5 ms·

The "collateral murder" video, which was based on Manning's leaks, is really quite chilling and definitely shows wrong doings that were then covered up by the g

The "collateral murder" video, which was based on Manning's leaks, is really quite chilling and definitely shows wrong doings that were then covered up by the government. There was more, but this was the most visual/memorable. I suggest you turn your scepticism to 11 and go watch it, see if you still feel the same way. https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ (warning: if watching civilians, journalists and children being killed in cold blood bothers you, maybe don't go watch it, just read about it instead)

pvg 10y ago
The incident had been reported and covered by the press, there was no 'government cover up'. The new bit was the video itself.
- HerraBRE 10y ago
  Government stonewalling then, the government wasn't exactly forthcoming. Reuters had been fighting for information for quite some time.
- manarth 10y ago
  The new bit was the video itself. Saying "X happened", and offering "Here is video that demonstrates X happened" are very different things. A video of an event can be of such overwhelming significance that its importance is impossible to calculate.
  - pvg 10y ago
    Not the case for this incident. You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. For instance, a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the incident and write a book about it without seeing the video. 'Collateral murder' is much more notable for the Wikileaks editorializing than for its actual news value.
    - manarth 10y ago
      You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. Which page are you referring to? Could you please provide a link? a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the incident and write a book about it without seeing the video. Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? If there is a verifiable video, shouldn't the journalist view the video (and decide whether it's verifiable or not), and include that in the article? To deliberately ignore a significant piece of evidence is a significant editorial decision.
      - pvg 10y ago
        Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? No it isn't because that's not what happened. As to the page, the page about the incident. I'm starting to think you don't really know much about the details and want to debate this from first principles. That's not going to be very fruitful.
        manarth 10y ago
        As to the page, the page about the incident. For my benefit, and the benefit of everyone reading this thread, hoping to gain a greater understanding of the issues, could you please provide the specific URL, rather than alluding elliptically to "the incident"?
        pvg 10y ago
        You want to argue with me about something you're apparently unfamiliar with and also want me to direct you to basic information about it you can trivially look up yourself? Please, for your benefit and for the benefit of basic politeness, do a bit of the legwork.
        manarth 10y ago
        I'm still unclear about which particular Wikipedia page you would like to direct me to. You've posted: The incident had been reported and covered by the press, there was no 'government cover up'. The new bit was the video itself. You've then stated: you can just read the wikipedia page You've gone on to say: As to the page, the page about the incident. You've then stated: You want me to direct you to basic information…you can trivially look up yourself At no point have you given any source: neither primary, secondary, or other. It is hard to understand which material you are referring to, when you repeatedly will not source the material which you referring to. Your posts do not seem to contain any source material, so you seem to rely on third-party sources, but so far, you haven't identified any of those sources. It would be great for everyone reading this thread, to understand the material on which you're basing these claims.
tropo 10y ago
So, it's war. And??? The video: We see a guy carrying what looks like a rocket launcher. (it's a really really long telephoto lens) He is sneaking around with the enemy (sort of an embedded journalist) and peaking out from around corners, appearing to point a rocket launcher at the US military. Unsurprisingly, he gets blown to bits. We see an enemy hop over a wall while getting shot at. A minivan stops to get him. Note that it was common for the enemy to transport people and weapons in similar vehicles. People who are not involved in the conflict would be nuts to be driving around in the battlefield. The minivan is thus also shot up. It happens to contain kids... so some child abuser brought kids to a battlefield, WTF. Note that the unedited (long) version of the video shows some of the "victims" carrying weapons. This wasn't an intentional slaughter of innocents, even if a few innocents did stupidly wander into a battlefield and get killed. If you call this "murder", you might as well call all war murder. That's a very political position to be taking. War sucks; this shouldn't be news to anybody.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
golergka 10y ago
And right after watching this video, I understood that Manning really deserved the sentence. This is war. The video clearly shows that soldiers made a decision made on an honest, although tragic, mistake. They have to make this kind of decisions all the time - and I fail to see how anyone can say, from information that was available to them, that the decision was in any way wrong. The fact that this story had to be covered up says more about idiocy of public and the media that would've (and did) make a baseless witchhunt. I finally 'got it' after watching "Eye in the sky" (spoilers!): if hollywood screenwriters and moviegoers really think that killing one innocent girl to prevent two suicide bombings is some kind of a complicated moral dilemma that's worth more than three seconds of deliberating, then may be this kind of public really shouldn't be trusted with classified information.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>This is war. The video clearly shows that soldiers made a decision made on an honest, although tragic, mistake. Um, they fired on a van despite realizing that it had come to pick up the wounded. Geneva Conventions clearly state that hospitals, both fixed and mobile, ambulances, hospital ships, medical aircraft, and medical personnel are not to be fired upon. https://youtu.be/5rXPrfnU3G0?t=9m10s https://youtu.be/5rXPrfnU3G0?t=9m10s (You'll also note the trigger-happy attitude of the gunner. He kept begging for permission to engage, and at one point got pretty frustrated that he was having to wait. Like the OP said: chilling.)
  - golergka 10y ago
    > hospitals, both fixed and mobile, ambulances, hospital ships, medical aircraft, and medical personnel are not to be fired upon This van didn't have any markings to indicate that it was a dedicated medical unit. What about enemy combatants that are performing medical tasks at the moment? As far as I understand, they're fair game. > (You'll also note the trigger-happy attitude of the gunner. He kept begging for permission to engage, and at one point got pretty frustrated that he was having to wait. Like the OP said: chilling.) He was looking at people, that (in his view, conceived by a completely honest mistake) were there to kill his comrades in arms. His attitude, being eager to kill them, is completely reasonable — war is a constant kill or be killed situation, and allowing your enemy to evacuate the wounded combatants mean that they will later come back and kill you or your comrades in arms. Once again, your reaction confirms my main point: the general public doesn't bother to think the situation through and judges actions made in war without the necessary context. Which just confirms that this kind of transparency is just as good as determining whether or not climate change is real (or if vaccination is harmful) through general election without any minimal education requirements.

pvg 10y ago

The incident had been reported and covered by the press, there was no 'government cover up'. The new bit was the video itself.

HerraBRE 10y ago
Government stonewalling then, the government wasn't exactly forthcoming. Reuters had been fighting for information for quite some time.
manarth 10y ago
The new bit was the video itself. Saying "X happened", and offering "Here is video that demonstrates X happened" are very different things. A video of an event can be of such overwhelming significance that its importance is impossible to calculate.
- pvg 10y ago
  Not the case for this incident. You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. For instance, a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the incident and write a book about it without seeing the video. 'Collateral murder' is much more notable for the Wikileaks editorializing than for its actual news value.
  - manarth 10y ago
    You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. Which page are you referring to? Could you please provide a link? a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the incident and write a book about it without seeing the video. Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? If there is a verifiable video, shouldn't the journalist view the video (and decide whether it's verifiable or not), and include that in the article? To deliberately ignore a significant piece of evidence is a significant editorial decision.
    - pvg 10y ago
      Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? No it isn't because that's not what happened. As to the page, the page about the incident. I'm starting to think you don't really know much about the details and want to debate this from first principles. That's not going to be very fruitful.
      - manarth 10y ago
        As to the page, the page about the incident. For my benefit, and the benefit of everyone reading this thread, hoping to gain a greater understanding of the issues, could you please provide the specific URL, rather than alluding elliptically to "the incident"?
        pvg 10y ago
        You want to argue with me about something you're apparently unfamiliar with and also want me to direct you to basic information about it you can trivially look up yourself? Please, for your benefit and for the benefit of basic politeness, do a bit of the legwork.
        manarth 10y ago
        I'm still unclear about which particular Wikipedia page you would like to direct me to. You've posted: The incident had been reported and covered by the press, there was no 'government cover up'. The new bit was the video itself. You've then stated: you can just read the wikipedia page You've gone on to say: As to the page, the page about the incident. You've then stated: You want me to direct you to basic information…you can trivially look up yourself At no point have you given any source: neither primary, secondary, or other. It is hard to understand which material you are referring to, when you repeatedly will not source the material which you referring to. Your posts do not seem to contain any source material, so you seem to rely on third-party sources, but so far, you haven't identified any of those sources. It would be great for everyone reading this thread, to understand the material on which you're basing these claims.

tropo 10y ago

So, it's war. And??? The video: We see a guy carrying what looks like a rocket launcher. (it's a really really long telephoto lens) He is sneaking around with the enemy (sort of an embedded journalist) and peaking out from around corners, appearing to point a rocket launcher at the US military. Unsurprisingly, he gets blown to bits. We see an enemy hop over a wall while getting shot at. A minivan stops to get him. Note that it was common for the enemy to transport people and weapons in similar vehicles. People who are not involved in the conflict would be nuts to be driving around in the battlefield. The minivan is thus also shot up. It happens to contain kids... so some child abuser brought kids to a battlefield, WTF. Note that the unedited (long) version of the video shows some of the "victims" carrying weapons. This wasn't an intentional slaughter of innocents, even if a few innocents did stupidly wander into a battlefield and get killed. If you call this "murder", you might as well call all war murder. That's a very political position to be taking. War sucks; this shouldn't be news to anybody.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

golergka 10y ago

And right after watching this video, I understood that Manning really deserved the sentence. This is war. The video clearly shows that soldiers made a decision made on an honest, although tragic, mistake. They have to make this kind of decisions all the time - and I fail to see how anyone can say, from information that was available to them, that the decision was in any way wrong. The fact that this story had to be covered up says more about idiocy of public and the media that would've (and did) make a baseless witchhunt. I finally 'got it' after watching "Eye in the sky" (spoilers!): if hollywood screenwriters and moviegoers really think that killing one innocent girl to prevent two suicide bombings is some kind of a complicated moral dilemma that's worth more than three seconds of deliberating, then may be this kind of public really shouldn't be trusted with classified information.

enraged_camel 10y ago
>>This is war. The video clearly shows that soldiers made a decision made on an honest, although tragic, mistake. Um, they fired on a van despite realizing that it had come to pick up the wounded. Geneva Conventions clearly state that hospitals, both fixed and mobile, ambulances, hospital ships, medical aircraft, and medical personnel are not to be fired upon. https://youtu.be/5rXPrfnU3G0?t=9m10s https://youtu.be/5rXPrfnU3G0?t=9m10s (You'll also note the trigger-happy attitude of the gunner. He kept begging for permission to engage, and at one point got pretty frustrated that he was having to wait. Like the OP said: chilling.)
- golergka 10y ago
  > hospitals, both fixed and mobile, ambulances, hospital ships, medical aircraft, and medical personnel are not to be fired upon This van didn't have any markings to indicate that it was a dedicated medical unit. What about enemy combatants that are performing medical tasks at the moment? As far as I understand, they're fair game. > (You'll also note the trigger-happy attitude of the gunner. He kept begging for permission to engage, and at one point got pretty frustrated that he was having to wait. Like the OP said: chilling.) He was looking at people, that (in his view, conceived by a completely honest mistake) were there to kill his comrades in arms. His attitude, being eager to kill them, is completely reasonable — war is a constant kill or be killed situation, and allowing your enemy to evacuate the wounded combatants mean that they will later come back and kill you or your comrades in arms. Once again, your reaction confirms my main point: the general public doesn't bother to think the situation through and judges actions made in war without the necessary context. Which just confirms that this kind of transparency is just as good as determining whether or not climate change is real (or if vaccination is harmful) through general election without any minimal education requirements.