Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks has really misled the public

seminal.firedoglake.com

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hesitated before downvoting you; but I feel I have to because it's very easy (even with the edit) to make these claims online with little or no substance. I feel if this was readily admitted to yourself it would have been admitted to others too and, by now, made it to the mainstream news. Where it would have been a massive, massive story. I also feel all we have is your word and really that's not enough for such a…

You're right, and I hesitated before even posting it. There's a difference in what some people are willing to say to a friend and what people are willing to say to a reporter. Honestly, it's surprising to me that more things like this incident and other like it haven't made it to the mainstream media. Ask any soldier that was on the ground (especially around 2007), and they'll tell you that, maybe, 10% of what is goi…

[deleted]

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was your solution, pull out immediately? Did we really want another Afghanistan. You can't go into a country that unstable, knock out most of the infrastructure and kill the majority of the high command, then just leave. The country would have just descended into civil war. Things aren't that simple, thinking otherwise is short sighted. It'll be much better if the strategy continues to play out as it has been. T…

>What was your solution, pull out immediately? How about "Not going there in the first place" ?

That amounts to little more than intellectual masturbation at this point. Not going there isn't an option, we are there. Even Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted for it. The decision to go into Iraq was truly bipartisan.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to watch the video again. This time, turn off the sound and ignore the captions. A man covered in blood is crawling along the side of the road as you drive by. You say, "My god! This man is injured! We need to help him!" You and your friend jump out to help an injured man, not really sure what's going on, and tell your children to wait in the car. Suddenly you're dead, because a helicopter flying high overhe…

There are some problems specifically in you analysis. > Suddenly you're dead, because a helicopter flying high overhead killed you instantly because you were moving an injured man. Im not sure if it was just your wording but it was several minutes before they fired on them. > it's very clear that these people had no connection to any activity on the scene. The Van is nowhere in sight until the very end of the engagem…

> Im not sure if it was just your wording but it was several minutes before they fired on them.

It didn't take “several minutes”. They hadn't even moved the injured man to the car before they were dead. And it's unlikely that they understood they were in a combat zone. Those helicopters fly high above the scene.

> Have you watched the full 39 minute video?

I've watched the full video once and then after that the shortened one.

> I've only had time to watch it once (so am withholding my full analysis of the engagement) but the same van is visible near the start of the video.

You can't tell if it's the same van on IR. They don't have a color, and I didn't see enough detail on the vehicles we swept over initially to resolve it without color information.

But even if that were the case, would it be so unusual? That wasn't a combat zone, it was an inhabited residential area. People live there.

> It may not have been the same van but it seems a natural and fair assumption that it might be.

Even if you allow for that, the people in the video never take any clear action constituting engagement. They were addressing a wounded man, and showed 0 evidence of retrieving weapons.

> Saying things like "it is clear" based on the single perspective of the Apache gunship seems a little clear cut...

I'm only speaking from the perspective of the pilot's actions. They massacred a family and innocent journalists. And I have to tell you, if they think a tulip hood on a 200mm lens looks like an RPG, then someone is in dire need of a refresher course. That shape couldn't be a more distinct signal of photographic equipment.

The entire engagement and the series of decisions that lead up to it stink.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#154
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think 3:38 looks more like a camera strap. An AK is quite heavy and not something you wave around like that. The quality is quite bad so it might be a weapon, but I don't think you can "clearly see an AK-47". I would be very very surprised if the device at 4:12 is an RPG. It looks and behaves like a long lens camera. At 4:15 you can see a space between the device and the body of the person. An RPG is also quite hea…

The standard AK-47 weighs 9.3 pounds. It's not exactly heavy. There is also a lighter version weighing in at 6.8lbs. The way shown in the video is a plausible, common way to carry that type of weapon. There were AK-47's found at the scene. Those are AK-47s. You think it looks like a camera now. Keep in mind that the helicopter was called in to look for a group of men that were firing at troops on the ground that are…

It's at least more likely that the two guys at 3:50, is carrying an RPG and an AK, then any of the other guys I see in the video. Their behavioral pattern doesn't really match the rest of the groups. At 4:46 you can see something that resembles a magazine sticking out from the striped guy. And the weight of the lift at 3:57 more matches my experience.

To me the chopper crew is just sloppy and they shouldn't be. I get why some grunt storming buildings may accidentally shoot someone holding up a broom or something. But these guys should have the discipline and training to be able to stay cool and wait things out. There's clearly not a full blown street fight going on at this location. And what happens at 5:13?

But frankly I'll always be on the side of war corespondents after reading "My war gone by, I miss it so" and seeing "War Photographer".

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#155
post #44
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Not knowing who someone is is not an excuse to shoot them. It is NOT true that 'anyone helping him' is also an enemy. That is just a recipe for war crimes.

Right. In fact it's exactly the opposite case.

It's really blowing my mind that there are people on this site, which is ostensibly full of informed and educated people, arguing that it's okay to kill someone just because you're not sure and they're helping someone you shot.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your friends do not have to go either wow...if you delete your post, i promise i'll delete my quoting you to remove the evidence of your ignorance.

The American army no longer uses conscription to fill its ranks.

thank you for correcting my facts the way a robot or autistic child would, but allow me to spell this out for you.

ignorance is not the same as factually incorrect. if i said to an obese woman "you are looking fat today," though correct, i would either be behaving purposely mean or ignorant to social norms.

similarly, someone telling another person [the people you love who have chosen to defend your country in war have done so needlessly] is ignorant to social norms.

since you are not american is it safe to assume you personally know zero american soldiers at war right now?

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some problems specifically in you analysis. > Suddenly you're dead, because a helicopter flying high overhead killed you instantly because you were moving an injured man. Im not sure if it was just your wording but it was several minutes before they fired on them. > it's very clear that these people had no connection to any activity on the scene. The Van is nowhere in sight until the very end of the engagem…

> Im not sure if it was just your wording but it was several minutes before they fired on them. It didn't take “several minutes”. They hadn't even moved the injured man to the car before they were dead . And it's unlikely that they understood they were in a combat zone. Those helicopters fly high above the scene. > Have you watched the full 39 minute video? I've watched the full video once and then after that the sho…

> It didn't take “several minutes”.

It was one minute; were both wrong I guess.

> But even if that were the case, would it be so unusual?

According to all of the material (the video and released statements) a van was identified as ferrying combatants around. In the 39 minute video this is actually touched on and in the statements it is explained this was known by the pilots

(don't forget we have one gun cam video from one of the apaches during the latter stages of the operation - previously more action with other gunships had occurred. Without all of that material I dont think we can make a fully accurate assessment)

> Even if you allow for that, the people in the video never take any clear action constituting engagement. They were addressing a wounded man, and showed 0 evidence of retrieving weapons.

Absolutely; I'd not dispute that, and I agree. This was not what I was disagreeing with :)

Im not going to comment on the rest of what your saying because though I disagree in part it's not what I was disputing.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#158
post #48

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. That the journalists were killed is tragic and may very well be due to mistakes or incompetence or even malice, but none of that is clear from this video. What is clear is that the journalist and his driver were in the presence of armed Iraqis carrying AK-47s and RPGs at the wrong time and in…

Your argument seems to basically be "we can't know what the other helicopter saw, so we have to assume they saw weapons." Leaving aside your argument, don't you find the voice track coming from the gunner shocking? The man actually had glee in his voice as he was gunning down people that obviously had no possible chance to defend themselves or harm him. An AK-47 vs. an Apache helicopter is no threat. As others have s…

Your argument seems to basically be "we can't know what the other helicopter saw, so we have to assume they saw weapons."

No. My argument is that we are lacking a huge amount of context by virtue of having only a single narrow view into this event, through the targeting device of only one of the crewmen in only one of the Apaches, so it's foolish to assume that the statements made over the radio are fabrications based on what we're seeing in this video alone. There are at least six separate viewpoints here; those of Bushmaster 06, Hotel 26 and each of the four crewmen in the Apaches; we only have access to a portion of one of those. Just because something mentioned over the radio is not seen in this video does not mean it did not exist. Of course, it doesn't mean it did exist either, but that should go without saying.

I am convinced, based on what I did see in this video, that some of the men were armed. But I can't say that the crew of both Apaches were entirely in the right in the way they behaved or that they were entirely in the wrong, because I don't think it's possible to make such a definitive judgement without having additional context.

Leaving aside your argument, don't you find the voice track coming from the gunner shocking? The man actually had glee in his voice as he was gunning down people that obviously had no possible chance to defend themselves or harm him. An AK-47 vs. an Apache helicopter is no threat. As others have stated, at the range from the gunner's PoV, an RPG, even if he had one, cannot hit the helicopter.

If you think that all soldiers shoot their enemies with grim remorse and regret, you're naive about the realities of war. Those pilots & gunners were convinced those guys are all insurgents (which some appear to have been) and they were pumped with adrenaline which tends to produce a slightly euphoric feeling. It has always been like this; do you really think that bomber crews and fighter-bomber pilots in World War II didn't whoop with joy when they scored a direct hit and wiped out a bunch of enemy soldiers? Of course they did. The quiet introspection comes later, when the adrenaline wears off and they're alone with their thoughts back at base.

Your comments about there being no threat to the helicopters are irrelevant, because the perceived threat was obviously to the vehicles of Bushmaster element, less than 100 m from the street corner where the action took place. The Apaches were also flying in a hostile area, where RPGs had brought down Apaches before, so that would have amped the adrenaline up even further.

The fact that there are cold-blooded killers in the cockpit of a helicopter, that take joy in killing innocent civilians should shock each and every one of us.

It's very clear from the video and the investigation that the crew did not think they were killing civilians, so that's a false premise.

Aren't you sick of being an apologist for an unjustified killing in an unjustified war?

That's hardly a fair or honest question. I have made no statements about the Iraq War as a whole and it's your assumption, based on limited evidence, that the killing was unjustified. A reasonable case can and has been made that the killing, at least of the journalists, was excusable when considering the context.

I have not come down on either side of the argument, but I have on principle sought to oppose some of the more knee-jerk reactions that have made unjustified assumptions about the event based only on this video. This is an exceptionally explosive issue so it's very important that the debate which surrounds it is conducted in a careful and logical manner without excessive emotion. Posts like yours, with emotional arguments and inflammatory language, aren't helpful.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#159
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To ask, pay, and celebrate them for doing the former and then fastidiously insist that they only do it in a way that conforms to our hero fantasies is incongruent. Well, it would be incongruent to do that, yes, but I don't ask them or pay them or celebrate them. I expect the soldiers in the video are just doing what a lot of people would do in the same situation. That might make their behavior in some sense "normal"…

Most of what you're saying could equally well be applied to (e.g.) criticism of suicide bombers This is an example of what I meant by going off the rails. You're extrapolating way beyond anything I said, implied, or thought. Premature generalization is the root of all... something.

>You're extrapolating way beyond anything I said, implied, or thought

In other words, I'm asking for you to be consistent in applying your principles across different situations. If you don't extrapolate, you'll never know whether or not you have double standards. And it's really easy to have double standards when considering the acts of your fellow countrymen vs. those of people who you don't like.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#160
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To ask, pay, and celebrate them for doing the former and then fastidiously insist that they only do it in a way that conforms to our hero fantasies is incongruent. Well, it would be incongruent to do that, yes, but I don't ask them or pay them or celebrate them. I expect the soldiers in the video are just doing what a lot of people would do in the same situation. That might make their behavior in some sense "normal"…

I expect the soldiers in the video are just doing what a lot of people would do in the same situation. They are reacting as they have been trained to react; war is hell, the army build in defense mechanisms like this to ensure soldiers can fight (emotional detachment, jock attitude), they also ingrain absolute discipline to try and avoid scenario's exactly like this. EDIT: supporting evidence - read some military tra…

I agree with you, but I don't see how it goes against what I was saying.
Post reply on HN