Well, given that it can take a few hundred years for a religion to go from "unknown messianic figure" stage to finally hitting critical mass and taking over, chances are that a relatively new religious movement in today's world will be peaking then, driving new waves of intolerance. Scientology, maybe?
The RIAA's claims, for all their outsized lunacy and frothy-mouthed legalese, are a) plainly ludicrous on their face, and b) finite in size, albeit gigantic.
China's claims are couched in far more reasonable language, but since they lay claim to the free speech rights of over a billion people, I would argue that their claim is smaller in total numbers, but larger in actual impact and value.
Do Chinese people enjoy freedom of speech on the Internet in a substantively different way than we do?
Yes. The Chinese government engages in an active propaganda/disinformation campaign in an effort to rewrite history. Search for Tiananmen Square in a mainland Chinese search engine, and you will find lots of info on the place itself, but likely not so much on the violent crackdown in 1989, thanks to the government.
That assumes that the portions are reasonable for the person who ordered it. My wife is petite, can rarely finish a whole entree, and usually takes half of it home. What's his policy on taking it home for later? Since he seems to be offering garnishes that are appropriate for sushi, chances are that not too many of his patrons are eager to a doggie bag of highly perishable food home.
I can understand this policy at a buffet restaurant, but if I walk in and order a specific menu entree, I expect that the fact I paid for it gives me the right to do with it as I damn well please. I'm not paying him to be my mother. I'm paying him to prepare the damn food.
I'm clearly taking issue with laughing about it... My emotional reaction to what I watched is not false.
Now this I get, and I don't dispute that your emotional reaction to it is genuine. That's what a normal reaction should be. This isn't a normal situation.
Laughter is not always about humor. People laugh in uncomfortable situations and at inappropriate times for inappropriate reasons. It can become a coping mechanism for dealing with emotions that aren't allowed any other outlet, or dealing with the cognitive dissonance that results from a person raised in civilization who finds themselves driving over dead bodies in a foreign land.
Laughter is also one of the most primal forms of human communication. It's like hearing a baby cry, in that it is understood across language and cultural barriers. When we hear it, it jumps right past the more sophisticated parts of our brain, and generates an automatic reaction. No wonder hearing it in this context is jarring and upsetting. It doesn't fit with what we're seeing.
I see you still won't admit bias. Okay, let's break this down.
What you're doing is asserting that I am biased on the grounds that I "interpreted" your words.
Yes.
You refuse to say how I was wrong in my interpretation or clarify what your position actually is.
Wrong. I have been clear about my position from the beginning.
And most of the press presume their job is to smear others and advance their own agenda in much the same way.
But rather than simply reiterate that which you have already misinterpreted, let me paraphrase. My position is as follows: "Worldwide, press and media outlets have many different biases and agendas which are reflected in their reporting."
Your interpretation was wrong on two key counts. First, you assumed I meant only the American press. Second, you assumed that I meant their bias was only anti-Pentagon. I was referring to press throughout the world, and I only stated that biases exist in their reporting - not the nature of their biases.
At this point you've taken no discernible position whatsoever
Not true, but for clarification, see above, starting with "My position is... "
you're not asking me a clear question
My question was quite clear. You're just avoiding it, or trolling. But for the sake of further clarity, let's break it down.
- Do you have biases and/or preconceptions? This should be a simple yes or no.
- If 'yes', are you aware of what your biases are? If 'no', congratulations. That would make you the first and only person in the world to be free of bias. You are not, however, the first to be deluded into thinking they are free of bias.
- If yes, could your biases have affected your interpretation of the video?
You don't have to answer to me. I've already formed my opinion of you, and frankly, I don't see what that matters to you. But answer to yourself for your own sake. Honest introspection is a good thing from time to time.
And you just want to change the subject from a substantive argument about American institutions into an obnoxious meta-argument.
It wasn't an argument about American institutions. You introduced that, not I. If you want to discuss the American press and military, fine, let's do it.
As for the meta-argument, don't keep it up for my sake.
Bull. I went back and listened to the missile engagement, and there was no "begging".
The American forces were chasing insurgents , and six of them took refuge in a building. Around 31:49, the helo crew says "We can put a missile in it."
No begging.
That is then relayed to someone else "If you'd like, Crazyhorse one-eight could put a missile in that building." No begging.
Bushmaster two-six is apparently coordinating the forces, and gives clearance to the helo "If you've PID'd... go ahead and engage." From there on in, the dialog has to do with safely lining up the first shot, and then the follow-up shot.
Nothing indicates that they were "begging" to shoot missiles.
The crew had a distinct desire to unload their entire complement of ammo before returning home.
That is fantasy and speculation. Nothing in the video indicates they are trying to unload all their ammo. If missiles are the right ordinance to take out a hardened target like a building, that's what you use.
This is central to the premise, and cannot be logically ignored, except perhaps by accident.
I'm not ignoring it; I'm disputing it. You're right that it's central to the premise, but since it is fabrication and wishful thinking, the premise is left with nothing but an anti-war fantasy. You even go on to invent dialog:
"Come on Mr Journalist, crawl a little further and I can finish killing you," wouldn't be too great a stretch from what actually happened.
Yes it would be a stretch. They didn't say that. That's like you saying "Hey, I had sex last night", and I respond by saying "Well, saying you raped her wouldn't be too great a stretch." Stick to the facts, man.
Simply put, they were ready to re-engage a person who appeared to be hostile. Nothing more, nothing less. If they did say "Mr. Journalist", that would give you your "proof", because it would actually demonstrate the prior knowledge that you so desperately want to believe was there. But they didn't.
"I just crushed the corpse of a civilian with my Bradley, lol!" I can actually see this on Facebook...
You mean that you can imagine that on Facebook. Unless of course you actually have that on the actual FB page of the actual Bradley driver involved, which of course you don't. But that brings up another point. You and many of the other slashdotters I've discussed this film with are eager to tar & feather the helo crew based on your outrage the actions of others... like the driver who appears to have driven over a corpse. How about not confusing the actions of one person with the actions of another?
By the way, if you think that driving over a corpse either accidentally or on purpose is in any way unique or unusual in warfare, think again. As long as there has been mechanized armor and cavalry, it has been driven over corpses. And before that, the mounted cavalry did the same. Maybe it doesn't make sense to your nice, sensitive, peace and decency loving mind, but them's the facts.
The point is, ignoring the tenor of their desire paints the situation in too clean of a light.
The fact is, your bias is creating the "tenor of their desire" through creative interpretation.
I can only interpret this as a suggestion that the innate "smear" bias of the press somehow runs counter to the bullshit machine of the American military. And when you say press, I presume you are talking about American press.
Exactly. Your biases and assumptions are plain.
The fact that you can "only interpret this" one way when in fact there are at least two interpretations (my intended interpretation "the press in the US and elsewhere have various biases and agendas" and yours (paraphrased) "the US press has a bias against Pentagon PR"), shows that you are introducing presumptions that were not present in my original statement, and therefore you misinterpreted it.
since we are talking about America where virtually nobody reads foreign press
Again, your bias is clear. Actually, I do read foreign news. I'm limited to mostly English-format reports, since my only foreign language is French, and even that's poor enough that I'd rather read someone else's (hopefully reliable) translation. Am I perfectly informed? Am I free of biases? Of course not. No one is. But I'm a lot more informed and balanced than someone like you who can't even see, much less admit, their own biases.
Whichever sentence it was that you are referring to.
I'm sorry. Did you have a hard time following that? I was referring to:
And most of the press presume their job is to smear others and advance their own agenda in much the same way.
... which you had so much trouble understanding properly. I quoted two sentences in that post. One was yours, one was mine. Are your powers of observation and reading comprehension really that poor, you couldn't tell what I was referring to?
I don't think that's true. You know you're smarter than that. The fact is, you're being asked to acknowledge your own biases. I think that is so threatening to you and your precious preconceptions that you would rather attempt to confuse the issue and drop the question than answer it.
So let's be clear. I'm asking you a question. The question is, "In light of your obvious biases and tendency to jump to unwarranted conclusions, do you think that your biases may have caused you to misinterpret what you saw and heard on the film?"
I watched the "full" 39 minute video with the hole in the middle. Love to see the unedited version, but apparently this is all the leak wanted us to see.
They used missiles against targets in a building. Sounds logical to me.
I'm not surprised that it was in a JAG officers files. I imagine the killing of civilians, esp. civilian press corps, gets the attention of brass. Not in a good way, either. Just because we don't hear about it on the outside doesn't mean it's not being investigated.
Anyone who claims that this is clear cut, that there is zero doubt, is biased.
I hope you're not aiming that at me. My words:
"I believe... Given the circumstances, the most plausible explanation... "
... are a pretty clear indication that I'm taking what I believe to be a reasonable position, but I'm willing to allow for others' interpretations.
Also, that cuts both ways. Many people here and on other forums take this video as clear proof that the US guns down civilians on purpose. I'm glad to see we agree that this video is not clear proof of that.
2) No need for any evidence or arguments. Just assert your viewpoints as facts.
Well, I might say the same about you. If you want me to write a full research paper on the subject with sources and footnotes, I suppose I could, but I'm not about to. What's your opinion of Helen Thomas? She doesn't seem to be a pro-Pentagon sycophant.
Then you can try to change the subject when you're caught bullshitting.
Again, this is you, not me. Evidence? Sure. The original topic was the wikileaks source and the video he leaked. Now you're talking about WMD and Pentagon PR, both of which appeared in your posts before I responded. Bullshitting? Not me, pal.
I'm impressed. You've been trained well by American media.
I read news from all over the world. Your paranoia and angst are no substitute for critical thinking.
Saddam cooperated with round after round of UN weapons inspections.
He put on a show. For years, even the UN inspectors themselves said he was giving them the runaround. Later at trial it came out that he thought that without WMD he would be perceived as weak by his neighbors and invaded, so he kept up the ruse in the hopes of a) appearing stronger than he was, and b) outlasting the international sanctions and inspections, which he nearly did. There was a growing chorus of voices in the UN to give up on the sanctions when the US acted. Interestingly, these requests all came from countries that stood to gain from keeping Saddam in power. Ironically, if he had been fully compliant, he'd still be in power today.
It would be nice if the press WOULD smear the military,
Well, they do. The Wikileaks footage was edited to show the incident in the worst possible light, and the left-wing press (Slate, HuffPo, etc) got lots of mileage out of it.
I don't think that media smear campaigns are appropriate in any circumstance. It enlarges the problem of bias in the press and does more damage to the credibility of the press, which is already (in my mind anyway) in tatters. Plus, if there is legitimate reason to attack someone or something, why not report that, rather than a trumped-up story?
But if you're serious, start your own media website. The Drudgepoo Report, or WikiDrinkyleaks.com. Let me know. I'll read you. I might not buy most of what you're saying, but I'll look to see what you have.
Since the video has been edited, we don't really know, do we?
I'd love to get my hands on the full video. It would be nice to see whether or not it backs up what the crew testified to.
The presence of some audio on the video stream directing them to attack it for a specified reason does not prove that specified reason was why they were directed to attack it.
Ugh. Well, I'll grant you that evidence is always open to interpretation, but if you're claiming that the audio was faked, either post-production or by those on the radio faking the whole exchange to cover the imminent but unannounced killing of civilians, I'd say that's an extraordinary claim, which requires correspondingly extraordinary evidence to support it. You have a point that the evidence we have is tainted, and to what degree we can't be sure. True. But beyond that, we're just fishing. Follow that line of reasoning far enough, and you find yourself falling down a rabbit hole or paranoia and solipsism.
I mentioned American press because the American press is the institution that you falsely claimed was adversarial to the pentagon PR machine.
Please show me where I initiated that claim about the American press. I referred to "the press". The first mention of "American press" was by you. Furthermore, I never claimed it was "adversarial to the pentagon PR machine", simply that the press (which is a varied and diverse group with equally diverse sets of biases) views events through their own sets of biases and assumptions, and often presents "news" in a way that advances their agenda.
As a matter of fact, we can see a microcosm of that in your response to me. You took the following statement:
And most of the press presume their job is to smear others and advance their own agenda in much the same way.
... and from that, you either falsely perceived or deliberately fabricated that I said American press, and also that I said they were "adversarial to the pentagon PR machine", which I clearly didn't.
In misinterpreting what I said, which was extremely clear, you've exposed some of your biases. That's okay - we all have them. Me. You. Everyone. Now, do you suppose that your evaluation of the heavily edited, fuzzy, grainy, black & white film was as unbiased as your evaluation of my clear, simple, concise single sentence?
Hmm. Disagreeable mod is disagreeable. He also seems to have plenty of mod points to go around. Since you clearly aren't flaming anyone he's obviously doing it purely for censorship reasons, which is kind of ironic, given the circumstances. +5 Informative from my point of view, but I don't have any points to give.
Hey, editors, can we get unity100 modded back up please? He's clearly being targeted for speaking out. Gracias
That kind of falls under "you can't prove a negative". So, if you're looking for cold, clinical proof, you're out of luck. However, it does suggest a plausible and consistent pattern of behavior - "Kill bad guys when I can and avoid civilians when I can, based on the info I get from my fellow soldiers and this cruddy little b/w camera".
Are there other possibilities? Sure. Would I consider these other possibilities? Sure. Do I buy them? None so far. Not without better information.
Yes, I do think this war is unjust - which war is not?
In the paraphrased and irreverent words of Bart Simpson: The American Revolution, World War II, and the Star Wars trilogy. Look, seriously, war is hell. Even when you're fighting for good against evil like le Resistance in WW2 France, war is hell, and good innocent people get hurt.
AFAIK, the military does actually review screw-ups and try to mitigate problems. Do they catch them all? Hell no. Do they do it in the public eye? Hell no. But I think it is significant that the guy who claims to have released this video to Wikileaks claims he found it on a JAG officer's files. That means that before the video caused public outrage, it was already being reviewed internally.
Yes, we both watched the same video, and we came to different conclusions based on our own interpretations as relatively ignorant outsiders. Since neither you of I are trained and experienced Apache crew, I'll direct your attention to this guy.
Don't be coy. By "playing devil's advocate", you were throwing out unfounded speculation, (which I'm okay with; you just have to give me the same latitude) which is hardly "talking about what actually happened".
Furthermore, I'd argue that stating that gunship crews regularly kill innocents because they know they can get away with it implies A) they are brutal and vicious, and B) part of an equally brutal and vicious military that covers for their actions.
A quick read of the other comments here also shows that many slashdotters have described the American military brutal, repressive, and vicious, which is where I drew my presumption from.
All I'm saying is that if I take your statement at face value, then my statement is reasonable as well. Plus, if they could get away with it in the video, what was so different about the other times?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, given that it can take a few hundred years for a religion to go from "unknown messianic figure" stage to finally hitting critical mass and taking over, chances are that a relatively new religious movement in today's world will be peaking then, driving new waves of intolerance. Scientology, maybe?
With a whip and handcuffs, just like everyone else.
you're exactly the type of people he's trying to deter from his restaurant.
Doubtful. I always order a reasonable amount and finish it all.
Wait, you mean Bambi's mother, don't you?
China's claims.
The RIAA's claims, for all their outsized lunacy and frothy-mouthed legalese, are a) plainly ludicrous on their face, and b) finite in size, albeit gigantic.
China's claims are couched in far more reasonable language, but since they lay claim to the free speech rights of over a billion people, I would argue that their claim is smaller in total numbers, but larger in actual impact and value.
Do Chinese people enjoy freedom of speech on the Internet in a substantively different way than we do?
Yes. The Chinese government engages in an active propaganda/disinformation campaign in an effort to rewrite history. Search for Tiananmen Square in a mainland Chinese search engine, and you will find lots of info on the place itself, but likely not so much on the violent crackdown in 1989, thanks to the government.
You misunderstand free speech. In the US you are free to speak your words as you wish.
HER posted policy
Oops. My bad. Time for me to RTFA.
I hope so. I think so. It's hard for an outsider like me to contemplate, though. Anyway, here's to a lasting peace coming soon [raises coffee mug].
That assumes that the portions are reasonable for the person who ordered it. My wife is petite, can rarely finish a whole entree, and usually takes half of it home. What's his policy on taking it home for later? Since he seems to be offering garnishes that are appropriate for sushi, chances are that not too many of his patrons are eager to a doggie bag of highly perishable food home.
I can understand this policy at a buffet restaurant, but if I walk in and order a specific menu entree, I expect that the fact I paid for it gives me the right to do with it as I damn well please. I'm not paying him to be my mother. I'm paying him to prepare the damn food.
Okay, so we see it differently.
Different question: Do you think it is possible to fight a war and remain humane?
I'm clearly taking issue with laughing about it ... My emotional reaction to what I watched is not false.
Now this I get, and I don't dispute that your emotional reaction to it is genuine. That's what a normal reaction should be. This isn't a normal situation.
Laughter is not always about humor. People laugh in uncomfortable situations and at inappropriate times for inappropriate reasons. It can become a coping mechanism for dealing with emotions that aren't allowed any other outlet, or dealing with the cognitive dissonance that results from a person raised in civilization who finds themselves driving over dead bodies in a foreign land.
Laughter is also one of the most primal forms of human communication. It's like hearing a baby cry, in that it is understood across language and cultural barriers. When we hear it, it jumps right past the more sophisticated parts of our brain, and generates an automatic reaction. No wonder hearing it in this context is jarring and upsetting. It doesn't fit with what we're seeing.
What you're doing is asserting that I am biased on the grounds that I "interpreted" your words.
Yes.
You refuse to say how I was wrong in my interpretation or clarify what your position actually is.
Wrong. I have been clear about my position from the beginning.
And most of the press presume their job is to smear others and advance their own agenda in much the same way.
But rather than simply reiterate that which you have already misinterpreted, let me paraphrase. My position is as follows: "Worldwide, press and media outlets have many different biases and agendas which are reflected in their reporting."
Your interpretation was wrong on two key counts. First, you assumed I meant only the American press. Second, you assumed that I meant their bias was only anti-Pentagon. I was referring to press throughout the world, and I only stated that biases exist in their reporting - not the nature of their biases.
At this point you've taken no discernible position whatsoever
Not true, but for clarification, see above, starting with "My position is ... "
you're not asking me a clear question
My question was quite clear. You're just avoiding it, or trolling. But for the sake of further clarity, let's break it down.
- Do you have biases and/or preconceptions? This should be a simple yes or no.
- If 'yes', are you aware of what your biases are? If 'no', congratulations. That would make you the first and only person in the world to be free of bias. You are not, however, the first to be deluded into thinking they are free of bias.
- If yes, could your biases have affected your interpretation of the video?
You don't have to answer to me. I've already formed my opinion of you, and frankly, I don't see what that matters to you. But answer to yourself for your own sake. Honest introspection is a good thing from time to time.
And you just want to change the subject from a substantive argument about American institutions into an obnoxious meta-argument.
It wasn't an argument about American institutions. You introduced that, not I. If you want to discuss the American press and military, fine, let's do it.
As for the meta-argument, don't keep it up for my sake.
Emphasis on the 'begged' to be able to do so.
Bull. I went back and listened to the missile engagement, and there was no "begging".
... go ahead and engage." From there on in, the dialog has to do with safely lining up the first shot, and then the follow-up shot.
The American forces were chasing insurgents , and six of them took refuge in a building. Around 31:49, the helo crew says "We can put a missile in it." No begging.
That is then relayed to someone else "If you'd like, Crazyhorse one-eight could put a missile in that building." No begging.
Bushmaster two-six is apparently coordinating the forces, and gives clearance to the helo "If you've PID'd
Nothing indicates that they were "begging" to shoot missiles.
The crew had a distinct desire to unload their entire complement of ammo before returning home.
That is fantasy and speculation. Nothing in the video indicates they are trying to unload all their ammo. If missiles are the right ordinance to take out a hardened target like a building, that's what you use.
This is central to the premise, and cannot be logically ignored, except perhaps by accident.
I'm not ignoring it; I'm disputing it. You're right that it's central to the premise, but since it is fabrication and wishful thinking, the premise is left with nothing but an anti-war fantasy. You even go on to invent dialog:
"Come on Mr Journalist, crawl a little further and I can finish killing you," wouldn't be too great a stretch from what actually happened.
Yes it would be a stretch. They didn't say that. That's like you saying "Hey, I had sex last night", and I respond by saying "Well, saying you raped her wouldn't be too great a stretch." Stick to the facts, man.
Simply put, they were ready to re-engage a person who appeared to be hostile. Nothing more, nothing less. If they did say "Mr. Journalist", that would give you your "proof", because it would actually demonstrate the prior knowledge that you so desperately want to believe was there. But they didn't.
"I just crushed the corpse of a civilian with my Bradley, lol!" I can actually see this on Facebook...
You mean that you can imagine that on Facebook. Unless of course you actually have that on the actual FB page of the actual Bradley driver involved, which of course you don't. But that brings up another point. You and many of the other slashdotters I've discussed this film with are eager to tar & feather the helo crew based on your outrage the actions of others ... like the driver who appears to have driven over a corpse. How about not confusing the actions of one person with the actions of another?
By the way, if you think that driving over a corpse either accidentally or on purpose is in any way unique or unusual in warfare, think again. As long as there has been mechanized armor and cavalry, it has been driven over corpses. And before that, the mounted cavalry did the same. Maybe it doesn't make sense to your nice, sensitive, peace and decency loving mind, but them's the facts.
The point is, ignoring the tenor of their desire paints the situation in too clean of a light.
The fact is, your bias is creating the "tenor of their desire" through creative interpretation.
I can only interpret this as a suggestion that the innate "smear" bias of the press somehow runs counter to the bullshit machine of the American military. And when you say press, I presume you are talking about American press.
Exactly. Your biases and assumptions are plain. The fact that you can "only interpret this" one way when in fact there are at least two interpretations (my intended interpretation "the press in the US and elsewhere have various biases and agendas" and yours (paraphrased) "the US press has a bias against Pentagon PR"), shows that you are introducing presumptions that were not present in my original statement, and therefore you misinterpreted it.
since we are talking about America where virtually nobody reads foreign press
Again, your bias is clear. Actually, I do read foreign news. I'm limited to mostly English-format reports, since my only foreign language is French, and even that's poor enough that I'd rather read someone else's (hopefully reliable) translation. Am I perfectly informed? Am I free of biases? Of course not. No one is. But I'm a lot more informed and balanced than someone like you who can't even see, much less admit, their own biases.
Whichever sentence it was that you are referring to.
I'm sorry. Did you have a hard time following that? I was referring to:
And most of the press presume their job is to smear others and advance their own agenda in much the same way.
I don't think that's true. You know you're smarter than that. The fact is, you're being asked to acknowledge your own biases. I think that is so threatening to you and your precious preconceptions that you would rather attempt to confuse the issue and drop the question than answer it.
So let's be clear. I'm asking you a question. The question is, "In light of your obvious biases and tendency to jump to unwarranted conclusions, do you think that your biases may have caused you to misinterpret what you saw and heard on the film?"
I watched the "full" 39 minute video with the hole in the middle. Love to see the unedited version, but apparently this is all the leak wanted us to see.
They used missiles against targets in a building. Sounds logical to me.
I'm not surprised that it was in a JAG officers files. I imagine the killing of civilians, esp. civilian press corps, gets the attention of brass. Not in a good way, either. Just because we don't hear about it on the outside doesn't mean it's not being investigated.
Anyone who claims that this is clear cut, that there is zero doubt, is biased.
I hope you're not aiming that at me. My words:
"I believe ... Given the circumstances, the most plausible explanation ... "
... are a pretty clear indication that I'm taking what I believe to be a reasonable position, but I'm willing to allow for others' interpretations.
Also, that cuts both ways. Many people here and on other forums take this video as clear proof that the US guns down civilians on purpose. I'm glad to see we agree that this video is not clear proof of that.
2) No need for any evidence or arguments. Just assert your viewpoints as facts.
Well, I might say the same about you. If you want me to write a full research paper on the subject with sources and footnotes, I suppose I could, but I'm not about to. What's your opinion of Helen Thomas? She doesn't seem to be a pro-Pentagon sycophant.
Then you can try to change the subject when you're caught bullshitting.
Again, this is you, not me. Evidence? Sure. The original topic was the wikileaks source and the video he leaked. Now you're talking about WMD and Pentagon PR, both of which appeared in your posts before I responded. Bullshitting? Not me, pal.
I'm impressed. You've been trained well by American media.
I read news from all over the world. Your paranoia and angst are no substitute for critical thinking.
Saddam cooperated with round after round of UN weapons inspections.
He put on a show. For years, even the UN inspectors themselves said he was giving them the runaround. Later at trial it came out that he thought that without WMD he would be perceived as weak by his neighbors and invaded, so he kept up the ruse in the hopes of a) appearing stronger than he was, and b) outlasting the international sanctions and inspections, which he nearly did. There was a growing chorus of voices in the UN to give up on the sanctions when the US acted. Interestingly, these requests all came from countries that stood to gain from keeping Saddam in power. Ironically, if he had been fully compliant, he'd still be in power today.
It would be nice if the press WOULD smear the military,
Well, they do. The Wikileaks footage was edited to show the incident in the worst possible light, and the left-wing press (Slate, HuffPo, etc) got lots of mileage out of it.
I don't think that media smear campaigns are appropriate in any circumstance. It enlarges the problem of bias in the press and does more damage to the credibility of the press, which is already (in my mind anyway) in tatters. Plus, if there is legitimate reason to attack someone or something, why not report that, rather than a trumped-up story?
But if you're serious, start your own media website. The Drudgepoo Report, or WikiDrinkyleaks.com. Let me know. I'll read you. I might not buy most of what you're saying, but I'll look to see what you have.
Since the video has been edited, we don't really know, do we?
I'd love to get my hands on the full video. It would be nice to see whether or not it backs up what the crew testified to.
The presence of some audio on the video stream directing them to attack it for a specified reason does not prove that specified reason was why they were directed to attack it.
Ugh. Well, I'll grant you that evidence is always open to interpretation, but if you're claiming that the audio was faked, either post-production or by those on the radio faking the whole exchange to cover the imminent but unannounced killing of civilians, I'd say that's an extraordinary claim, which requires correspondingly extraordinary evidence to support it. You have a point that the evidence we have is tainted, and to what degree we can't be sure. True. But beyond that, we're just fishing. Follow that line of reasoning far enough, and you find yourself falling down a rabbit hole or paranoia and solipsism.
I mentioned American press because the American press is the institution that you falsely claimed was adversarial to the pentagon PR machine.
Please show me where I initiated that claim about the American press. I referred to "the press". The first mention of "American press" was by you. Furthermore, I never claimed it was "adversarial to the pentagon PR machine", simply that the press (which is a varied and diverse group with equally diverse sets of biases) views events through their own sets of biases and assumptions, and often presents "news" in a way that advances their agenda.
As a matter of fact, we can see a microcosm of that in your response to me. You took the following statement:
And most of the press presume their job is to smear others and advance their own agenda in much the same way.
In misinterpreting what I said, which was extremely clear, you've exposed some of your biases. That's okay - we all have them. Me. You. Everyone. Now, do you suppose that your evaluation of the heavily edited, fuzzy, grainy, black & white film was as unbiased as your evaluation of my clear, simple, concise single sentence?
Well, they say a rising tide lifts all boats. I guess the same isn't true for racked servers.
Hmm. Disagreeable mod is disagreeable. He also seems to have plenty of mod points to go around. Since you clearly aren't flaming anyone he's obviously doing it purely for censorship reasons, which is kind of ironic, given the circumstances. +5 Informative from my point of view, but I don't have any points to give.
Hey, editors, can we get unity100 modded back up please? He's clearly being targeted for speaking out. Gracias
That kind of falls under "you can't prove a negative". So, if you're looking for cold, clinical proof, you're out of luck. However, it does suggest a plausible and consistent pattern of behavior - "Kill bad guys when I can and avoid civilians when I can, based on the info I get from my fellow soldiers and this cruddy little b/w camera".
Are there other possibilities? Sure. Would I consider these other possibilities? Sure. Do I buy them? None so far. Not without better information.
Yes, I do think this war is unjust - which war is not?
In the paraphrased and irreverent words of Bart Simpson: The American Revolution, World War II, and the Star Wars trilogy. Look, seriously, war is hell. Even when you're fighting for good against evil like le Resistance in WW2 France, war is hell, and good innocent people get hurt.
AFAIK, the military does actually review screw-ups and try to mitigate problems. Do they catch them all? Hell no. Do they do it in the public eye? Hell no. But I think it is significant that the guy who claims to have released this video to Wikileaks claims he found it on a JAG officer's files. That means that before the video caused public outrage, it was already being reviewed internally.
Yes, we both watched the same video, and we came to different conclusions based on our own interpretations as relatively ignorant outsiders. Since neither you of I are trained and experienced Apache crew, I'll direct your attention to this guy.
Don't be coy. By "playing devil's advocate", you were throwing out unfounded speculation, (which I'm okay with; you just have to give me the same latitude) which is hardly "talking about what actually happened". Furthermore, I'd argue that stating that gunship crews regularly kill innocents because they know they can get away with it implies A) they are brutal and vicious, and B) part of an equally brutal and vicious military that covers for their actions.
A quick read of the other comments here also shows that many slashdotters have described the American military brutal, repressive, and vicious, which is where I drew my presumption from.
All I'm saying is that if I take your statement at face value, then my statement is reasonable as well. Plus, if they could get away with it in the video, what was so different about the other times?