Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#51

Post by plinkplonk »

adame944 wrote: post #26

A key line: "I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there. … You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight. …"

I thought this was the key line

"And where the soldier said [in the video], “Well, you shouldn’t take your kids to battle.” Well in all actuality, we brought the battle to your kids. There’s no front lines here. This is urban combat and we’re taking the war to children and women and innocents."

and "I don’t think that [the] big picture is whether or not [the Iraqis who were killed] had weapons. I think that the bigger picture is what are we doing there? We’ve been there for so long now and it seems like nothing is being accomplished whatsoever, except for we’re making more people hate us."

I admire this guy. He seems to take responsibility vs ducking it or explaining it away.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#52

Post by kscaldef »

ck2 wrote: post #42

The innocent people who were killed will never get to talk to the media or their family and friends. Imagine if a foreign military had been flying around your city with high powered weapons looking for insurgents among civilians and were making deadly assumptions and saying things like they did in that video If this video had not come to light, we'd keep thinking that war was cut and dry. Why are people attacking Wik…

> If this video had not come to light, we'd keep thinking that war was cut and dry

I'm not sure why you say that. I didn't think "war was cut and dry" prior to this video being released. Did you?

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#53

Post by ck2 »

kscaldef wrote: post #52
ck2 wrote: post #42

The innocent people who were killed will never get to talk to the media or their family and friends. Imagine if a foreign military had been flying around your city with high powered weapons looking for insurgents among civilians and were making deadly assumptions and saying things like they did in that video If this video had not come to light, we'd keep thinking that war was cut and dry. Why are people attacking Wik…

> If this video had not come to light, we'd keep thinking that war was cut and dry I'm not sure why you say that. I didn't think "war was cut and dry" prior to this video being released. Did you?

There seems to be no shortage of people rationalizing this behavior and relieved to have an explanation, implying it could be condoned.

Just like the all too common abuse of power by police, the end never justifies the means and can never be condoned. Those with power have a much higher responsibility, not less with justifications like "that's just how war is".

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#54

Post by joelhaus »

pquerna wrote: post #7
roboneal wrote: post #5

The 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.

They surely had the right to release the video; however, the manner in which they did it will lead many to question the credibility Wikileaks once enjoyed.

Until watching The Pacific mini-series (currently on HBO), I did not fully appreciate the saying "war is hell". Having never experienced war, I can't fully vouch for the show's authenticity, but if it's even close, you've gotta feel for any human being put in these circumstances.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#55

Post by gruseom »

pg wrote: post #8
roboneal wrote: post #5

The 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.

From various profiles of Assange scattered around the web, it seems clear that he intended Wikileaks to be a propaganda (he uses the word "activist") organization from the beginning. I suppose that implies they were simply biding their time waiting for a leak that would make a big enough propaganda splash (he uses the phrase "maximum political impact") before showing their hand.

It seems we all just projected the role of neutral broker onto them. If nothing else, that shows what a crying need there is for a genuine neutral broker.

Edit: If Assange really cared about his stated goal -- maximal political impact -- he would have done better to let the video speak for itself. By spinning it so aggressively, Wikileaks made it easy for people to dismiss the video, and Wikileaks, as products of an ideological agenda. What it did quite effectively, though, is make Assange a celebrity du moment: he got on Colbert for pete's sake. Between the TV appearances and his juvenile cloak-and-dagger act, I think there's a case to be made that this isn't even about propaganda, it's about ego.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#56

Post by GHFigs »

andreyf wrote: post #30
pg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This was brought up on The Colbert Report's interview of Julian Assange [1]. His response was that they where provided the video under the condition that they'd try to maximize its political impact to the best of their ability. I don't think their strategy was the best way to fullfil that goal (precisely because of the blatant political slant), but that's their stated motivation. 1. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-c…

they where provided the video under the condition that they'd try to maximize its political impact to the best of their ability

With this policy in mind, is it any wonder that Army counterintelligence once wondered: "Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used by FISS, foreign military services, or foreign terrorist groups to spread propaganda, misinformation, or disinformation or to conduct perception or influence operations to discredit the US Army?" -- http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#57

Post by dpatru »

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument that the video was released without context that would justify the American military action. If the American military had wanted context, they should have released the video themselves with additional context. Instead, the American military suppressed the video. They should not complain that the video is now being released without context.

Americans are in Iraq as foreign occupiers. Americans invaded under false pretenses a country that had not attacked them first. The burden of proof is on the Americans, not Wikileaks, to justify American killing of Iraqi innocents.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#58

Post by guelo »

staunch wrote: post #11
simsam wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They're clearly incapable of doing real investigative journalism, so they should stick to what they're good at. Just release all the facts and the media and let the world do the rest.

Without the hype no one would have seen the video. Have you seen all the other documents at Wikileaks or the stuff at criptome? It's hard to penetrate the 24 hour news cycle, they did an admirable job. Even if you didn't like their editing, you have to admit they got you to watch and think about all the people we've killed in Iraq, very few people have managed to do that in the 7 years of this bloody war.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#59

Post by netcan »

plinkplonk wrote: post #51
adame944 wrote: post #26

A key line: "I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there. … You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight. …"

I thought this was the key line "And where the soldier said [in the video], “Well, you shouldn’t take your kids to battle.” Well in all actuality, we brought the battle to your kids. There’s no front lines here. This is urban combat and we’re taking the war to children and women and innocents." and "I don’t think that [the] big picture is whether or not [the Iraqis who were killed] had weapons. I think that the bigge…

I disagree.

This is about the specifics of what happened here. It's about whether or not Americans in Iraq are living up to a high enough standard of ethical warfare in their day-to-day.

These conversations decay into "big picture" when people get tired. It's not the point though. The point of rules of war, engagement or otherwise is 'while there is war..'

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#60

Post by ck2 »

sunchild wrote: post #47

"There’s no easy way to kill somebody. You don’t just take somebody’s life and then go on about your business for the rest of the day. That stays with you. And cracking jokes is a way of pushing that stuff down. That’s why so many soldiers come back home and they’re no longer in the situations where they have other things to think about or other people to joke about what happened … and they explode." I think a lot of…

If you are an American taxpayer, you also pay for their psychiatry and medication for the rest of their lives too when they come back, even if they don't "explode".

I have a friend who was drafted into Vietnam, whose airport was overrun and he had to defend himself with a handgun. To this day he still has serious mental issues from being put in a position to have to kill people face-to-face.

Many soldiers in Iraq were just ignorant kids who rushed to sign up after 9/11 with their misguided thinking they'd go to war against those who did that. Instead they were sent to a manufactured war in Iraq. Doesn't justify this behavior in the least but it does give some insight.

Post reply on HN