Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day
1–10 of 113 posts
Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day
#2If it was possible to give a standing ovation to someone via Hacker News, I would. This is perhaps the most sincere, mature, well-thought out commentary I've ever read on anything to do with the Iraq war. Spoken like a true soldier.
edit: to clarify what I mean, I grew up shortly after there was a civil war in my country - and as such I really appreciate soldiers who, having fought on soil that was not their own, are able to recognize the tragedy that occurs on both sides, regardless of politics.
Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day
#3[deleted]
Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day
#4[deleted]
You acknowledge that it's minor, then draw major conclusions from it (sloppy journalism).
It's worth keeping in mind that the hospital's record of her age may be a guess from whoever admitted her. But it doesn't change the point anyone is making, on either side.
Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day
#5The commentary of this soldier, and possibly others, would have provided some context to this incident. He supports the initial engagement, but criticizes the secondary attack on the van and a later firing of a Hellfire missile into a building.
A context the Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" campaign was sorely lacking.
Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day
#6Here is a solid collection of reactions to the video from military blogs. They were a bit after the actual WikiLeaks video hit HN so I never posted the link here, but it might be interesting to those looking for the insightful view of people with relevant knowledge and experience.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/reaction-on-milita...
Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day
#7The commentary of this soldier, and possibly others, would have provided some context to this incident. He supports the initial engagement, but criticizes the secondary attack on the van and a later firing of a Hellfire missile into a building. A context the Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" campaign was sorely lacking.
agree, I support their release of the video, but as the Solider discusses, exposing the average human to the terribleness of War is all you need to do, not overblow with commentary.
Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day
#8The commentary of this soldier, and possibly others, would have provided some context to this incident. He supports the initial engagement, but criticizes the secondary attack on the van and a later firing of a Hellfire missile into a building. A context the Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" campaign was sorely lacking.
Yes; I lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks after that. It seemed as if they'd branched out into the propaganda business. I wonder what made them change direction after so long.
Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day
#9The commentary of this soldier, and possibly others, would have provided some context to this incident. He supports the initial engagement, but criticizes the secondary attack on the van and a later firing of a Hellfire missile into a building. A context the Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" campaign was sorely lacking.
I think you need a lot of context to seriously examine anything.
-The Wire
Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day
#10The commentary of this soldier, and possibly others, would have provided some context to this incident. He supports the initial engagement, but criticizes the secondary attack on the van and a later firing of a Hellfire missile into a building. A context the Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" campaign was sorely lacking.
Yes; I lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks after that. It seemed as if they'd branched out into the propaganda business. I wonder what made them change direction after so long.
how should they provide context?
update: i mean: maybe they had to protect their sources? maybe they have the (naive?) idea that they only have to bring up "the truth" and "the truth" speaks for itself? for sure, there is a gap between them and the traditional media. and: who can you believe when in war?