posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
