Slashdot Mirror
US Military Launches YouTube Channel
Jenga717 writes "The US military has launched its own channel on YouTube, in efforts to shift the media's focus of Iraq from a negative to a more positive light, and to 'counter the messages of anti-American sites.' From the article: 'The footage is not picked specifically to show the military in a good light ... and is only edited for reasons of time or content too graphic to be shown on YouTube ... And while all the clips currently posted have been shot by the military's combat cameramen, soldiers and marines have been invited to submit their own clips.' The question is, where are they supposed to submit them? Starting 'on or about 14 May 2007', the Department of Defense will block troop access to Myspace, Youtube, MTV, and more sites, due to a 'growing concern for our unclassified DoD Internet, known as the NIPRNET'." More commentary below.
The troops will be unable to access these sites from any computer on the DoD network, yet are still able to access them from their home computers — which they can't use on the DoD network. So why the censorship? The DoD cites security reasons, but the Commander of Global Network Operations (DoD's Joint Task Force)"has noted a significant increase in the use of DoD network resources tied up by individuals visiting certain recreational Internet sites." The PDF released by the DoD reminds troops that this "benefits not only you, your fellow Servicemembers, and Civilian employees, but preserves our vital networks for conducting official DoD business in peace and war." Sounds like quite a sticky situation."
They have done other things like this with other media formats - like Soldier Radio in the 50's.
Propaganda: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
I have tagged the article as such.
well better post some true history on what the usa and uk are up to then so i'd better link these vids on mp3's to the site!
. mp3
. mp3
Rory Bremner gives a hilarious and historical look at the history of conflict in Iraq.
1 Between Iraq and a Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by43joQLYj8
2 Beyond Iraq and a Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JCLwhwTmM
3 Beneath Iraq And A Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipa8DuKyN6I
Robert Newmans History of Oil:
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Ecd6361Ls
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZefONsT1E8
3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ0RX3vz-Og
4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLxxybJWVRI
5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsknJvrfSYA
WE ARE NOT IN IRAQ FOR OIL !!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWiLshk6fSU
an interesting lecture by Michael Ruppert: part on starts after brief music:The Truth and Lies of 9-11 A lecture by former LAPD narcotics officer, Michael Ruppert, held at Portland State University in November 2001. He explains how September 11th is connected with oil, gas, heroin, money laundering and the US stockmarket
1: http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug95-hour1mix
2: http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug95-hour2mix
The Truth Is Out There:
According to the article, the channel is named "Multi-National Force-Iraq", but a search on YouTube does not turn up anything.
The article states it is the 16th most subscribed channel on YouTube, but I don't see it anywhere in the top subscribed channel list.
Did the military or YouTube remove it?
Here, let me help you out a little. I happen to know the guys from the apache farmer video. Think about it for a second, it's night....late at night. How many people do you know work on farm equipment in the dark late at night? Also when we went out there after all of this you know what we found? Oh, wow missiles and rockets, the only reason that they didn't shoot at the Apache is that they didn't know where it was. When you can't tell the enemy from the guys that aren't the enemy bad shit happens. No, it's not right but it happens, just because you didn't hear about it in other wars doesn't mean that it doesn't happen either. Oh, and blowing up a Mosque we only do when there is good reason (think bombs) to do so. You're going to believe what you're going to believe no matter what someone tells you, but everything you see on Youtube and the TV isn't necessarily what the person showing it to you tells you it is. Also before you go waving around the Geneva convention about shit you may want to read it, I remember reading somewhere that if the enemy doesn't follow it you don't have to either and I do remember some videos of people having their head sawed off among other things. I feel for the Iraqis, as did most of my compatriots in Iraq but it's not our fault if shit happens... we cannot I repeat cannot tell the difference between the enemy from the innocents so some innocents do get caught in the crossfire. How about you blame the suits who put us there in the first place? I sure as hell didn't want to go and most people in the military are not the bloodthirsty sick fucks you seem to think we are. That's why I got out of the military, I saw way too much and couldn't stand the thought of my little girl never knowing who her daddy was. Nor could I stand to see another little girl dead in the street because some asshole decided to start shooting and grabber her to use as a shield. That made me equal parts angry and sick, I actually vomited when it was over and sometimes I have nightmare because of it. Oh, but you don't see those videos do you?! You also don't see the videos of the guys walking into a crowd of schoolchildren and then setting off a bomb hoping to get one or two soldiers do you? No, because you want to fervently to believe that the soldiers in the service are bloodthirsty animals to soothe your conscience for some strange reason. So you sir can fuck off and maybe try to get your facts straight.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
Who is spouting unfounded propoganda, again?
You are:
Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in breach of UNSCR 687. Uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq;
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/page275.asp
Wow, your post has a lot of logical fallacies in it.
First to say that the actions of a few condemn the whole is an idea that is propagated by those who can not adequately create coherent thoughts. It's almost childish. I realise that you may not believe that, but there are others out there who paint the world with such a brush. But based on that, should we start rounding up Iraqis off the street and executing them since some of them are jihadists who aren't content with attacking only the foreign invaders, but also Sunnis, Kurds, Sh'ias, Druzis, etc? And what of foreign nationals that the US military finds in Iraq? Since quite a few of them are fighters, and the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them, should they be taken out behind the latrines and shot as spies?
Your thoughts that the force should be segued into a policing action would be nice if the people that were causing problems were natives. However, the US lead coalition was not the last bunch of people to invade their country. With the second wave of invasion, they've brought forms of Islam even more radical that what existed pre-invasion. Most Iraqis don't want these foreign influences interfering with their country any more than they want the US doing it.
Your assertion that we're going around murdering people who approach roadblocks too quickly is quite sad. Quick, how long have we been over there? Yep, 4 years. In 4 years, I'm sure everyone's either heard how to behave around the US military (which most likely offers them quite a bit of latitude compared to the conditions they had to put up with under the Baathist party), or they've read THE FUCKING signs. Every single convoy has them posted on the back of the vehicles in large letters (both Arabic and English). Furthermore, as I said earlier, quite a bit of leeway is allowed them. Case in point. I have a friend who works as a convoy gunner. They're taught how to identify and dissuade people from approaching the convoy. At any rate, he was on patrol one day when a vehicle was approaching the stopped convoy. IIRC, they were dismounting for a toilet break. He followed the ROE perfectly, but at the last minute, squeezed off a single shot (if it escalates, the gunner is supposed to aim for the engine block and than walk their fire across the cabin). This finally got the old man's attention. He veered off the road and my friend saw two little girls' heads pop up looking around. Bet you never heard that did you? But of course, according to your thinking, since people have been killed before at roadblocks, that makes them all bad rather than separating the really bad people from the average joe.
Yes because troops are not allowed to disobey orders they see as illegal. Troops are not allowed to think for themselves so we can't blame them can we?
As far as I have heard troops are obliged to refuse to carry out clearly illegal orders, I think that rule was created after Nuremberg trials
Actually, it only applies to uniformed soldiers. No uniform, no protections.
Of course, we should be better than that, too.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
The full version of the "helicopter kill" video was shown on ABC Nightly News. Watching it, it's pretty obvious the guys who were killed were looking around, trying to make sure they weren't being watched, and trying to minimize the time they were actually in possession of what looks a lot like a SAM launcher tube. It's very ironic that a version of the video edited to make the military look bad should show up in a discussion criticizing the military of propaganda.
All but a very few posts on Slashdot fit that definition.