18
   

WikiLeaks video "Collateral Murder" depicts US military killing civilians in Baghdad

 
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 09:43 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Collateral damage is seldom either murder or a war crime. It certainly isn't in this case.


We aren't talking about the cases where it isn't.


Yes we are. This particular collateral damage is neither murder nor a war crime.



JTT wrote:
completely morally bankrupt person that you are,


Liar.



JTT wrote:
you even support those situations where it is,


Depends on the circumstances. I'm certainly all for the 1945 atomic bombings of Japan. As far as I'm concerned Japan was free to surrender before the bombs if they wanted to avoid being nuked.

However, there are other cases of illegal collateral damage that I oppose (US cluster bombing in urban areas of Iraq for example).

On the other hand, if the US were to massively bombard Italy, I would delight in every single dead child.

It all depends on the circumstances.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 07:33 am
I hate to break up this lovefest you all seem to be haveing, but this might interest you.

The video in question, the "uncensored" video that came from wikileaks, was censored.

http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage

Quote:
You've all seen the edited, 17 minute video of U.S. Apache helicopters killing two Reuters journalists in Iraq. Some of you may have sat through the 39 minute 'Full Version.". But even this video has a full half-hour of footage cut out from the middle. At 31:08, the video fades to black and"according to the time-stamp on the footage"resumes about 30 minutes later to show an additional missile attack.


It makes one wonder exactly who is trying to grind what axe by claiming the video is complette.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 01:48 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
I hate to break up this lovefest you all seem to be haveing, but this might interest you.

The video in question, the "uncensored" video that came from wikileaks, was censored.

http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage

Quote:
You've all seen the edited, 17 minute video of U.S. Apache helicopters killing two Reuters journalists in Iraq. Some of you may have sat through the 39 minute 'Full Version.". But even this video has a full half-hour of footage cut out from the middle. At 31:08, the video fades to black and"according to the time-stamp on the footage"resumes about 30 minutes later to show an additional missile attack.


It makes one wonder exactly who is trying to grind what axe by claiming the video is complette.


Even if the 39 minute video had been complete, I don't see why some people say that "releasing a full video that most won't watch" inoculates them from criticism for having produced the shorter "hatchet job version".
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 02:39 pm
Quote:
U.S. military officials said Monday that they had detained a military intelligence analyst from Potomac for allegedly leaking classified information to the whistleblower site Wikileaks.org. A prominent former hacker said the analyst provided U.S. combat video footage and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records.

Army Spec. Bradley Manning, 22, is being held in Kuwait while officials conduct an investigation, according to the military. He has not been charged.
.
.
.
Manning, according to Wired, had been sifting through military networks for months when he discovered the Iraq video in late 2009. Wikileaks later released it under the title, "Collateral Murder."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/07/AR2010060702381.html?hpid=topnews

I'll bet that he gets some serious time, as a message to anyone else considering doing such a thing.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 05:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hell yes!!! We dont want to know the truth. It might blow our image of the most benign people in the world. George was liberating the people and what better way to do so completely by killing them.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 08:27 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I haven't yet all read seven pages on this.
An article that I reacted to with pros and cons while reading re the main guy but whom I get -

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian


This is probably old news by page seven, but it goes past the collateralmurder video.

Ok, now to read the thread.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 08:42 pm
@ossobuco,
Oh, while they were putting together the video, they skipped the deployment/exploding by the nearby building, re timing and impact of the first part. I may not be the biggest fan of Assange, not sure on the name, re possible manipulation of points of view. But the Katchaturian link I gave is useful for figuring out your takes, one way or the other, or in between.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 11:15 am
Quote:
BAGHDAD -- An Army intelligence analyst has been charged in connection with the leak of a controversial video of a U.S. helicopter strike and the transfer of classified State Department cables, the military said Tuesday.

Pfc. Bradley Manning, 22, was detained in Kuwait in mid-May after Wikileaks, a whistleblower Web site, released the video, titled "Collateral Murder." The footage, taken by cameras on U.S. Apache helicopters, shows several civilians, including two Reuters journalists, being killed in a U.S. strike in July 2007.

Manning faces two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including transferring classified information -- the video, more than 150,000 classified State Department cables and a Microsoft Office PowerPoint presentation -- to his personal computer between November and May. He is also accused of giving "national defense information to an unauthorized source" and "exceeding his authorized computer access."

A military charge sheet says he leaked the material to "bring discredit upon the armed forces."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070602330.html?hpid=topnews

Wow, this kid was stupid. He might have gotten away with it had he had the sense to keep his mouth shout, now he is going to get jail time. The Army for a couple a years has been hard core about using personal computers....the new rules are a pain in the ass but they have been clear that they are serious. No way this guy escapes punishment.
rabel22
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 12:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
In the military the truth will send you to jail, just like the political sphere.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 12:27 pm
I have watched the video, and have a question.

Some of you are claiming that journalists were killed in that attack, so please point out exactly which ones were the journalists.
You cant tell from the video.

Also, how many of you have ever found yourself in that position of those helo pilots?
They had to make a decision based on what they saw and what they were being told, and they had a split second to do so.
In this case, it was literally a life or death decision.

I doubt if many of you have been in that, so while you feel secure in criticizing AFTER the fact, that doesnt make it right.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 03:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Manning faces two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including transferring classified information -- the video, more than 150,000 classified State Department cables and a Microsoft Office PowerPoint presentation -- to his personal computer between November and May. He is also accused of giving "national defense information to an unauthorized source" and "exceeding his authorized computer access."

A military charge sheet says he leaked the material to "bring discredit upon the armed forces."


Exposing the evil does not bring discredit; perpetrating evil brings discredit. In this the US and its military has few equals.

That young man is a hero of the first order.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 04:37 pm
@mysteryman,
A summation of the facts from that ever reliable source, MM McArmy. Case closed. Justice has been served. Move along folks, there's nothing to see here.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 06:02 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
Manning faces two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including transferring classified information -- the video, more than 150,000 classified State Department cables and a Microsoft Office PowerPoint presentation -- to his personal computer between November and May. He is also accused of giving "national defense information to an unauthorized source" and "exceeding his authorized computer access."

A military charge sheet says he leaked the material to "bring discredit upon the armed forces."


Exposing the evil does not bring discredit; perpetrating evil brings discredit. In this the US and its military has few equals.


Only if you count "defense of freedom and democracy" as evil.




JTT wrote:
That young man is a hero of the first order.


No, he's a traitor who helped the Taliban gain insight into more effective ways to kill NATO soldiers.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 10:27 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Only if you count "defense of freedom and democracy" as evil.


Get over that worn out, silly cliche, Oralboy. You've been going down on these folks for so long you have never had time to swallow. Wipe your chin.

Quote:
According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan [in] December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.


Quote:
The Carter administration was well aware that in backing the mujahideen it was supporting forces with reactionary social goals, but this was outweighed by its own geopolitical interests. In August 1979, a classified State Department report bluntly asserted that "the United States' larger interest...would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." That same month, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, State Department spokesperson Hodding Carter piously announced that the U.S. "expect[s] the principle of nonintervention to be respected by all parties in the area, including the Soviet Union."

The Russian invasion in December was the signal for U.S. support to the Afghan rebels to increase dramatically.


Quote:
The objective of the intervention, as spelled out by Brezinski, was to trap the Soviets in a long and costly war designed to drain their resources, just as Vietnam had bled the United States. The high level of civilian casualties that this would certainly entail was considered but set aside. According to one senior official, "The question here was whether it was morally acceptable that, in order to keep the Soviets off balance, which was the reason for the operation, it was permissible to use other lives for our geopolitical interests." Carter's CIA director Stansfield Turner answered the question: "I decided I could live with that."

According to Representative Charles Wilson, a Texas Democrat,

There were 58,000 dead in Vietnam and we owe the Russians one.... I have a slight obsession with it, because of Vietnam. I thought the Soviets ought to get a dose of it.... I've been of the opinion that this money was better spent to hurt our adversaries than other money in the Defense Department budget.



Quote:
The mujahideen consisted of at least seven factions, who often fought amongst themselves in their battle for territory and control of the opium trade. To hurt the Russians, the U.S. deliberately chose to give the most support to the most extreme groups. A disproportionate share of U.S. arms went to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, "a particularly fanatical fundamentalist and woman-hater."' According to journalist Tim Weiner, " [Hekmatyar's] followers first gained attention by throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. CIA and State Department officials I have spoken with call him 'scary,' 'vicious,' 'a fascist,' 'definite dictatorship material."


Quote:
Aid to the mujahideen, who Reagan praised as "freedom fighters," increased, but initially Afghanistan was not a priority:

In the first years after the Reagan administration inherited the Carter program, the covert Afghan war "tended to be handled out of [CIA director William] Casey's back pocket," recalled Ronald Spiers, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, the base of the Afghan rebels. Mainly from China's government, the CIA purchased assault rifles, grenade launchers, mines and SA-7 light antiaircraft weapons, and then arranged for shipment to Pakistan.... The amounts were significant-10,000 tons of arms and ammunition in 1983, according to [Pakistani General Mohammed] Yousaf-but a fraction of what they would be in just a few years.

In March 1985, the Reagan administration issued National Security Decision Directive 166,29 a secret plan to escalate covert action in Afghanistan dramatically:








oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 12:27 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Only if you count "defense of freedom and democracy" as evil.


Get over that worn out, silly cliche, Oralboy. You've been going down on these folks for so long you have never had time to swallow. Wipe your chin.


You freedom haters are something else. It would be poetic justice if you ever became one of the victims of the totalitarian dictatorships you worship.




JTT wrote:
Quote:
The mujahideen consisted of at least seven factions, who often fought amongst themselves in their battle for territory and control of the opium trade. To hurt the Russians, the U.S. deliberately chose to give the most support to the most extreme groups. A disproportionate share of U.S. arms went to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, "a particularly fanatical fundamentalist and woman-hater."' According to journalist Tim Weiner, " [Hekmatyar's] followers first gained attention by throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. CIA and State Department officials I have spoken with call him 'scary,' 'vicious,' 'a fascist,' 'definite dictatorship material."


The propaganda that you are cutting-n-pasting is poorly researched. The US did not select which groups to back. Pakistan did.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 12:39 am
@oralloy,
You deluded little smudge of excrement. You know not of what you speak, you with your John Wayne fantasies. You know nothing of these events and all of a sudden you're the expert.

Notice that you've never provided anything documenting anything.


oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 02:28 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
You deluded little smudge of excrement. You know not of what you speak, you with your John Wayne fantasies. You know nothing of these events and all of a sudden you're the expert.


If I know nothing about them, how come it is always so easy for me to point out all the spots where your cut-n-pastes are completely wrong?



JTT wrote:
Notice that you've never provided anything documenting anything.


I tend to regard your "I hate freedom" show as self-defeating and not all that interesting.

If you tried to pretend that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets, I *might* be interested enough to bother posting a link or two (but only if your post had any semblance of credibility -- if you post obvious BS a simple "no it's not" will suffice as a reply).
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 03:57 pm
@oralloy,
"poorly researched"!

Quote:
The U.S. war on Afghanistan is a brutal attack on a country that has already been almost destroyed by more than 20 years of foreign invasion and civil war.' The Soviet occupation, which lasted from 1979 to 1989, left more than a million people dead. Millions still live in refugee camps More than 500,000 orphans are disabled. Ten million land mines still litter the country, killing an average of 90 people per month. At 43 years, life expectancy in Afghanistan is on average 17 years lower than that for people in other developing countries. The countryside is devastated and is currently experiencing a severe drought, with 7.5 million people threatened with starvation. The death and destruction wrought by the U.S. bombing campaign-and the cut off of food aid deliveries it has caused-have already killed hundreds and produced thousands more refugees scrambling to escape into Pakistan.

But not only is Washington attacking one of the poorest countries in the world, past U.S. government actions are in no small part responsible for the current situation in Afghanistan. The Bush administration claims to be targeting Osama bin Laden, who it says masterminded the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (even though it has offered no concrete evidence to back up this accusation), and Afghanistan's Taliban government, which is sheltering him. But as the Economist magazine noted soon after September 11, " [U.S.] policies in Afghanistan a decade and more ago helped to create both Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalist Taliban regime that shelters him." An examination of this history will reveal the extent to which U.S. foreign policy is based on hypocrisy, realpolitik, and the short-term pursuit of narrow interests.



Compare that to the drivel that regularly drips off your chin, landing on the pages of A2K. A regular Republican bobbing boy.

oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 09:55 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
"poorly researched"!


To put it mildly.



JTT wrote:
Quote:
The U.S. war on Afghanistan is a brutal attack on a country that has already been almost destroyed by more than 20 years of foreign invasion and civil war.' The Soviet occupation, which lasted from 1979 to 1989, left more than a million people dead. Millions still live in refugee camps More than 500,000 orphans are disabled. Ten million land mines still litter the country, killing an average of 90 people per month. At 43 years, life expectancy in Afghanistan is on average 17 years lower than that for people in other developing countries. The countryside is devastated and is currently experiencing a severe drought, with 7.5 million people threatened with starvation. The death and destruction wrought by the U.S. bombing campaign-and the cut off of food aid deliveries it has caused-have already killed hundreds and produced thousands more refugees scrambling to escape into Pakistan.

But not only is Washington attacking one of the poorest countries in the world, past U.S. government actions are in no small part responsible for the current situation in Afghanistan. The Bush administration claims to be targeting Osama bin Laden, who it says masterminded the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (even though it has offered no concrete evidence to back up this accusation), and Afghanistan's Taliban government, which is sheltering him. But as the Economist magazine noted soon after September 11, " [U.S.] policies in Afghanistan a decade and more ago helped to create both Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalist Taliban regime that shelters him." An examination of this history will reveal the extent to which U.S. foreign policy is based on hypocrisy, realpolitik, and the short-term pursuit of narrow interests.


The US had zilch to do with Osama.

US money did fund the Taliban, but all the US did was give it to Pakistan to fund a resistance. It was Pakistan who chose to direct the money to the Taliban extremists.



JTT wrote:
Compare that to the drivel that regularly drips off your chin, landing on the pages of A2K. A regular Republican bobbing boy.


The stridency of your histrionics matches the enormity of your ignorance.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 10:24:05