random civilians around, nor the driver, or his children have (not) accepted those risks.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Is that really a reasonable standard for us to demand?
Absolutely, otherwise they might as well pack up and go home. The goal at that stage was to protect the Iraqi population and win hearts and minds.
As unfortunate as the loss of two pilots might be, this does not work against that goal. On the other hand, when they screw up as in this case, the effect is the radicalisation of the relatives and friends of those killed and the creation of very effective propaganda (not even propaganda really, its the truth) and recruiting material for both the insurgency and international terrorism. (Plus the direct fact that we now have eight dead civilians versus two soldiers)
It is absolutely a tough thing to demand, but half-assing it in this case actually makes it worse than going to either extreme. If you want to win hearts and minds, either go big or go home.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Heck, even my mom seems a bit less pro-America after seeing that video.
As my mother said when I showed her, "no wonder the world hates us." It almost sounded like she agreed with it.
Not effective in winning hearts and minds, either there or here, I'll agree.
/anecdote.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Should. Never. Have. Been. There.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Then again, this was a good opportunity to use the lessons of this war to restructure the military and to trim it of these embarrassments before the cycle of complacency and military readiness degenerates further, otherwise imagine what would happen if you fought a war against the SCO 15 years from now without Iraq? Organization and discipline at this rate would have been non existent.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Great. Let's have a war so we can practice.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Arguably yes, yes you should otherwise you won't be ready for a "real" war.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I agree with kmbboots. A large portion of my main post from page 1 was about the same thing. Only less succinct.
We shouldn't be there. We shouldn't have ever gone there. Heck, even Bush Senior's people knew that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Then again, this was a good opportunity to use the lessons of this war to restructure the military and to trim it of these embarrassments before the cycle of complacency and military readiness degenerates further, otherwise imagine what would happen if you fought a war against the SCO 15 years from now without Iraq? Organization and discipline at this rate would have been non existent.
That doesn't work: A war you win can't be used this way, because the officers will very reasonably point out that hey, they won, so what's your bitch? And a war you lose is a bad idea any way you look at it. That's aside from the other costs of war, of course, which are probably much larger (at least for a big, well-protected state like the US) than the costs of having a few months' worth of ramp-up time in a big war, a la the US in WWII. The US can accept a Kasserine Pass a few times in a century; but experientally it's not doing well with a Vietnam, a couple of small colonial wars, and some minor interventions over the course of a generation.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: I agree with kmbboots. A large portion of my main post from page 1 was about the same thing. Only less succinct.
We shouldn't be there. We shouldn't have ever gone there. Heck, even Bush Senior's people knew that.
Unfortunately we are and I don't think simply packing up and leaving is such a good idea either.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Then again, this was a good opportunity to use the lessons of this war to restructure the military and to trim it of these embarrassments before the cycle of complacency and military readiness degenerates further, otherwise imagine what would happen if you fought a war against the SCO 15 years from now without Iraq? Organization and discipline at this rate would have been non existent.
That doesn't work: A war you win can't be used this way, because the officers will very reasonably point out that hey, they won, so what's your bitch? And a war you lose is a bad idea any way you look at it. That's aside from the other costs of war, of course, which are probably much larger (at least for a big, well-protected state like the US) than the costs of having a few months' worth of ramp-up time in a big war, a la the US in WWII. The US can accept a Kasserine Pass a few times in a century; but experientally it's not doing well with a Vietnam, a couple of small colonial wars, and some minor interventions over the course of a generation.
Firstly how are we defining loss? If defined as "losing a conventional war to a comparable enemy" the USA we can say hasn't lost in the strictest sense wither the Vietnam war or the Iraq war. In fact losing these two wars only exists under the definition of pulling out before the war can be brought to its conclusion which according to Sun Tzu is the correct military strategy, costly drawn out campaigns cost the people and the state hurts moral and leaves you vulnerable.
And on the positive note pulling out of either nation doesn't hurt the US directly, Vietnam and Iraqi insurgents (and the Taliban) cannot follow the war to US soldier in any way that hurts US sovereignty, there's no way for them to force the US to "surrender" territory.
Now as for winning a war there is still the matter of Pyrrhic victories, "One more victory and I will be ruined!" etc. WWI was arguably a victory but you didn't really see the Generals in that much of a position to say "we won lets not change anything" public opinion was very much against such blood letting or repeat performances, careers ruined, alternate ways of fighting wars (tanks and armoured warfare) were explored, militaries in general reorganized to reflect the new realities.
Some of the most successful examples of military reorganization are generally embarked prior to a war but there are several examples of successful reorganizations during or just after a war, the Soviet Union for example had the Red Army which was quite literally unrecognizable in an organizational and doctrinal sense in difference between the bulky and unready 1941 Red Army and the 1945 Red Army then there's the actual example of its peacetime reorganizations to the Soviet Army model in 1948 which saw a massive reorganization based on the lessons from the Second World War.
The US army went through similar between 1939 and 1945 and again afterwards as it retooled from a country mobilized for war to a country taking up defense commitments around the world in its new position of Hegemon. (And for example Curtis LeMay kicking ass in the Strategic Air Command when it was utterly in shambles and nowhere near ready to withstand any kind of Soviet attack)
The trend is that usually in periods of peace you don't have the younger brilliant officers being promoted as fast to be in their most suitable positions, military expenditures are usually scaled back for peacetime training, procurement and deployment and during times of particularily bad combination of 'peace' and dove centric administration further budget cuts would be expected if not the norm for many larger militaries.
Since generals are loath to release soldiers, trained NCOs or reduce its officer corps either more troops need to be switched to a cheaper "reserve" status or funding for training and specialist education will go first before soldiers and vehicals are let go or mothballed respectively.
In short there is a demonstrable historical trend towards complacency! Which leads to laziness, lowered defense budgets that only a 'war' regardless of victory or defeat can temporarily shake a nation out of.
The Vietnam war forced a keen investigation of several chronically failing or not up to par parts of the US military from procurement and recruitment to training and doctrine and in general increased US readiness and efficiency US action in the Gulf War Uno probably a good indicator while pisspoor performance in hellholes like Somalia would still serve of reminders that even superpower (or hyperpower) militaries still have short comings.
And right now the US military is in a better lighter, leaner, smarter position to deal with insurgents then it was 9 years ago to deal with insurgents the only problem is that there's no political support by the populace that did use to like the US to support the US to end.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
A summary: the video is edited heavily. The Apaches are called in on a group that was clearly engaging US troops. There *were* AK-47s and an RPG visible in the video. The reporters may well have been there because the insurgents use photographers to document their attacks so they can get paid.
The van, he says, is a little more problematic, but that type of vehicle was commonly used as a transport for insurgents. They would also take away the bodies and weapons of insurgents,leaving behind civilian casualties trying to make it look like a hit against civilians. He says, regarding whether or not that constitutes an aggressive act, "To me, being the guy on the ground who has to deal with the fallout, it sure as hell is..."
Edited for clarity.
[ April 07, 2010, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Now, nearly a decade after the fact [9/11], the internet has no problems hurling invective at Soldiers. Kids, 18 to 25 years old usually, performing a hard job, for low pay, at great risk. The vast majority are good kids, who believe in what they are doing. These are not, by and large, murdering sociopaths out for the blood of brown people. We don't have horns, we don't eat babies, and most of these kids get out the first chance they have. We see horrible things over there all the time, things we carry with us for the rest of our lives.
People call us murders, yell we are accessories to a crimes against humanity, but we agreed to serve, we swore an oath, signed our names, and part of that agreement includes finishing our terms of service. We are required to follow all lawful orders. We are also obligated not to follow an unlawful order. It takes strength and courage not to follow an unlawful order, and, there are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers; in a group that size you're gonna come across bad actors. The vast majority are good people.
This Wikileaks video is... awful. What it shows is worse. The Law of Land Warfare is common knowledge among Soldiers, it must be be followed to the letter. When it is not, those who violate LLW must be held accountable. But to paint all Soldiers with this broad brush, to assume that the majority are bloodthirsty animals with itchy trigger fingers is insulting, its counter to common sense, and, not that the internet cares, but ladies and gentlemen, it hurts.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The vast majority are good people.
I think the vast majority of soliders are mundane, adequate young people who have been trained to be very, very bad in specific situations. Some of them may in fact be truly good people. Some of them probably started out bad.
I do not see any evidence that suggests the vast majority of them are good.
[ April 07, 2010, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: ... Kids, 18 to 25 years old usually, performing a hard job, for low pay, at great risk... and most of these kids get out the first chance they have.
Also means poorly educated and poorly motivated. Kind of predictable what would happen if you gave them heavy weapons too.
quote:... to assume that the majority are bloodthirsty animals with itchy trigger fingers is insulting ...
It's also not terribly off from how the military describes it.
quote:General Mcchrystal: "We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there's danger, they're asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it."
He continued: "That doesn't mean I'm criticizing the people who are executing. I'm just giving you perspective. We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."
(Keep in mind that we're talking about some random guy on the Internet that claims to have been there)
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: A summary: the video is edited heavily.
This myth has been circulating but is wrong.
quote: From the very beginning, WikiLeaks released the full, 38-minute, unedited version of that incident -- and did so right on the site they created for release of the edited video. In fact, the first video is marked "Short version," and the second video -- posted directly under it -- is marked "Full version," and just for those who still didn't pick up on the meaning, they explained:
WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.
quote: The van, he says, is a little more problematic, but that type of vehicle was commonly used as a transport for insurgents. They would also take away the bodies and weapons of insurgents,leaving behind civilian casualties trying to make it look like a hit against civilians.
Type of vehicle? It's a minivan. Toyota IIRC. What should regular civilians use to stand out? A tricycle?
In any case, the military reports concede that in this case the minivan driver was civilian. AlJazaeera reports that the military has approved compensation but has not followed through. Here's an interview with the family. Iraqi family demands justice for US attack death Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
We're not talking about some random guy on the internet. Edodo is a pretty close knit community and the guy is legit. Has been hospitalized by an IED, in fact.
And I'm pretty sure he said he watched the 38 minute version (I can't get to edodo from work) and is saying that that video is edited as well.
But, whatever. I'm trying to offer you guys other perspectives. As I said from the beginning, it doesn't surprise me that they are unwanted.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug* If he (or the military) can provide an unedited version, then they can go right ahead.
As to the issue of identity, he/she IS just some random person on the Internet. Hell, you're a random person on the Internet to me (and vice versa). Until proven otherwise, they could be a beach blonde from California to a street food vendor in Chongqing for all I know. This is basic Internet safety procedure.
I'm not even saying that they're saying anything particularly controversial. I'd say the same thing if I saw a poster on Slashdot give a negative review of the next Apple OS.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The vast majority are good people.
I think the vast majority of soliders are mundane, adequate young people who have been trained to be very, very bad in specific situations. Some of them may in fact be truly good people. Some of them probably started out bad.
I do not see any evidence that suggests the vast majority of them are good.
You could say the same thing about humanity in general.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On second thought I should not have engaged in the issue of effectiveness. I would point out that losing a war like Vietnam, where no armed enemy ever came within sight of even a peripheral vassal-state like Japan, had enormous costs in the morale, self-confidence, and discipline of the US armed forces and political establishment; these are costs not well modelled by the likes of EU3, which is why you tend to ignore them, but they are very real and the US is still feeling them. If you like, stab dropped to -3, and has not yet risen above 1. A big nation like the US has enormous stab-regain costs, of course, and besides that it has mainly been minting and doing infra research over the past forty years. It's easy to pass forty years in about half an hour of EU3 gaming, and see your stab rise 4 points even without much funding, and think "Ah, now that's more like it". It doesn't go so fast in the high-resolution version known as Real Life. "Political will" is not something that can be summoned up by the player making a steely-jawed, tough-minded decision. It is a very real, emergent phenomenon that arises from the people.
But all that said, the main point is this: You can't go around practicing large-scale killing on the grounds that someday you might have to be good at it! That way madness lies. Any nation that did such a thing would find itself a rogue state; Europe would rearm, Russia and China would make overtures to Germany, Japan and India would drop their neutrality policies, and generally speaking the potential Great Powers would find themselves forced to become actual Great Powers and resist the current hegemon, or else. Who knows who might be next, if wars are fought for practice?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jim, I gotta say, some guy on the internet saying "Trust me, that video was edited and it's clear that they were carrying weapons, anyway." doesn't hold much weight with me, especially in light of the lengths the military has gone to suppress this.
It's possible that this is the case (although, I've looked at the parts where the people were clearly carrying weapons and it seems very ambiguous to me), but it doesn't make a lot of sense in the surrounding context and it also sounds like it would be extremely easy for someone to produce a refuting unedited video, if one existed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yes that's why KoM, you set up little Xanatos Gambits years in advance so that you have at the right time enemies TO fight without hurting world opinion, preferably located in easily invade-able flat desert regions where your mechanized forces can pwn all that face them, hrrm.... Sounds familiar.
In this context the coincidence of the US setting up so many CIA assets to become tinpot dictators that they themselves come to overthrow through military force or a varied number of similar means later on "conveniently" seems rather contrived coincidence at this point.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Again, I am merely passing on a paraphrase of the comments of someone whom I know to be directly knowledgeable on the subject upon watching the unedited video. You can read his complete comments on the link and engage him directly if you like. You can ignore if you choose. It's a free internet.
The forum in question is in a process of migration from an older URL, however, so sign up may be a bit cumbersome at the moment (I'm not sure because I've been a member there about as long as here).
To me, it wasn't very ambiguous at all... on the edited video there were two men who were carrying rifles and taking pains to carry them along side to minimize their profiles. I don't feel like it takes any particular expertise to identify those two. I haven't seen the 38 minute version, but he is definitely claiming that a version of the video shows ground units directly engaged with the people being targeted.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:To me, it wasn't very ambiguous at all... on the edited video there were two men who were carrying rifles and taking pains to carry them along side to minimize their profiles.
err...isn't it the contention that one of those people was clearly carrying a rifle and the other clearly an RPG?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think he's talking about the two guys that were walking behind the reporters.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Yes that's why KoM, you set up little Xanatos Gambits years in advance so that you have at the right time enemies TO fight without hurting world opinion, preferably located in easily invade-able flat desert regions where your mechanized forces can pwn all that face them, hrrm.... Sounds familiar.
In this context the coincidence of the US setting up so many CIA assets to become tinpot dictators that they themselves come to overthrow through military force or a varied number of similar means later on "conveniently" seems rather contrived coincidence at this point.
Nope, that's clearly a coincidence; the Illuminati would never allow such a thing, nor is it in the interest of the Jewish bankers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I may have misunderstood.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: ... he is definitely claiming that a version of the video shows ground units directly engaged with the people being targeted.
That would not be the 38 minute long video.
Is he or is he not claiming that he has seen an unedited version of the video that is longer than the 38 minute version released by Wikileaks?
Also, if yes, do you believe him?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Yes that's why KoM, you set up little Xanatos Gambits years in advance so that you have at the right time enemies TO fight without hurting world opinion, preferably located in easily invade-able flat desert regions where your mechanized forces can pwn all that face them, hrrm.... Sounds familiar.
In this context the coincidence of the US setting up so many CIA assets to become tinpot dictators that they themselves come to overthrow through military force or a varied number of similar means later on "conveniently" seems rather contrived coincidence at this point.
Nope, that's clearly a coincidence; the Illuminati would never allow such a thing, nor is it in the interest of the Jewish bankers.
Thats what they want you to think!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's an NPR interview with David Finkel that seems to support several of the points Jim (or rather the poster on the other board that Jim pointed to) has put forward, including that the helicopter was providing air support for an ongoing firefight, that at least an RPG and possibly several AK-47s were found with the killed Iraqis (the guns are mentioned in an excerpt read from Finkel's book account of the day, but it's not absolutely clear the guns were being carried by the Iraqis in question when they were killed), and that the video available on wikileaks is edited from a longer video that shows the ongoing battle.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Another NPR interview, this one with Tom Bowman who was also in Iraq at the time. He confirms that one of the individuals killed was carrying an RPG and that another had an assault rifle, and also that in the days before and after the incident shown in the video there had been significant insurgent action, particularly in this Baghdad neighborhood.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: (Keep in mind that we're talking about some random guy on the Internet that claims to have been there)
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: A summary: the video is edited heavily.
This myth has been circulating but is wrong.
quote: From the very beginning, WikiLeaks released the full, 38-minute, unedited version of that incident -- and did so right on the site they created for release of the edited video. In fact, the first video is marked "Short version," and the second video -- posted directly under it -- is marked "Full version," and just for those who still didn't pick up on the meaning, they explained:
WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.
quote: The van, he says, is a little more problematic, but that type of vehicle was commonly used as a transport for insurgents. They would also take away the bodies and weapons of insurgents,leaving behind civilian casualties trying to make it look like a hit against civilians.
Type of vehicle? It's a minivan. Toyota IIRC. What should regular civilians use to stand out? A tricycle?
In any case, the military reports concede that in this case the minivan driver was civilian. AlJazaeera reports that the military has approved compensation but has not followed through. Here's an interview with the family. Iraqi family demands justice for US attack death
Mucus, I guess this is impossible to prove, because I didn't take a screenshot or anything. But I followed the link to the collateral murder site when it first went up and I am almost positive didn't see two videos. If I had, I'd have watched the unedited version. I don't recall seeing an unedited version at that time.
Are you sure it was there, initially? Are you sure it wasn't added later, after wikileaks got criticism from multiple fronts for only posting an edited version?
I'm asking sincerely. As I said, I don't remember seeing it, but perhaps I was just having a moment of blindness.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know that the first one has the person interviewed saying that the 38 minute video was edited. It's unclear. And, both interviews rely on the military report that says that weapons were found, not on first hand information.
I think they add legitimacy to the opposing side, but by no means is it a clear cut case.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: (Keep in mind that we're talking about some random guy on the Internet that claims to have been there)
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: A summary: the video is edited heavily.
This myth has been circulating but is wrong.
quote: From the very beginning, WikiLeaks released the full, 38-minute, unedited version of that incident -- and did so right on the site they created for release of the edited video. In fact, the first video is marked "Short version," and the second video -- posted directly under it -- is marked "Full version," and just for those who still didn't pick up on the meaning, they explained:
WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.
quote: The van, he says, is a little more problematic, but that type of vehicle was commonly used as a transport for insurgents. They would also take away the bodies and weapons of insurgents,leaving behind civilian casualties trying to make it look like a hit against civilians.
Type of vehicle? It's a minivan. Toyota IIRC. What should regular civilians use to stand out? A tricycle?
In any case, the military reports concede that in this case the minivan driver was civilian. AlJazaeera reports that the military has approved compensation but has not followed through. Here's an interview with the family. Iraqi family demands justice for US attack death
Mucus, I guess this is impossible to prove, because I didn't take a screenshot or anything. But I followed the link to the collateral murder site when it first went up and I am almost positive didn't see two videos. If I had, I'd have watched the unedited version. I don't recall seeing an unedited version at that time.
Are you sure it was there, initially? Are you sure it wasn't added later, after wikileaks got criticism from multiple fronts for only posting an edited version?
I'm asking sincerely. As I said, I don't remember seeing it, but perhaps I was just having a moment of blindness.
The unedited version wasn't streaming on the front page initially but there was a link to it there, along with text that clearly stated that the streamed video was the edited version and to see the full version click [here]. They released both versions to Youtube simultaneously.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Thanks for clearing that up Misha. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Going to try to answer some divergent posts here. Apologies if it gets jumbled. This, and a certain level of frustration in my tone, are unfortunate results of trying to answer several people at once. I would like to take a second to note that I think the discussion is pretty civil so far and I apologize for being touchy earlier.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:To me, it wasn't very ambiguous at all... on the edited video there were two men who were carrying rifles and taking pains to carry them along side to minimize their profiles.
err...isn't it the contention that one of those people was clearly carrying a rifle and the other clearly an RPG?
I was saying I saw two armed men. I was trying to simplify but, yes, to be precise I think one (the striped shirt guy @ ~2:12 in the video) has an AK47-type rifle and the guy next to him has what appears to be an RPG of some sort. I am not up on all variants of these weapons so my ID is probably imprecise.
Something that needs to be made clear is that the sight reticle does not necessarily (in fact I think it more likely does not) reflect the view of the person doing the ID on the weapons. That voice is IDing the targets before the video zooms in on the group that is fired upon. In the edited video they make it look like a gunner is looking at the reporter with the camera and saying "he's got a weapon". When the voice IDs the guy with the weapon, he may not be talking about, or even looking at, the guy with the camera. When he calls out "RPG" the reticle is on the camera man kneeling around the edge of the building, but again, that may not be who he's talking about.
The person I quoted said he definitely saw rifles and an RPG. He also says that the video which starts with the choppers' engagement leaves a great deal out (both collateralmurder.com videos appear to start at the same point). He does not actually say that he has seen video that is not in the 38 min video. He does say that there is video missing and that there was clearly a firefight before the collateralmurder.com video starts. *I* inferred from these two statements that he has seen video of the firefight, so that imprecision is on me-- though I do think that's what he's saying, it is a paraphrase and perhaps a mistake.
Immortal_One is a trustworthy source. He is not out deceive, though as an American Soldier recently in Iraq he definitely has a dog in the fight. To be clear, edodo is a largely military community and pretenders do not last long there. Members of that community have personally met him. He is a 2005 graduate of the USAF Academy who, I believe, cross-commissioned into the Army (I have forgotten, he was not ambiguous about it). I understand and approve of the "some guy on the internet" skepticism-- I think we need more of it-- but this is not just someone throwing up an anonymous comment on a news story. He is an established member of a military forum which does root out fakers.
It's worth noting that the Vancouver Sun story also supports his assertion that there was engagement before the video, though it ignores its own statement and proceeds to talk as if the helicopters constitute the beginning of the engagement. Immortal_One, corroborating the Vancouver Sun article, claims that there was a ground engagement and the helicopters were then called in after to attack the insurgents. Why, knowing that, the Sun goes on to act as if the helicopters are simply flying up to a random group of guys and opening fire, I do not know.
Assuming that's the case, I would expect the video of the helicopter attack to look exactly like it does-- that is, I would not expect to see a pitched fire fight, but rather a group of people suddenly being fired upon. The only thing weird is their seeming unconcern at the helicopters flying around them. I would expect them to take greater care to avoid the helicopters, but given the wide angle views, the helicopters appear to be very far away and maybe the insurgents weren't aware of the imminent danger they were in.
I am not suggesting that this was an ideal engagement or even that it was a good thing to do, but in terms of the actual soldiers in the video doing anything procedurally wrong, I'm not seeing it. As Tom says, war *is* basically ritualized murder. That ritual is important, though. It's the main, if not the only, difference between honorable service and cold-blooded murder (obviously, Tom and I differ greatly on the value of that difference). At this point, I'm not convinced the ritual was bastardized or desecrated, however ugly the result was.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't know that the first one has the person interviewed saying that the 38 minute video was edited.
I think it is reasonable to assume that the 38 minute video has content cut before and after (we never see the helicopter take off or land for example), but not necessarily by Wikileaks.
What has not been demonstrated is that there are edits in the middle. On one hand, neither correspondent backs that up. On the other hand, they say weapons were found (but are both careful to not actually say they were present). On the other hand, both journalists were embedded journalists so take that with a grain of salt as with any other propaganda.
Oddly, we may never find out.
quote:The U.S. military said Tuesday it can't find its copy of a video that shows two employees of the Reuters news agency being killed by Army helicopters in 2007, after a leaked version circulated the Internet and renewed questions about the attack.
Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said that the military has not been able to locate the video within its files after being asked to authenticate the version available online.
Confusing innocuous objects for weapons and then losing evidence. It's kind of a microcosm of the whole Iraq War
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: ... They released both versions to Youtube simultaneously.
I think this is verifiable by checking the dates that the videos were uploaded to youtube, but it is only accurate up to a day (meaning both released on the same day).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: ... but this is not just someone throwing up an anonymous comment on a news story.
To be clear, he still is until/or if he makes it into a verifiable source.
quote: It's worth noting that the Vancouver Sun story also supports his assertion that there was engagement before the video, though it ignores its own statement and proceeds to talk as if the helicopters constitute the beginning of the engagement.
It does not. I think you might have missed that in order to provide balance it quotes the initial cover-up story that was provided by the military (that all were killed during a firefight with insurgents). It then goes on to describe the video which contradicts that initial cover-up.
quote:Why, knowing that, the Sun goes on to act as if the helicopters are simply flying up to a random group of guys and opening fire, I do not know.
This is because subsequently the video clearly shows that the helicopter does not come across the people in a firefight. They are just slowly walking toward it, big difference in a densely populated city (again, 7 million). In other words, the helicopter is moving toward a firefight, not having reached the firefight, it spots this group and opens fire.
Note that the military has already admitted that the van was "a random group of guys" that were randomly in the area and is attempting to provide compensation. The "debate" such as it is really only about the first journalist that looked around the corner.
*whew* But as I said, I don't really care too much about the details (maybe a little). I think they're arguable, what actually I find systematic and troublesome are the cover-ups which persist till today (as in the case of the pregnant women in Afghanistan).
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Same guy provided edodo a link to Jaime McIntyre's take, with promise of his own personal commentary to come.
The comments on McIntyre's blog aren't real helpful from what I've seen so far, but McIntyre's commentary is relevant and he includes a link to the full report of the investigation. I would recommend that everyone interested in this topic read that report.
Two further bits: 1) I understand and agree that the military should be more forthcoming in events like this, but the very reason they aren't is that when an inexpert person gets hold of a snippet of videotape and throws it out there without context they can do a lot of damage.
Where I agree with many of you here is that in order to prevent that, the best thing to do is be forthcoming as possible. Where I disagree with you is that failure to do so necessarily involves a "cover-up"-- by which I mean the preventing an allegedly illegal act from coming before proper authorities for review.
2) Regarding "a guy on the internet". There is a vast level of credibility difference on the internet. I am more than reasonably convinced that Immortal One is who he says he is. I have no information whatsover about the owners and publishers of wikileaks or collateralmurder. I'd stake my life on the fact that Immortal_One knows more about the subject of this video than any other analysis source I've seen, period, and way more than anyone (including me) commenting on this thread so far.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
this, previous, comment by McIntyre seems well said and also quotes Reuters on the subject.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: ... I'd stake my life on the fact that Immortal_One knows more about the subject of this video than any other analysis source I've seen ...
Well, it's your life (literally). Me, I wouldn't risk anything more than a pan pizza on anyone I only know by pen-name on the Internet.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Having now read the official report, I don't see anything that contradicts the information in the video or vice versa.
What's the cover up? what has the US government been hiding from you?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I don't believe that's a proper reaction.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)