tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post4186677820828905849..comments2024-01-16T05:48:33.523-05:00Comments on Errata Security: "Collateral Murder": why Wikileaks sucksDavid Maynorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09921229607193067441noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-51163226252408268292012-08-27T11:05:31.992-04:002012-08-27T11:05:31.992-04:00It is not the inital engagement that is the proble...It is not the inital engagement that is the problem. I don;t really accept as true the post hoc claims that some of the people filmed were armed, but the cameras were easily mistaken for weapons and that mistake is not a crime, it is just a tragic mistake.<br /><br />The problem is the engagement of the wounded when they were being helped by clearly unarmed civilians and the recklessness displayed in ascertaining whether they were armed or civilians. This occurs after the section of video you analyse here.somonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-16711908353041636772012-04-01T04:11:45.875-04:002012-04-01T04:11:45.875-04:00I think you meant "without" instead of &...I think you meant "without" instead of "with" in your last line about wikipedia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-32532478169462945272010-04-11T02:08:12.874-04:002010-04-11T02:08:12.874-04:00"There is a clear question about whether firi..."There is a clear question about whether firing on the van was justified."<br /><br />No sir, not all at. ROE were followed, and ground forces had been in hot engagements all morning. The Reuters journos did not display press credentials, and chose to embed with insurgents. One RPG could take down an Apache, and the captain still asked for permission before taking out the hostile elements. You might need to revisit this. WikiLeaks has been badly discredited, and the media as well. There was no coverup, since there was nothing to cover up.<br /><br />Lots of reporting on this at my blog ...AmPowerBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18236333181889271910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-9869907492280221952010-04-11T01:00:54.489-04:002010-04-11T01:00:54.489-04:00Explosive Monochrome [News Poem, April 8, 2010]
ht...Explosive Monochrome [News Poem, April 8, 2010]<br />http://toylit.blogspot.com/2010/04/explosive-monochrome-news-poem-april-8.html<br />“We had a guy shooting... and now he's behind the building.”<br />“Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the brad. Uh, 'bout there... one o'clock. Haven't seen anything since then.”<br />“Just fuck it. Once you get on 'em just open 'em up.” <br /><br />With monochrome eyeballs the whirlybird watches<br />And likewise we're fixed on the ignorant target;<br />And both of us think of the black and white movies—<br />Those cellulose nitrates, those obsolete pictures<br />Of characters featuring colorless faces,<br />Of subjects long dead and the lingering stigma<br />Of monochrome colors in digitized footage:<br />The murder it plays out like X-Box Three Sixty.<br />http://toylit.blogspot.com/Khakjaan Wessingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501187261486087495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-72415973379730404002010-04-10T10:46:54.192-04:002010-04-10T10:46:54.192-04:00Thanks for you perspective.
I didn't know it ...Thanks for you perspective.<br /><br />I didn't know it had occured during a battle.<br />The media coverage I saw in my country was even worse, they didn't even mentioned that were people armed.<br /><br />I think they made a mistake, and they have being doing some, sometime now. But in a world were most information is so manipulated, at least Wikileaks gives the original documents and data for checking, that no other media does.Jacinto Borgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999631825427620661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-84401334533600622022010-04-08T16:50:11.704-04:002010-04-08T16:50:11.704-04:00If the person peering around the corner is trying ...If the person peering around the corner is trying to fire on the Apache, why when the apache swings around are they all standing in a group?<br /><br />If they were trying to shoot down the helicopter, wouldn't then, I don't know, HIDE, or RUN?Julian Pietersmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06113432468906683880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-40494079049922705862010-04-07T19:11:35.440-04:002010-04-07T19:11:35.440-04:00Not a chance Graham.
Murder is murder any way you...Not a chance Graham. <br />Murder is murder any way you try to dilute it and the attack on those men trying to help that wounded person is murder to any reasonable person in spite of how you personally choose to spin it. <br />This old Nam vet can tell you this stuff happened but often because of guys being all the time scared s***less and firing at anything that moved. <br />No video game playing attitudes then like these new troops who appear <b>totally</b> detached from reality.<br />Wikileaks deserves high praise (and my donation), for cutting through DOD censoring and as productspace noted, I can make up my own mind. Your conclusion is yours alone. I do <b>NOT</b> share it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922903039258147247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-84188468827350075712010-04-07T13:54:19.706-04:002010-04-07T13:54:19.706-04:00My point isn't about the incident, but about W...My point isn't about the incident, but about Wikileaks.<br /><br />Saying that people were "killed" is a statement of fact. Saying that they were "murdered" is a judgment.<br /><br />For some people, their beliefs are so strong, they can't tell the difference. But there is a difference -- and that difference is the basis of honesty, integrity, honor, and ethics. Wikileaks appears to have none.Robert Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09879238874208877740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-45773640535921184812010-04-07T11:43:39.508-04:002010-04-07T11:43:39.508-04:00@Robert
Well, this incident occured in 2007. The ...@Robert<br /><br />Well, this incident occured in 2007. The media reported verbatim the pentagons official line. Reuters tried to investigate - and was denied FOIA requests for the video repeatedly because publishing it would reveal "state secrets".<br /><br />Because of wikileaks, we can now watch this video with our own eyes and make up our own minds and have a discussion.<br /><br />That pretty clearly demonstrates the need for a counterbalance, doesn't it?<br /><br />For a similar case, Greenwalt does a good job contrasting US reporting with, well, real journalism in his article about the hushed up murders in Afghanistan: <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/05/afghanistan/index.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />The thing here is that some media (in this case, the Afghan press) have integrity, believe there are two sides to each argument, find arguments from both sides and report them. Some of them even spend money to go after proof and facts! CNN, NYT, etc. pp. tend to believe that there is the press statement from the Pentagon, it's the truth and publish that. Precisely the thing I am ranting against.<br /><br />And, yes, the video and the investigation report make it bloody obvious that the rules of engagement weren't broken. This is par for the course - if you see people with potential weapons walking in a residential neighborhood, you gun all of them down, including pedestrians simply walking in the way and demolish buildings in said residential neighborhood with missiles, no matter who is in them or if there are other, nearby houses. If some children get wasted in the process, well, it's the fault of the parents for being in a place that is being shot at from armored gunships miles away. I don't know about you, but I am very troubled by the ethics of such SOPs.<br /><br />Watch the long version of the video (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3Dis9sxRfU-ik%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded" rel="nofollow">here</a>) - you can see the clotheslines that indicate that this is a family neighborhood and a woman with child trying to get away from the carnage. This is what we've been doing to this country for the last 7 years *as a matter of course and SOP*? For what possible gain?<br /><br />One exercise that some people have trouble with - imagine the same tactics applied in reverse, maybe to the war on drugs: There's a dealer on a schoolyard and it looks like he might have a sidearm? Boom, waste the kids, parents and teachers. That might cause some resentment, mightn't it? How happy would you be about those helicopters making your country "safer"?productspacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11122317998311822878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-14248456002448984752010-04-07T10:05:03.466-04:002010-04-07T10:05:03.466-04:00They we're shooting people that tried to help ...They we're shooting people that tried to help the injured. There's NO justification for the behaviour of those apache pilots.<br />It's worse than animals.<br /><br />Starting a headline with:<br />Why Wikileaks sucks:<br />Now that's objective journalism!!!<br /><br />When Wikileaks brings truth to the world. <br />CNN is busy with Tiger Woods.<br />They deserve financial support.<br /><br />'An unethical counterbalance is not needed.'<br />Now that's funny.<br />Those actions of the pilots were ethical?Techbloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16202815749759726113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-65356877579145886422010-04-07T09:26:40.771-04:002010-04-07T09:26:40.771-04:001. that is a RPG that guy is leaning on next to th...1. that is a RPG that guy is leaning on next to the guy with the striped shirt.<br /><br />2. he walks out of sight.<br /><br />3. he does NOT reapear at the house corner, that is another guy (the fotographer) with an actual camera.<br /><br />look closly at 4:12, you can see its a long round object attached to a square object, just like a tele lens attached to a slr body.<br /><br />At what war is it acceptable to shoot unarmed people trying to rescoue another anarmed, disabled person? And if a city is a war zone, where to you leave your children?Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17605342766551905110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-55066791357453455482010-04-07T05:54:02.399-04:002010-04-07T05:54:02.399-04:00If american army engages wars and kills children a...If american army engages wars and kills children and innocent people, then something must be wrong. they have no rules: how can you put down an entire building in a city without knowing what and who is inside??? how can you shoot on 2 unarmed men trying to carry away a dying one? <br />This is a massacreUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17452337612149913634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-46965982280616501062010-04-07T01:32:23.527-04:002010-04-07T01:32:23.527-04:00The incident is debatable. The coverup isn't.
...<b>The incident is debatable. The coverup isn't.</b><br /><br />Well, even the "coverup" is debatable. Were there any rules broken here? I'm not sure, I don't have the information. <br /><br />However, I do have an opinion that if it turns out no rules were broken, then the rules should change, as this is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be made public in order to hold the military accountable.<br /><br /><b>We wouldn't have that debate if the well-funded American Media that are happy to uncritically quote "senior government officials" were the only ones doing the reporting.</b><br /><br />The media has integrity; they believe there are two sides to an argument. Just because they don't uncritically take your word for something doesn't mean they are wrong.<br /><br />The flaw in the media isn't due to some "well funded" conspiracy, the flaw is that in the past, the media was our gatekeepers. There was no internet that gave us the video ourselves -- instead there were only newspapers that had to report on what a video like this would contain.<br /><br />The media is dead. There is little need for somebody to report about what's in the video if people can just watch it for themselves on the Internet. We don't need the intermediaries anymore. I only wish that sites like Wikileaks has the same neutral ethics.<br /><br /><b>they are a counterbalance, and a badly needed one</b><br /><br />An unethical counterbalance is not needed.Robert Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09879238874208877740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-62608281059541280432010-04-06T20:47:36.836-04:002010-04-06T20:47:36.836-04:00I disagree largely with your opinion of events, bu...I disagree largely with your opinion of events, but let's put that aside for a moment.<br /><br />The only reason this video came to light was because of wikileaks. The incident (warcrime or unfortunate colateral damage) is debatable. The coverup isn't.<br /><br />There is much value in the debate that is ongoing - about the incident, about the coverup, about the passive and patriotic denialism of mass media, about the SOP in Iraq, about the cost of waging war.<br /><br />We wouldn't have that debate if the well-funded American Media that are happy to uncritically quote "senior government officials" were the only ones doing the reporting.<br /><br />This is why I would strongly encourage supporting wikileaks financially - they are a counterbalance, and a badly needed one; never mind their bias. I can make up my own mind.productspacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11122317998311822878noreply@blogger.com