Cassiel wrote:The idea that war can be sterilized so that the wrong people never get hurt is silly. Here's a tip: if you don't want to die, don't work in a war zone. The military has enough to worry about without the media walking around with giant cameras that do in fact look like weapons--this aside from the fact that the insurgents themselves also carry cameras.
Of course it's easier to be sensationalist about it and add a bunch of biased (in some cases factually incorrect) commentary and little arrows pointing out who's who, even though anyone with a halfway critical mind will realize immediately that the context for the video is completely misrepresented.
WatermelonMan wrote:The two journalists may have voluntarily put themselves in danger, but the other 8 individuals (2 of which were simply trying to rescue the wounded, which is something normally respected by both sides in combat) were natives. You can't tell an Iraqi citizen that it is his fault for being in a war zone when the war zone is his neighborhood.
WatermelonMan wrote:Sensationalism aside you are still left with a blatant disregard for protocol.
WatermelonMan wrote:None of them were armed
WatermelonMan wrote:and that is clearly seen in the video
WatermelonMan wrote:but even then one insurgent with an AK-47 (was actually a tripod for the camera, if you didn't catch that)
WatermelonMan wrote:means the whole group is packing.
WatermelonMan wrote:Their lies to command just so that they could kill something is not only stupid but shows their inadequacy as soldiers.
WatermelonMan wrote:And if you thought that camera looked like an RPG then you haven't played enough video games. If a person whose knowledge of weaponry comes solely from video games can tell the difference between a camera and an RPG then it should be odd that our soldiers cannot. After all, they train and fight with the real thing.
WatermelonMan wrote:Of course this all could have been avoided if they had been fighting on the ground rather than from the air.
WatermelonMan wrote:He was just a single-father in New Baghdad trying to support his kids with his photography. And they fucking killed him.
Ensabahnur wrote:How often do you see these numbers in the media?
WatermelonMan wrote:Trying to justify their actions doesn't get you anywhere either.
WatermelonMan wrote:But what the government did instead was cover it up for 3 years.
Cassiel wrote:This is a completely separate issue which has nothing to do with the soldiers themselves. And in this case, unlike with the women in Afghanistan, the "government"--by which you don't actually mean the government--didn't cover anything up. They showed the video to Reuters and released a statement about what happened a week or two afterward. That statement has yet to be contradicted. So the so-called cover-up consisted of, what, not releasing the video to the public? That's both their prerogative and the right call. All that comes of releasing it is stoking the angst of irrational people, as this thread demonstrates.
WatermelonMan wrote:More like a year or two afterward.
In 2008, Reuters said it had been shown video of the incident shortly after it happened, and that it immediately filed a Freedom of Information Act request to have the video released.
While it may be true that a camera never lies, it certainly can be misleading. The video is harrowing, and a viewer armed with nothing more than 20/20 hindsight can feel the knot in his stomach tighten as death draws near on Baghdad's outskirts. But viewed in isolation, lacking any insight into what else was going on in that neighborhood on that particular day, what may have seemed at the time to be a justified military action looks wanton and possibly against the rules of war.
WatermelonMan wrote:They didn't even show them the full video, they showed them their edited version which I imagine looked pretty clean.
TheRaven7 wrote:They had to submit a FOIA request to even get the video.
TheRaven7 wrote:They covered it up.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest