What could have been the case is identified for the viewer quite readily. What certainly is true, in several key moments, is not. When presenting source media as the core of your argument, it is grossly irresponsible to fail to make known variables not shown within that media. If you are going to take the time to highlight certain things in said media, you should make certain all key elements are brought to the attention of your viewer.
WikiLeaks failed to do these things in this video, happily highlighting the positions and movements of the slain reporter and photographer while ignoring those of their company. It is also, until their arrival on scene, never clear where exactly the ground forces are in reference to Crazyhorse 18 and flight. I can make a pretty good guess, given my background. I would guess the same cannot be said by the vast majority of WikiLeaks’ target audience.
Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable.
TheRaven7 wrote:I wasn't there, I had no input, and I had no decisions to make.
TheRaven7 wrote:At what point is someone not partly to blame merely for existing? Even by doing everything possible to oppose something, you could make the argument that someone exacerbated the situation in doing so, or caused a different problem. And if one is apathetic, you could blame them for doing nothing.
TheRaven7 wrote:At this moment, yes. I don't want to handle it. But neither of us can claim to know if I could handle if I was in a position to do so.
TheRaven7 wrote:I understand. This is why I didn't criticize the behavior of the troops, because context has to be taken into consideration.
TheRaven7 wrote:This is why we have a military. So we can live our lives while others give up theirs to defend it by doing our collective dirty work. I accept responsibility for that. What I take issue with is the statement that my lifestyle is directly responsible for putting our troops in Iraq. I did vote for Obama, so I am directly responsible for them (still and to a greater extent) being in Afghanistan (which I regret).
TheRaven7 wrote:I'm not playing plaintiff for the dead, I'm playing indignant at the military command's initial unwillingness to be forthcoming about its mistakes.
TheRaven7 wrote:Worrying about what it takes to "become a man" is symptomatic of patriarchal insecurities.
TheRaven7 wrote:A newborn cannot take blame for everything the moment they are born. This would be scapegoating. It is possible to argue that the moment a child makes its first decision, it is responsible for the outcomes of every decision thereafter. But it could not be responsible for events that came before it.
TheRaven7 wrote: for suggesting that the US military does anything short of going above and beyond to prevent this kind of scenario. The idea that "they shot them because the telescoping lens looked like an RPG" is far below "make sure you know it's an RPG before you shoot everyone in the area" in terms of going above and beyond.
But by all means keep blaming newborn babies for ~10,000 years of human history Sins-Of-The-Father-style. I'm the sanctimonious one, apparently.
TheRaven7 wrote:You are not a god.
TheRaven7 wrote:You don't get it.
TheRaven7 wrote:Shared guilt doesn't apply retroactively. You're defying causality.
TheRaven7 wrote:Again, you have no call in what my role in society is.
TheRaven7 wrote:Again, holding everyone guilty for everything for merely existing is pointless. All you've established is that everyone is guilty for contributing to society.
TheRaven7 wrote:This does nothing to solve problems.
The entire point of blaming is opening your mouth to prove you can talk.TheRaven7 wrote:The entire point of blaming people is to remove an initiator to a problem.
TheRaven7 wrote:If someone goes on a murderous rampage, you can blame the parents, teachers, peers, the school system, the current generation, the previous generation, the socioeconomic situation, and anything else for contributing to the act, but it isn't going to stop the murderer. Neither will dealing with all of the guilty, because the problem has already been created.
Your idea of free will and how it may save you from guilt, is a delusion.TheRaven7 wrote:No, the idea that you have some enlightened understanding of the machinations of humanity that negates the unaccountable variable of free will is a delusion.
TheRaven7 wrote:You cannot diagram with certainty how people will fill roles or make decisions with a flowchart
RageAgainstVoid wrote:There was only one journalist at the table, and that was the comedian, that's the real comedy.
Ryzel wrote:Why? If it's because the posts were off-topic, shouldn't RAV's posts be deleted along with Raven's? (love you RAV, but I'm trying to make a point) (heh, first three letters of both names are the same, didn't notice before) If it's because the posts were "incorrect" opinions or those based off of false assumptions, there's still a couple of those in this thread. What makes a post rubbish, if not one or both of the two aforementioned properties?
I realize an internet forum isn't exactly a democracy, but deleting someone's entire side of an argument, containing opinions that seemed to have some semblance of thought and effort, for a reason that doesn't apply to everyone else, is something for which I would want to express my disapproval.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest