Depends, did you watch the full video or the cut one? AFAIK, there are no weapons in the cut one but there were people in the group walking around with weapons

Depends, did you watch the full video or the cut one? AFAIK, there are no weapons in the cut one but there were people in the group walking around with weapons before.[1,2] Wikileaks's goal is not neutral publishing of leaks- it's maximum political impact.[3] As long as they continue to release the full video, I still think they do far more good than harm. The editorialization forces it into the public eye. Although I do think they were misleading, they're no worse than the MSM, and the full release allows it to be analyzed more objectively later. "US covers up a video that should've been made public" is not as sexy as "Collateral Damage: US covers up the murder of two reporters." And when you're dealing with a public that seems more interested in Tiger's romantic escapades, perhaps that's what is necessary to seize their attention. ----- [1] "there do appear to be two other—two people in that crowd having weapons" -Julian Assange[http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6/massacre_caught_on_tape_us_military http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6/massacre_caught_on_tape...] [2] "The [army's] report claims that at least two members of the group which were first fired on were armed"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Release_of_Army_report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike...] [3] Assange's interview with Colbert. http://gawker.com/5515720/stephen-colbert-grills-wikileaks-founder-on-helicopter-video http://gawker.com/5515720/stephen-colbert-grills-wikileaks-f...