Wikileaks Releases Video of US Military War Crimes

[dancingalone]

Check your facts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-among-protesters-at-Barack-Obama-speech.html

Actually I interpreted your sentence as someone in a crowd with a gun within line of sight access to Obama. This wasn't the case as I surmised.

I do agree having an assault weapon outside the convention center where the president is speaking is over the top, though.

 

[dancingalone]

One such instance was even discussed here at MT. A guy openly carrying his side arm during a healthcare speech.

If you're talking about this thread http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79578&highlight=gun+obama+speech, the story says the protester and his rifle was OUTSIDE the building in which Obama made his speech.

 

[Makalakumu]

The Reuters news staff CHOSE to embed themselves with VISIBLY (AK47/RPG) armed terrorists. The bastards got what they deserved. See here.

The more I look at that, the more convinced I am that the thing the guy is holding is a tripod. These people aren't acting like insurgents surrounded by Apache helicopters. No "enemy" is going to just swing a weapon around and walk casually in that situation.

It's a tripod.

 

[CanuckMA]

Maybe it's a tripod, maybe it's an AK. I didn't see anyone that got shot carrying an RPG though. We also don't know how far the Apache was from the crowd.

 

[CoryKS]

Maybe it's a tripod, maybe it's an AK. I didn't see anyone that got shot carrying an RPG though. We also don't know how far the Apache was from the crowd.

Very hard to tell at that distance. He should have just shot it out of his hand to be sure.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Maybe it's a tripod, maybe it's an AK. I didn't see anyone that got shot carrying an RPG though. We also don't know how far the Apache was from the crowd.

AKs are legal in Iraq. And they're certainly not a threat to an Apache helicopter which one of the most awesome things I've ever seen.

I have followed a similar discussion on /. and several people thought that it was possible that the lens + camera has been mistaken for an RPG. There was no RPG in sight afaict.

 

[Malleus]

I'm a bit taken aback by people calling the Reuteurs staff 'bastards.'

I agree that when they embed with a unit they should be aware that they're entering into a very dangerous situation. I think it's incredibly naieve to assume that they didn't realise the risks when they took the job.

I gather a few people are angry with them for being complicit in an attack on US soldiers. I'd ask for a bit of objectivity. Their job is to report on the realities of war from the frontlines, and that’s what they do. They’ve been embedded with US patrols quite a lot, and have been ‘complicit’ in the murdering of the enemy as well. They’re not on anyone’s side, they’re a neutral party just covering the war. Their job is not to tip off the U.S. army that there’s an ambush, it’s to look at it from the perspective of the enemy. If you expect them to provide intel you've no right to expect them not to supply intel to the enemy when embedded with your soldiers. Don't like it? Don't let them embed with your units.

I don't blame the US Army for their deaths; they were embedded with the enemy and knew the risks going in. But demonising them for covering both sides of the story objectively and neutrally, at great personal risk, is tasteless.

 

[CoryKS]

I'm a bit taken aback by people calling the Reuteurs staff 'bastards.'

I agree that when they embed with a unit they should be aware that they're entering into a very dangerous situation. I think it's incredibly naieve to assume that they didn't realise the risks when they took the job.

I gather a few people are angry with them for being complicit in an attack on US soldiers. I'd ask for a bit of objectivity. Their job is to report on the realities of war from the frontlines, and that’s what they do. They’ve been embedded with US patrols quite a lot, and have been ‘complicit’ in the murdering of the enemy as well. They’re not on anyone’s side, they’re a neutral party just covering the war. Their job is not to tip off the U.S. army that there’s an ambush, it’s to look at it from the perspective of the enemy. If you expect them to provide intel you've no right to expect them not to supply intel to the enemy when embedded with your soldiers. Don't like it? Don't let them embed with your units.

I don't blame the US Army for their deaths; they were embedded with the enemy and knew the risks going in. But demonising them for covering both sides of the story objectively and neutrally, at great personal risk, is tasteless.

Objectivity is a conceit for which journalists pat themselves on the back. We, non-journalists, are not required to be objective. Neutrality only comes when you don't give a ****. I give a ****. Maybe you don't, maybe the journalists don't. About that, I am neutral.

Regarding their complicity, I don't know if they are or are not. But when their presence becomes a factor in whether our troops take the shot or not, they are no longer neutral. Look, if they want to maintain their veneer of objectivity and inject themselves into a combat situation, let them. But then don't expect us to grieve for them if they catch a bullet. About that, I am also neutral.

 

[Sukerkin]

Given that I have seen Apache gun-camera footage of them shooting up an American unit, complete with Bradeley's, I am not at all surprised to hear this news.

When a non-military Limey is better at recognising American kit it might be time to consider that there are shortfalls in training.

Given the tenet of some of the posts in this thread too ... well, I wish I could say I was surprised ... but I am not. I was still disappointed enough to actually consider resigning my staff post and never coming back to the board as I didn't want to be associated with any people who could think that way and still look themselves in the eye in the mirror.

One day you fellows will have another war on your soil and you might then recall that those 'casualties' are ordinary people too.

 

[Malleus]

Objectivity is a conceit for which journalists pat themselves on the back. We, non-journalists, are not required to be objective. Neutrality only comes when you don't give a ****. I give a ****. Maybe you don't, maybe the journalists don't. About that, I am neutral.

Being objective is conceited? This doesn't even deserve a rebuttal, as it's self-evidently wrong.

No, you are not required to be objective. If your countrymen are fighting for your freedoms and lives, then it's obvious that objectivity will be hard. For the rest of us, it's evident that there's more than just the US perspective in this war. There are plenty of Iraqi families missing sons as well, and they are every bit as much humans as your soldiers. Objectivity isn't "not giving a ****." If the journalists didn't care, I doubt they'd be risking life and limb to cover the fighting.

Look, if they want to maintain their veneer of objectivity and inject themselves into a combat situation, let them. But then don't expect us to grieve for them if they catch a bullet. About that, I am also neutral.

I agree with you 100%. They're there at their own risk, whether they embed with the US or enemy forces. In both situations they know they'll come under fire, and potentially lose their lives. To me that doesn't make them bastards, it makes them courageous.

 

[CoryKS]

Being objective is conceited? This doesn't even deserve a rebuttal, as it's self-evidently wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conceit
con·ceit –noun


1. an excessively favorable opinion of one's own ability, importance, wit, etc.
2. something that is conceived in the mind; a thought; idea: He jotted down the conceits of his idle hours.
3. imagination; fancy.
4. a fancy; whim; fanciful notion.



I'm not saying being objective is conceited. I'm saying that journalists are not as objective as they give themselves credit for. Some people have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that their job is just that: a job. So, they have to establish a narrative that makes it so much more. Thus, a reporter becomes a Minister of Truth Dedicated to Bringing the Light of Knowledge to The Unwashed Masses.

 

[Archangel M]

Any American reporter who would film am ambush on American troops should be deemed a traitor.

 

[Archangel M]

A pretty well balanced article on what the "real story" probably was:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/reaction-on-military-blogs-to-the-wikileaks-video/

 

[Archangel M]

As to the "they are allowed AK's" issue..fine. But what about RPG's? Anybody armed with an AK hanging around RPG carriers becomes a threat in my book.

 

[Malleus]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conceit

I'm not saying being objective is conceited. I'm saying that journalists are not as objective as they give themselves credit for. Some people have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that their job is just that: a job. So, they have to establish a narrative that makes it so much more. Thus, a reporter becomes a Minister of Truth Dedicated to Bringing the Light of Knowledge to The Unwashed Masses.

Sweeping generalisations are easy to make, aren't they? With a few changes to the above passage I could create a diatribe against any profession. All journalists are not as objective as they give themselves credit for? I'd imagine some of them are guilty as charged, and some of them aren't. Some of them undoubtably are as objective as they say.

Even if we assume that your assumption is true and all journalists aren't objective, look at this event in isolation: The US army has had their side of the story covered, now the opfor is having their story told. That is objective. We now can examine the war from both sides, giving us an objective perspective. This can only be a good thing: one sided coverage is just a step from propaganda.

Any American reporter who would film am ambush on American troops should be deemed a traitor.

I can appreciate where you're coming from. If it were Irish boys about to get ambushed I'd feel compelled to do something. But then I don't think I'd personally get embedded with the enemy, because I wouldn't be able to maintain objectivity.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here's another point that I was thinking about.

These are hardened men. No matter what you think happened, they shot up a couple of kids and just brushed it off and that is a fact. Some of these guys have been on five (or more) tours. They are going to come back and be our neighbors, our cops, our schoolteachers. How do you feel about that?

I have a lot of family members who served in war zones and the toll it took on them was huge. Some of them could hardly function in society (after Vietnam especially). That's a hell of a price to pay for pointless wars based off lies.

This is one of the reasons why I am anti-war, why I am do not support professional standing armies, why I'm so sick of what my country has been doing for so long. The general public doesn't get it. Our media creates a collective fantasy for our minds and we glorify military service, forgetting how monstrous it really is.

After the last ten years, I'm not so quick to clap a veteran on the back and thank them. Thank them for what? What have they really done? I understand that they believe they are serving the country and protecting us, but I don't see it that way. In my opinion, these people have served a system of multinational corporations/banks who have taken control of our country and use the military to further their own interests. If you scratch the surface of our collective fantasy, you are going to find this out and it's why I will try to talk any young person out of serving that I can.

IMO, you don't want to become that guy who can gun down a bunch of kids in a pointless, deceitful war, and laugh it off. You don't want to sell yourself to the corporations and come home and have your ego stroked by a bunch of drooling TV zombies who will feed you all kinds of drugs to make the nightmares go away. You don't want to get blown up, tucked into a corner, left to rot, and forgotten. You don't want to make an oath to the Constitution and to the country and then be forced to break it serving at home and abroad.

Societies that worship this crap are sick, twisted and wicked. Historically, they collapse into a nest of depravity and destroy themselves. We don't have any hope unless we can stop this and recognize it for what it really is. I wish that my countrymen would wake up and find their collective conscience, but alas it is much like the Standford study in which people administered electric shocks to actors even to the point of thinking they were killing the other person. Very few refused to participate.

Strangers in a strange land indeed.

 

[grydth]

If it is the corporate perversion and infiltration of all aspects of our life that you deplore, why not take it out on the greedy top execs instead of common soldiers?

Nobody goes in the Army to save or to serve AIG. Your quarrel would be better placed with the (purchased) politicians, not veterans.

Our military humor was black as well; I don't expect those who weren't there to understand. You're at a murder scene and in the back of your mind you still cannot believe people can do this..... but you have to keep on, and you can laugh or you can cry.

 

[Archangel M]

After the last ten years, I'm not so quick to clap a veteran on the back and thank them.

We have all heard how you don't think service people are deserving of praise or honor before. We get it.

Last 10 years....right.

 

[Big Don]

Here's another point that I was thinking about.

These are hardened men. No matter what you think happened, they shot up a couple of kids and just brushed it off and that is a fact. Some of these guys have been on five (or more) tours. They are going to come back and be our neighbors, our cops, our schoolteachers. How do you feel about that?BLAH BLAH BLAH

Oh, the Crazed Veteran Meme? Again?

 

[Archangel M]

Like George Washington was??