Support NeoGAF

[Evlar]

We know. We're basically up to the point of people just trying to defend some part of their argument even though they were proven wrong about these non-reporters having weapons.

Who was proven wrong about what? I, for one, have never claimed no one on the ground had weapons. Go ahead and search my post history in the thread. So, umm, I'm going to continue talking about this news.

Second... "non-reporters"? Are you seriously claiming no reporters were killed?

 

[empty vessel]

And I assure you, I am correct. See how easy that was?

I asked for more explanation specifically so I could show you where your mistake lies. No need to act like I am trying to argue by fiat.

As for the point. Using hypothetical situations to "prove" an argument is weak, because an equal hypothetical situation could change your point of view, as well. If you disagree with this, then you must also disagree that our experiences influence our opinions and views.

I suggest you offer a hypothetical to change my point of view, then, if you think it so easy. The hypothetical is not offered to prove anything. It is offered to get people to think about what is happening in a way that is independent of the identity of the parties (and, thereby, to help clear away unexamined and implicit biases that may be contributing to the formation of opinions about the issue).

 

[saltinekracka]

 

[Evlar]

ITT, a bunch of people who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

We know. We're basically up to the point of people just trying to defend some part of their argument even though they were proven wrong about these non-reporters having weapons.

Are you going to make any attempt to engage in discussion here or just lob insults now and then?

 

[delirium]

You wouldn't say this were there an actual Chinese military occupation of the US, so we can safely dismiss it out of hand as nonsense.

Except I have lived in a communist country that has gone to great lengths to discriminate against my family (sending my father to a concentration camp where hundreds of thousands died). Still stupid to carry weapons around when there are people in area with bigger guns.

 

[numble]

Except I have lived in a communist country that has gone to great lengths to discriminate against my family (sending my father to a concentration camp where hundreds of thousands died). Still stupid to carry weapons around when there are people in area with bigger guns.

This whole Chinese hypothetical (both sides of it) is a big diversion, and a useless exercise. The context of Iraq generally precludes the possibility that just because a person has a weapon, they are an enemy (though there is an arguable position that it creates a heightened risk of error). There are non-military Iraqi groups that the US is PAYING and ARMING to carry weapons on the streets, not to mention sectarian groups fighting against each other (Sunni vs Shia), so the rules of engagement should not simply be that if you see an Iraqi with a weapon that you are clear to fire. Even civilian Americans (Blackwater Xe) carry weapons to protect civilian corporate persons and assets. There's also the possibility that this was an area of insurgent activity, tilting the balance of the argument towards the Americans in this engagement. But the simple argument, that, because they have weapons, there is justification for firing, is not applicable to the Iraqi context, even if the Chinese government thinks that a Chinese soldier is justified in shooting an American with a gun.

 

[empty vessel]

This whole Chinese hypothetical (both sides of it) is a big diversion, and a useless exercise.

It is neither a diversion nor a useless exercise. It demonstrates, quite clearly, the irrational tribal biases that underlie most people's opinions about these sorts of things.

If the sum total of delirium's argument is that people are stupid for carrying weapons in an occupied country, that is fine, he is entitled to it, and the Chinese hypothetical may not apply to him. To the extent his argument is only that stupid people ought to be subject to summary execution (as it now appears to be), his opinion is just as easily dismissed.

 

[Cheeto]

How much ignorance can one person shove into one little post?

In Iraq/Afghanistan, there are 4 different branches of military operating, with numerous commands under each umbrellas, and dozens of FOBs, patrols, mechanized, foot and aerial, thousands of individual people and hundreds of square miles. All of which are tied together by a communication system that was built in a war torn region in a matter of years.

But yeah, boy genius, every single person in the entire country should have been aware of two fucking people and their constantly moving location at all times.

Fuck, this thread has taken a turn for the stupid recently.

Wow, I really can't tell if you're serious or not. Are you really suggesting that there aren't systems in place to brief personnel and command on private industry civilians, U.S. civilians, and etc in the area of their patrols? Really!?

 

[numble]

It is neither a diversion nor a useless exercise. It demonstrates, quite clearly, the irrational tribal biases that underlie most people's opinions about these sorts of things.

If the sum total of delirium's argument is that people are stupid for carrying weapons in an occupied country, that is fine, he is entitled to it, and the Chinese hypothetical may not apply to him. To the extent his argument is only that stupid people ought to be subject to summary execution (as it now appears to be), his opinion is just as easily dismissed.

Ok, I guess my point is, even if he thinks Chinese soldiers are justified in shooting Americans with guns in a hypothetical Chinese-occupied America, it shouldn't apply to America.

Or that you would have to create a convoluted scenario where the Chinese were arming/paying some Americans to be armed, along with large scale sectarian violence occurring in America that the Chinese did not have enough resources to prevent.

Wow, I really can't tell if you're serious or not. Are you really suggesting that there aren't system's in place to brief personnel and command on private industry civilians, U.S. civilians, and etc in the area of their patrols? Really!?

The Chinese government clearly alerted NATO to the presence of their Chinese embassy in Belgrade, it still was mistakenly bombed. The UN alerted Israel to UN's office in Gaza City, it still was mistakenly bombed.

 

[nyong]

We know. We're basically up to the point of people just trying to defend some part of their argument even though they were proven wrong about these non-reporters having weapons.

WikiLeaks said on Monday the video taken from an Army helicopter shows the men were walking through a courtyard and did nothing to provoke the attack. Their representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons, U.S. personnel killed everyone in sight and have attempted to cover up the murders ever since.

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying.

However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

"It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events."

Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs.

"Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat," Hanzlik said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...y-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/?test=latestnews

And yes, it's a Faux-News article--blah blah blah. Unless Fox made the quotes up I really don't care. Not that an Ad Hominem attack against everything Fox ever writes isn't a logical fallacy in itself. Until I see this debunked, I'm siding with the military over this one. It's quite plausible that the two dead Reuters guys were imbedded with a group of insurgents.

 

[Cheeto]

The Chinese government clearly alerted NATO to the presence of their Chinese embassy in Belgrade, it still was mistakenly bombed. The UN alerted Israel to UN's office in Gaza City, it still was mistakenly bombed.

While I agree that mistakes happening is pretty shocking news... The question still is, did the reporters tell the military that they'd be in the area?

 

[Evlar]

While I agree that mistakes happening is pretty shocking news... The question still is, did the reporters tell the military that they'd be in the area?

It appears they didn't, based on the Reuters account as I understand it.

 

[nyong]

While I agree that mistakes happening is pretty shocking news... The question still is, did the reporters tell the military that they'd be in the area?

They were free-lance reporters, and no, they did not. Nor were they wearing the markings typical of journalists. Yes it's a horrible accident; at the same time, these guys did not take the typical common-sense precautions. They were unidentified armed men standing around in the midst of a firefight in which US troops came under heavy enough fire that helicopter support was called in for assistance.

 

[Kibbles]

I don't see Fox's claim that there was an RPG guy and AK47 guy. Where?

They still killed the rescuers too, so wtf.

 

[nyong]

I don't see Fox's claim that there was an RPG guy and AK47 guy. Where?

It's right there in the article. I bolded it.

 

[sonicmj1]

There's a lot less debate about the initial assault (which is terrible, but at least makes sense given the way these things tend to happen), and a lot more debate about what followed, specifically the attack on the van.

When you establish that some of the people there had weapons, I don't think you change a lot of the consensus. Given the mindset the military currently has towards the conflict in Iraq, there's no way that first part could have played out any differently. That section seems more important to me in the sense that it sets the stage for this whole chain reaction of events that follow it, encompassing more and more innocents, and raising the body count higher and higher.

The way that the military conducts its engagements, on a larger macro level, inevitably leads to these events, and killing scores of innocents in accidents like this one isn't any better for the victims and their families than killing scores of innocents on purpose.

 

[taylor910]

There's a lot less debate about the initial assault (which is terrible, but at least makes sense given the way these things tend to happen), and a lot more debate about what followed, specifically the attack on the van.

The way that the military conducts its engagements, on a larger macro level, inevitably leads to these events, and killing scores of innocents in accidents like this one isn't any better for the victims and their families than killing scores of innocents on purpose.

I disagree about the debating, on gaf at least. The thread blew up initially because the rumor that the army mistook tripods for rpgs. Now that has been debunked, so the focus has shifted to the van.

Also, I am not saying this is good or ok, but the only innocents who died were the reuters journalists, right?

 

[empty vessel]

I disagree about the debating, on gaf at least. The thread blew up initially because the rumor that the army mistook tripods for rpgs. Now that has been debunked, so the focus has shifted to the van.

Also, I am not saying this is good or ok, but the only innocents who died were the reuters journalists, right?

Nobody knows. What does it mean to be "innocent" in the context of an offensive assault on the area in which you live by a foreign military?

 

[2San]

I disagree about the debating, on gaf at least. The thread blew up initially because the rumor that the army mistook tripods for rpgs. Now that has been debunked, so the focus has shifted to the van.

Also, I am not saying this is good or ok, but the only innocents who died were the reuters journalists, right?

Well 3 families where living in the building that got destroyed. Not to mention the passerby, the van etc.

Though according to the US army any adult male Iraqi is classified as hostile. When they die by accident of US bullets of course.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

I disagree about the debating, on gaf at least. The thread blew up initially because the rumor that the army mistook tripods for rpgs. Now that has been debunked, so the focus has shifted to the van.

Also, I am not saying this is good or ok, but the only innocents who died were the reuters journalists, right?

:lol

 

[numble]

I disagree about the debating, on gaf at least. The thread blew up initially because the rumor that the army mistook tripods for rpgs. Now that has been debunked, so the focus has shifted to the van.

Also, I am not saying this is good or ok, but the only innocents who died were the reuters journalists, right?

I still haven't read anything that said they were insurgents. The only thing I've seen they said was that they had traits that would allow them to be viewed as "potentially a threat." If they were insurgents, the military brass would just say it, "these were insurgents," not some of the equivocating that seems to be apparent. If you could provide a good source that said these were insurgents, then I'd be happy to change my mind.

 

[taylor910]

Well 3 families where living in the building that got destroyed. Not to mention the passerby, the van etc.

Though according to the US army any adult male Iraqi is classified as hostile. When they die by accident of US bullets of course.

You use wikileaks as a source for the 3 families living in the abandoned building.\


As for the intel about the guys being threats, its been quoted multiple times here from news reports. They were engaging U.S. forces the very same day, and were tracked to that area. Selective reading must have taken place.

Edit: The investigation by the military showed 11 people were killed. Those 3 families that wikileaks said lived in the abandoned building must not have been "home" at the time.

 

[2San]

You use wikileaks as a source for the 3 families living in the abandoned building.\


As for the intel about the guys being threats, its been quoted multiple times here from news reports. They were engaging U.S. forces the very same day, and were tracked to that area. Selective reading must have taken place.

And that isn't the case with you? In the last few years anything coming from US military sources about this case has been lies and what makes you think they'll suddenly tell the truth? They hid the video and everything. And you are accusing me of selective reading? Sure the information might not be true, but as it stands I'll trust the neutral party more rather then the party who fucked shit up and tried to cover it up.

Not to mention still doesn't take away the fact they completly disregard bystanders, what's a life or two huh? Not to mention the criticism isn't just limited to this.

 

[numble]

You use wikileaks as a source for the 3 families living in the abandoned building.\

As for the intel about the guys being threats, its been quoted multiple times here from news reports. They were engaging U.S. forces the very same day, and were tracked to that area. Selective reading must have taken place.

Edit: The investigation by the military showed 11 people were killed. Those 3 families that wikileaks said lived in the abandoned building must not have been "home" at the time.

Quotes that say they were actually engaging US forces that day, please. As I've said, all I've seen so far is saying that they were "potentially a threat." I realize that viewing someone as a potential threat can often justify an assault--police assaults occur on the perception of potential threats in an area of heightened awareness all the time, often because a person matches a description, of course, and they often get vindicated even if turns out that wrongful assumptions have been made, and that is legitimate and legal, but doesn't mean that mistakes have been made.

 

[empty vessel]

As for the intel about the guys being threats, its been quoted multiple times here from news reports. They were engaging U.S. forces the very same day, and were tracked to that area. Selective reading must have taken place.

I think you mean the US forces were engaging them the very same day (assuming these people had anything to do with any armed resistance at all, which has yet to have been shown). This was an offensive US operation. That means that it was Iraqi civilians playing defense, not the US military. It's not unimportant.

You also seem to think that "that area" could not have included people other than those the US was engaging. It's a city for fuck's sake. The existence of people in it is not probative evidence of anything other than that it is a city.

 

[taylor910]

Quotes that say they were actually engaging US forces that day, please. As I've said, all I've seen so far is saying that they were "potentially a threat." I realize that viewing someone as a potential threat can often justify an assault--police assaults occur on the perception of potential threats in an area of heightened awareness all the time, often because a person matches a description, of course, and they often get vindicated even if turns out that wrongful assumptions have been made, and that is legitimate and legal, but doesn't mean that mistakes have been made.

Like I said, its been quoted multiple times in this thread. Dig if you're so interested.

An army official said the guys matched the description, number of men, age, and were in close proximity to where fighting took place that day. Did they ask for the guys ID cards? No. But I don't think they give clearance like that at the drop of a hat. Our intel is superb.

They also went through and confirmed the dead, confirmed the weapons, and helped the children get to medical care.

 

[numble]

Like I said, its been quoted multiple times in this thread. Dig if you're so interested.

An army official said the guys matched the description, number of men, age, and were in close proximity to where fighting took place that day. Did they ask for the guys ID cards? No. But I don't think they give clearance like that at the drop of a hat. Our intel is superb.

They also went through and confirmed the dead, confirmed the weapons, and helped the children get to medical care.

Yes, but why not just say "these guys were insurgents." I'm just reminded of police statements whenever they make wrongful arrests or assaults--"the guy matched the description and was in close proximity to the crime." The action is legitimated, it justifies why the officer thought the guy was "potentially a threat" at the time, but that doesn't mean mistakes weren't made. I guess as a person in the legal field, I'm pushed to look at equivocating statements and require stringent fact-finding, rather than accept that "our intel is superb."

 

[taylor910]

:lol

Sorry, I meant to say that the U.S. deliberately killed innocents and tried to cover it up.

 

[taylor910]

Yes, but why not just say "these guys were insurgents." I'm just reminded of police statements whenever they make wrongful arrests or assaults--"the guy matched the description and was in close proximity to the crime." The action is legitimated, but that doesn't mean mistakes weren't made. I guess as a person in the legal field, I'm pushed to look at equivocating statements and require stringent fact-finding, rather than accept that "our intel is superb."

I understand your argument, but do you really believe that the only thing they were going on was that grainy video from the helicopter? They had been tracking those guys, followed them to the area, matched the descriptions. But this is not a cop pulling over a guy with a tail light out. These guys had rpgs, were shooting at U.S. soldiers. Even in the wikileaks video the guy says, "they're shooting at us."

You are right, it does not mean mistakes weren't made. But to be unequivocal in that situation? Impossible. They have to accept that their intel is correct, whether it be that they were or were not enemies. That is all they have to go on.



If those guys had a chance to shoot one of those rpgs into a humvee and kill 11 soldiers no one would give a fuck on gaf.

 

[numble]

I understand your argument, but do you really believe that the only thing they were going on was that grainy video from the helicopter? They had been tracking those guys, followed them to the area, matched the descriptions. But this is not a cop pulling over a guy with a tail light out. These guys had rpgs, were shooting at U.S. soldiers. Even in the wikileaks video the guy says, "they're shooting at us."

You are right, it does not mean mistakes weren't made. But to be unequivocal in that situation? Impossible. They have to accept that their intel is correct, whether it be that they were or were not enemies. That is all they have to go on.



If those guys had a chance to shoot one of those rpgs into a humvee and kill 11 soldiers no one would give a fuck on gaf.

My only point was that you stated that the only innocents killed were 2 journalists, and that I think that is still undetermined. The military statement I've read did not say they tracked and followed them to the area, just that they matched the description of individuals in the vicinity. This is why I keep asking for quotes--I've been reading statements, but still don't see the stuff that you say about confirmations about tracking, following, firing, etc. If the guy in the video said that they were fired upon, why isn't that emphasized in the statement. If you can find a better statement to support your view, I will change my mind.

This is the only statement I've seen:

"Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat," Hanzlik said.
​

EDIT:
As a point of comparison, even in cases with heavy intel and names and photos, mistakes can be made, as the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes ably demonstrates:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article556227.ece

Officers assume that de Menezes's "description and demeanour" match one of the terror suspects.

During the course of his journey: officers pass on information to Gold Command, their operations centre, that he matches the description of one of two terror suspects, including Hussain Osman, the alleged Shepherd’s Bush bomber.

Gold Command instructs them to stop de Menezes from getting on the Tube. It changes the status of the operation to "code red tactic" - from mere surveillance to an armed operation - and hands over control to CO19, the specialist firearms unit.
​

Of course if Menezes was actually a terrorist and had a chance to blow up the subway car, nobody would give a fuck that the officers shot and killed him.

 

[WanderingWind]

Wow, I really can't tell if you're serious or not. Are you really suggesting that there aren't systems in place to brief personnel and command on private industry civilians, U.S. civilians, and etc in the area of their patrols? Really!?

Holy hell. Let me try again. Do you have any idea of the complexity of communications in a war zone with shifting boundaries and dozens of independent commands? There is a reason why in said war zone, reporters normally embed with a specific unit. Going freelance as these reporters did was severely dangerous.

I asked for more explanation specifically so I could show you where your mistake lies. No need to act like I am trying to argue by fiat.

I suggest you offer a hypothetical to change my point of view, then, if you think it so easy. The hypothetical is not offered to prove anything. It is offered to get people to think about what is happening in a way that is independent of the identity of the parties (and, thereby, to help clear away unexamined and implicit biases that may be contributing to the formation of opinions about the issue).

Even ignoring the pomposity of your intent, you're still incorrect. A hypothetical does not get people to think about anything other than the hypothetical. It's a mental exercise divorced from any expectation of realistic discussion.

 

[Masta_Killah]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...y-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/?test=latestnews

And yes, it's a Faux-News article--blah blah blah. Unless Fox made the quotes up I really don't care. Not that an Ad Hominem attack against everything Fox ever writes isn't a logical fallacy in itself. Until I see this debunked, I'm siding with the military over this one. It's quite plausible that the two dead Reuters guys were imbedded with a group of insurgents.

Yeah, I saw that too(didn't read the fox article and saw it when I first viewed the video). You can clearly see 2 men carrying weapons. It's still excessive use of power though, since there were lots of citizens around the men. The shooting of the van was just overkill.

 

[taylor910]

My only point was that you stated that the only innocents killed were 2 journalists, and that I think that is still undetermined. The military statement I've read did not say they tracked and followed them to the area, just that they matched the description of individuals in the vicinity. This is why I keep asking for quotes--I've been reading statements, but still don't see the stuff that you say about confirmations about tracking, following, firing, etc. If the guy in the video said that they were fired upon, why isn't that emphasized in the statement. If you can find a better statement to support your view, I will change my mind.

This is the only statement I've seen:

"Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat," Hanzlik said.
​

EDIT:
As a point of comparison, even in cases with heavy intel and names and photos, mistakes can be made, as the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes ably demonstrates:

I heard the guy say it in the video. The army official commenting on the situation did not reference the video at all.

I think that the quote you gave is enough evidence. They were in combat with individuals all day with the same descriptions, same weapons, same age, same area.

As for the edit you posted, I am not familiar with that incident, but from what I read that guy was not armed. The guys in the wikileaks video had multiple rpgs and assault rifles. Plus they shot at them.

Edit: The army report stated 11 people were killed, including 2 journalists. There is nothing else to go by, that is why I made that statement (which was posed as a question btw).

 

[Evlar]

Even ignoring the pomposity of your intent, you're still incorrect. A hypothetical does not get people to think about anything other than the hypothetical. It's a mental exercise divorced from any expectation of realistic discussion.

"Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons."

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/124461

 

[Cheeto]

Holy hell. Let me try again. Do you have any idea of the complexity of communications in a war zone with shifting boundaries and dozens of independent commands? There is a reason why in said war zone, reporters normally embed with a specific unit. Going freelance as these reporters did was severely dangerous.

No shit it's dangerous... that's entire fucking point I was trying to make. The reporters were acting carelessly.

And if my question is so misinformed and stupid, why would an individual with real life experiences over there ask the same fucking question?

First off, I would be interested in knowing whether or not Reuters reported the presence of journalists to the US Forces who were responsible for operating the battlespace they were located in.

That fact that the Bradley unit's ground commander clears the Apaches to engage without further target description implies that this was not the case, and if so it means that these journalists were operating completely independent of any ability of the US to track them, or even know they were present somewhere. This is incredibly dangerous, even now in 2010. Back in 2007, that sort of thing would have been damn near suicidal.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/the-lies-of-the-pentagon-ctd-3.html

 

[WanderingWind]

"Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons."

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/124461

...was the link really necessary? I shudder to think there would be people on GAF unfamiliar with The Princess Bride. :lol

No shit it's dangerous... that's entire fucking point I was trying to make. The reporters were acting carelessly.

And if my question is so misinformed and stupid, why would an individual with real life experiences over there ask the same fucking question?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/the-lies-of-the-pentagon-ctd-3.html

...sigh. I'm failing to explain this to you properly. Okay, one last time.

Who would the reporters tell? Which operational command?

 

[Evlar]

...was the link really necessary? I shudder to think there would be people on GAF unfamiliar with The Princess Bride. :lol

Well, you never know.

 

[numble]

I heard the guy say it in the video. The army official commenting on the situation did not reference the video at all.

I think that the quote you gave is enough evidence. They were in combat with individuals all day with the same descriptions, same weapons, same age, same area.

As for the edit you posted, I am not familiar with that incident, but from what I read that guy was not armed. The guys in the wikileaks video had multiple rpgs and assault rifles. Plus they shot at them.

I thought you said they followed and tracked them to that location based on superb intel?

Again, I haven't questioned the engagement, I questioned your statement that they are confirmed to be insurgents, which I have yet to see a confirmation of. Someone on the video also claimed that an insurgent was deliberately bringing children into the combat zone. This is why I don't trust statements made in the heat of the moment. If they really were fired upon, I would want the military to make that clear, rather than making these equivocating statements that casts doubt on a lot of ears. Don't you think that a higher up saying "They were the enemy, they fired on us" would clear things up a lot more than "They matched the description of some enemy that were in the area"?

 

[Mii]

Why has the discussion completely left the attack on the van? That seems to me where the biggest problem is.

 

[Cheeto]

...sigh. I'm failing to explain this to you properly. Okay, one last time.

Who would the reporters tell? Which operational command?

Good question, let me renew my press badge so I can find out...

 

[Oblivion]

Question for you non U.S. gaffers. Do your countries' governments tend to censor stuff like this during war time?

 

[Menelaus]

Question for you non U.S. gaffers. Do your countries' governments tend to censor stuff like this during war time?

Eagerly awaiting the Canadian responses

 

[taylor910]

I guess as a person in the legal field, I'm pushed to look at equivocating statements and require stringent fact-finding, rather than accept that "our intel is superb."

Jesus how did I miss this, :lol


Ok, so they were exchanging gunfire with iraqis and lost them. Then they started looking for where they went. In the same area, guys of the same description with the same weapons were found. If you want to argue over the definition of "tracked" that is fine. This is what I meant.

 

[syllogism]

Question for you non U.S. gaffers. Do your countries' governments tend to censor stuff like this during war time?

War time? Who exactly do you expect to respond, "the coalition of the willing"?

 

[ConfusingJazz]

So, anyone see the head of Wikileaks on Colbert last night? http://gawker.com/5515720/stephen-colbert-grills-wikileaks-founder-on-helicopter-video

The good stuff is at 2:30.

 

[Rur0ni]

So, anyone see the head of Wikileaks on Colbert last night? http://gawker.com/5515720/stephen-colbert-grills-wikileaks-founder-on-helicopter-video

The good stuff is at 2:30.

Colbert was good. Wikileaks guy is... :|

 

[RiskyChris]

"What branch of the service did you serve in?"

Ugh......

At least he calls out a straight lie.

I love how Colbert edited Assange's defense of his edits.

Edit: ugh this is horrible

Assange: "The soldiers in the helicopter do not need to be a concern for harm minimization"
Colbert: "Oh so you're implying soldiers don't get harmed by war?"

 

[pakkit]

Guys, they weren't armed.

They weren't armed.

EDIT: Why the fuck would Wikileaks decide to go onto Colbert... :|

 

[delirium]

Guys, they weren't armed.

They weren't armed.

EDIT: Why the fuck would Wikileaks decide to go onto Colbert... :|

What? Yes they were. Multiple sources (included Wikileaks) have stated that they were armed with AKs and RPGs.

 

[Holepunch]

What? Yes they were. Multiple sources (included Wikileaks) have stated that they were armed with AKs and RPGs.

What? Did I miss something? I thought the whole problem is they were just carrying around duffel bags of camera equipment because they're, you know, journalists. From what I've seen in the video there was no rpg and certain no AK47s. Maybe photography equipment can look like disassembled rpgs but it still seemed like flimsy evidence to open fire with.