6 ms·

The commentary of this soldier, and possibly others, would have provided some context to this incident. He supports the initial engagement, but criticizes the s

The commentary of this soldier, and possibly others, would have provided some context to this incident. He supports the initial engagement, but criticizes the secondary attack on the van and a later firing of a Hellfire missile into a building. A context the Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" campaign was sorely lacking.

pquerna 16y ago
agree, I support their release of the video, but as the Solider discusses, exposing the average human to the terribleness of War is all you need to do, not overblow with commentary.
- joelhaus 16y ago
  They surely had the right to release the video; however, the manner in which they did it will lead many to question the credibility Wikileaks once enjoyed. Until watching The Pacific mini-series (currently on HBO), I did not fully appreciate the saying "war is hell". Having never experienced war, I can't fully vouch for the show's authenticity, but if it's even close, you've gotta feel for any human being put in these circumstances.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    The people that are most gung-ho about war are usually the ones that have not experienced it or any fall out from one in any way. Figure the US reaction on 9/11, 3500 civilians killed (unjustly, no mistake) vs the US reaction on tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed. It's just too far away from home, and this video did one service, it rammed home just how ugly that war really is.
pg 16y ago
Yes; I lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks after that. It seemed as if they'd branched out into the propaganda business. I wonder what made them change direction after so long.
- simsam 16y ago
  how should they provide context? update: i mean: maybe they had to protect their sources? maybe they have the (naive?) idea that they only have to bring up "the truth" and "the truth" speaks for itself? for sure, there is a gap between them and the traditional media. and: who can you believe when in war?
  - staunch 16y ago
    They're clearly incapable of doing real investigative journalism, so they should stick to what they're good at. Just release all the facts and the media and let the world do the rest.
    - simsam 16y ago
      this is my update from above, as i realized that was paul graham.... i mean: maybe they had to protect their sources? maybe they have the (naive?) idea that they only have to bring up "the truth" and "the truth" speaks for itself? for sure, there is a gap between them and the traditional media. and: who can you believe when in war?
    - guelo 16y ago
      Without the hype no one would have seen the video. Have you seen all the other documents at Wikileaks or the stuff at criptome? It's hard to penetrate the 24 hour news cycle, they did an admirable job. Even if you didn't like their editing, you have to admit they got you to watch and think about all the people we've killed in Iraq, very few people have managed to do that in the 7 years of this bloody war.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    I think the problem is they didn't provide the truth and only the truth. There was editorial spin on the video release.
- andreyf 16y ago
  This was brought up on The Colbert Report's interview of Julian Assange [1]. His response was that they where provided the video under the condition that they'd try to maximize its political impact to the best of their ability. I don't think their strategy was the best way to fullfil that goal (precisely because of the blatant political slant), but that's their stated motivation. 1. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270712/april-12-2010/julian-assange http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/27071...
jakarta 16y ago
I think you need a lot of context to seriously examine anything. -The Wire
caffeine 16y ago
We wouldn't ever have heard of this soldier if it weren't for the WikiLeaks video - and if they hadn't sensationalized it, nobody would ever have seen the video. They did exactly what they were supposed to do: get the raw info out there, so that we can now all go through digesting it and picking it apart. This was the whole point in the first place.
- roboneal 16y ago
  Registering a domain name called collateralmurder.com with the lede "WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people" is not releasing "raw info".
  - caffeine 16y ago
    They released the video, didn't they? That's the raw info (assuming they haven't doctored it). It is true, however, that they stamped it with their own interpretation, which is that the slaying of a dozen people was indiscriminate. This is contradicted by the soldier in the OP who feels that some of the slaying was discriminate. However, WikiLeaks and the soldier both agree that the man in the van was collaterally murdered - and while the children survived, it wasn't for want of murderous intent. So, the domain name is certainly justified.
    - roboneal 16y ago
      Not sure what your definition of "raw" is -- The video itself is not even raw - opens with a George Orwell quote, spliced in commentary, a slideshow of the children of the victims, edited, arrows pointing at "cameras", etc. It's painfully obvious that Wikileaks "leaked" a video with a carefully constructed point of view.
      - metamemetics 16y ago
        The released TWO videos simultaenously. One was a unedited 50 minute long RAW video. The other one with the introduction was edited and shorter. The "biased" edited version does not include the additional missile strike against a building that killed a family of 4.
sattsinnova 16y ago
Very much true.. Wikileaks was acting on a pure journalistic impulse

pquerna 16y ago

agree, I support their release of the video, but as the Solider discusses, exposing the average human to the terribleness of War is all you need to do, not overblow with commentary.

joelhaus 16y ago
They surely had the right to release the video; however, the manner in which they did it will lead many to question the credibility Wikileaks once enjoyed. Until watching The Pacific mini-series (currently on HBO), I did not fully appreciate the saying "war is hell". Having never experienced war, I can't fully vouch for the show's authenticity, but if it's even close, you've gotta feel for any human being put in these circumstances.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  The people that are most gung-ho about war are usually the ones that have not experienced it or any fall out from one in any way. Figure the US reaction on 9/11, 3500 civilians killed (unjustly, no mistake) vs the US reaction on tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed. It's just too far away from home, and this video did one service, it rammed home just how ugly that war really is.

pg 16y ago

Yes; I lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks after that. It seemed as if they'd branched out into the propaganda business. I wonder what made them change direction after so long.

simsam 16y ago
how should they provide context? update: i mean: maybe they had to protect their sources? maybe they have the (naive?) idea that they only have to bring up "the truth" and "the truth" speaks for itself? for sure, there is a gap between them and the traditional media. and: who can you believe when in war?
- staunch 16y ago
  They're clearly incapable of doing real investigative journalism, so they should stick to what they're good at. Just release all the facts and the media and let the world do the rest.
  - simsam 16y ago
    this is my update from above, as i realized that was paul graham.... i mean: maybe they had to protect their sources? maybe they have the (naive?) idea that they only have to bring up "the truth" and "the truth" speaks for itself? for sure, there is a gap between them and the traditional media. and: who can you believe when in war?
  - guelo 16y ago
    Without the hype no one would have seen the video. Have you seen all the other documents at Wikileaks or the stuff at criptome? It's hard to penetrate the 24 hour news cycle, they did an admirable job. Even if you didn't like their editing, you have to admit they got you to watch and think about all the people we've killed in Iraq, very few people have managed to do that in the 7 years of this bloody war.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  I think the problem is they didn't provide the truth and only the truth. There was editorial spin on the video release.
andreyf 16y ago
This was brought up on The Colbert Report's interview of Julian Assange [1]. His response was that they where provided the video under the condition that they'd try to maximize its political impact to the best of their ability. I don't think their strategy was the best way to fullfil that goal (precisely because of the blatant political slant), but that's their stated motivation. 1. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270712/april-12-2010/julian-assange http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/27071...

jakarta 16y ago

I think you need a lot of context to seriously examine anything. -The Wire

caffeine 16y ago

We wouldn't ever have heard of this soldier if it weren't for the WikiLeaks video - and if they hadn't sensationalized it, nobody would ever have seen the video. They did exactly what they were supposed to do: get the raw info out there, so that we can now all go through digesting it and picking it apart. This was the whole point in the first place.

roboneal 16y ago
Registering a domain name called collateralmurder.com with the lede "WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people" is not releasing "raw info".
- caffeine 16y ago
  They released the video, didn't they? That's the raw info (assuming they haven't doctored it). It is true, however, that they stamped it with their own interpretation, which is that the slaying of a dozen people was indiscriminate. This is contradicted by the soldier in the OP who feels that some of the slaying was discriminate. However, WikiLeaks and the soldier both agree that the man in the van was collaterally murdered - and while the children survived, it wasn't for want of murderous intent. So, the domain name is certainly justified.
  - roboneal 16y ago
    Not sure what your definition of "raw" is -- The video itself is not even raw - opens with a George Orwell quote, spliced in commentary, a slideshow of the children of the victims, edited, arrows pointing at "cameras", etc. It's painfully obvious that Wikileaks "leaked" a video with a carefully constructed point of view.
    - metamemetics 16y ago
      The released TWO videos simultaenously. One was a unedited 50 minute long RAW video. The other one with the introduction was edited and shorter. The "biased" edited version does not include the additional missile strike against a building that killed a family of 4.

sattsinnova 16y ago

Very much true.. Wikileaks was acting on a pure journalistic impulse