Wikileaks has really misled the public • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#71

Post by Nwallins » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 5:28 AM UTC

coffeemug wrote: post #63

jeswin wrote: post #54

I am not American; though I usually side with democratic countries as much as I can. However, if you made a really big mistake and went to war with a country which posed no credible threat to you (at least in hindsight when this shooting took place) I'd imagine people would err on the side of caution when shooting somebody's family and loved ones. At least in this part of the world, what is coming across is that your…

what gives America the moral right to talk about human rights when the Iraqi death toll exceeds well over one hundred thousand? Well, the counter argument is that by this logic nobody can talk about human rights. Until very recently in human history the Europeans brutally conquered half the world and effectively turned the "savage people" that were unlucky enough to survive the raping and the pillaging into slaves. L…

> Until very recently in human history the Europeans brutally conquered half the world and effectively turned the "savage people" that were unlucky enough to survive the raping and the pillaging into slaves.

It wasn't just the Europeans. This is the story of conquerors.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#72

Post by Uchikoma » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 5:29 AM UTC

tsally wrote: post #51

metamemetics wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone picking up the bodies and from the van was clearly UNARMED. Unarmed non-combatants were picking up the body of an unarmed non-combatant who never held a weapon.

If I was running an insurgency in Iraq, I would keep a guy in the back of an unmarked van with an RPG and I would drive around pretending to pick up bodies. I think I'd probably get a lot of kills that way. I don't think it's fair to say the van was clearly unarmed, especially when you consider the fact that the van could have been called in to make a pickup by a group of people confirmed to have at least one RPG and…

"I don't think it's fair to say the van was clearly unarmed, especially when you consider the fact that the van could have been called in to make a pickup by a group."

Or my theory: The van COULD have been driven by aliens from Orion 3. Or the van COULD have been driven by the guy from the future who wanted to stop the LHC again by fighting in Iraq. COULD be, you must admit!

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#73

Post by staunch » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 5:29 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #14

"Regardless, no one is allowed to be armed except for Iraqi police and Coalition forces. There is no such thing as an armed Iraqi escort for journalists" Err.. no. Under Iraqi law, everyone was allowed to keep one gun at home. These guns were mostly AK-47s (because that was what was issued to the army). See http://johnrlott.tripod.com/armediraqis.html for example discussion of this. I believe there was an attempt to…

Presumably he meant "armed [in public]". Keeping a gun at home and being able to walk around in groups with them are entirely different things.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#74

Post by rdtsc » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 5:31 AM UTC

steve19 wrote: post #60

andreyf wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched both the short and long versions a couple of times, and there I see no justification for the claim that the truck or those in it were doing anything but trying to move the wounded man to safety. Considering (1) there were children in the front seat visible about as clearly as the weapons the men were supposedly carrying and (2) the dialogue on the radio, it seems clear that the gunman was a little too eager…

I would guess that what made the van suspect was that it drove into the middle of a battle. Everyone within a couple of miles must have heard the 30mm High Explosive shells detonating.

> Everyone within a couple of miles must have heard the 30mm High Explosive shells detonating.

The shooting has stopped by then. There was a long pause after the shooting and before the van arrived. Their fatal "mistake" was to assume Americans wouldn't shoot at a van that picked up an injured journalist to be taken to the hospital.

> would guess that what made the van suspect was that it drove into the middle of a battle.

Just to clarify things. Americans here are the invaders that _created_ the battle (both on a micro and macro scale). The children in the van were just going to school and their father wanted to save a man's life. Shells exploding around them is just business as usual. That is their country, their backyard. They didn't want it, they didn't drive "into" it. It came _to them_ on their way to school.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#75

Post by jeswin » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 5:32 AM UTC

coffeemug wrote: post #63

jeswin wrote: post #54

I am not American; though I usually side with democratic countries as much as I can. However, if you made a really big mistake and went to war with a country which posed no credible threat to you (at least in hindsight when this shooting took place) I'd imagine people would err on the side of caution when shooting somebody's family and loved ones. At least in this part of the world, what is coming across is that your…

what gives America the moral right to talk about human rights when the Iraqi death toll exceeds well over one hundred thousand? Well, the counter argument is that by this logic nobody can talk about human rights. Until very recently in human history the Europeans brutally conquered half the world and effectively turned the "savage people" that were unlucky enough to survive the raping and the pillaging into slaves. L…

ok, I'll bite.

Well, the counter argument is that by this logic nobody can talk about human rights... All I was saying was that when you don't practice what you preach, your credibility suffers.

This is rhetoric, and isn't an interesting statement about what happened in this video... Isn't this exactly what is happening on the ground, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do you read any local news (easily available on the internet) from those countries?

I don't think many people understand the magnitude of suffering in those countries. Do the math, Iraq is a tenth of the size of the US. Work out the per-capita "suffering".

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#76

Post by Uchikoma » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 5:34 AM UTC

Maktab wrote: post #69

Alex3917 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There are weapons visible at various points in the video and an RPG was found at the scene, these people were not all unarmed." The official military statement about the incident was as follows: "The Apache crew fired because militants 'were endangering the stability of Iraq' and because they had positive identification that the militants 'had weapons and were using them against coalition and Iraqi security forces.'…

The second-to-last photograph [1] taken by Namir Noor-Eldeen shows an American Humvee and the radio calls make it clear that there is a ground force in the vicinity which was reporting a contact with the individuals on the ground, was able to see the individuals at various points in the action and was close enough that it took only 8 minutes for them to mount up and arrive on the scene. This group (apparently "Bushma…

They need to drive 8 minutes to get to the scene, when they are "near"? Even when halving the time for mounting and going by 20kmh they were 1km around 1.5km away. Near? What does "in the area mean"? Bagdad?

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#77

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 5:36 AM UTC

jeswin wrote: post #75

coffeemug wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what gives America the moral right to talk about human rights when the Iraqi death toll exceeds well over one hundred thousand? Well, the counter argument is that by this logic nobody can talk about human rights. Until very recently in human history the Europeans brutally conquered half the world and effectively turned the "savage people" that were unlucky enough to survive the raping and the pillaging into slaves. L…

ok, I'll bite. Well, the counter argument is that by this logic nobody can talk about human rights... All I was saying was that when you don't practice what you preach, your credibility suffers. This is rhetoric, and isn't an interesting statement about what happened in this video... Isn't this exactly what is happening on the ground, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do you read any local news (easily available on…

[deleted]

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#78

Post by alexgartrell » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 5:36 AM UTC

jeswin wrote: post #54

I am not American; though I usually side with democratic countries as much as I can. However, if you made a really big mistake and went to war with a country which posed no credible threat to you (at least in hindsight when this shooting took place) I'd imagine people would err on the side of caution when shooting somebody's family and loved ones. At least in this part of the world, what is coming across is that your…

Killing ten Iraqis to save an American soldier is not justifiable, any which way you look at it.

As messed up as it may sound to you, I'd rather my friends make it home. As far as I'm concerned, the blood is on the hands of the people who started and continued the war; not the ones who have to actually fight it.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#79

Post by mos1 » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 5:38 AM UTC

The comments both here and on reddit contain many vivid examples of how people react to a marketing message.

Virtually nobody changed their mind (many simply got more strident in their position when confronted with opposing interpretations.) Many commenters overemphasized the portions of the video that agree with their existing beliefs, while downplaying or arguing portions that were not in line with those beliefs.

It makes me wonder if perhaps precision is overrated when it comes to writing. Perhaps an imprecise record of one's beliefs would be more popular, as it would allow room for this sort of selective interpretation.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#80

Post by pieceofpeace » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 5:38 AM UTC

cellis wrote: post #31

dailo10 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that there were kids in the van and they were trying to help a wounded journalist.

The reality be damned. Hindsight is 20/20. Imagine you're there, in the arena, adrenaline practically oozing out of your pores. You're 500 feet above the one of the most dangerous cities in the world [1], a warzone that's claimed the lives of thousands of young men, just like you, and you've just taken out the armed enemy. That was the enemy. And that guy laying there still is the enemy. And so is anyone helping him.…

If you are fighting insurgents inside cities where enemy is in close proximity of children and women you can not damn reality and shoot to death whoever you suspect to be an enemy. That will always get you more enemies and endless war regardless of the noble cause that you may be pursuing.

What the soldiers are doing is mostly shielding their butts while they maintain their presence. They are not helping the invaded civilians if they are also killing scores of them every now and then while being unable to stop the insurgents who are doing the same thing.