Jeremy played Plants Vs. Zombies at PAX East. I still had some credits at Big Fish Games. This game is silly, easy, and so addicting. I should be sleeping.
If you laid every cell of my body end to end and inscribed "hate" on every Planck length of that ribbon, it wouldn't equal one one-billionth of how much I fucking hate power series.
Recognize this first: I am vividly aware of their usefulness for physics, CompSci, all that goodness. That being said, I find them teeth-grindingly abstract and likely unnecessary for my future career. But I'm working at them.
Abstract mathematics for the win! What's your future career?
Either law or medicine. None of the doctors I have spoken with can honestly say that they use the material I'm studying; a few reported that they didn't know what I was talking about (you only need Calc I for an integrated bio degree).
Saw an Article on i09 today, about Sam Worthington, which was a bucket of fail, and the comments, even more so. Basically, the article was "He's not a star, he's not an actor, and all he can do is glower." The comments were mostly along the same lines, apart from a small few.
The reason this is a bucket of fail? He actually had a career before Terminator Salvation, dumbass. Macbeth? Gettin' Straight? Christ, even bootmen? Did you at least see Dirty Deeds, I mean, christ, it's got John Goodman in it, you'd think you'd have bothered to watch that?
Oh wait, of course not. He didn't exist before he started starring in the usual dreck hollywood pumps out year after year. Excuse me for forgetting, nothing actually exists outside the borders of the US, and most of my life has been a particularly vivid fever dream.
I call BS on this video. If they hadn't pointed out that those were cameras you'd be hard pressed to tell them from weapons.
Wait, you call BS on the film's integrity? They recovered and identified the bodies of the reporters at those coordinates. Those pilots got punchy at shot reporters from an international new agency. End of story.
I'm seconding that this video is being used in a highly manipulative way. Sitting in front of your computer with annotations as to who's who and carrying what isn't a luxury soldiers have. Feel free to make moral judgments after the fact, but remember you aren't the one who has to make the decisions in the moment.
Can someone show us the raw video without the quotes and annotations?
I'm pretty sure the raw video is available as a torrent on their site, but I'm currently downloading it so not sure if its raw or just uncut. To me though it looks like it's debatable as to whether what they were holding from the view of the helicopter did look like weapons. One of the dudes to the left early on does look armed, or at least holding an odd stick. The response they took though given the situation seemed extreme (perhaps why I'm not a soldier) for seeing guys who did not seem to be acting in an aggressive manner.
edit: video finished while writing this, it appears to be fully unedited except for a from wikileaks bit on the front.
Can someone show us the raw video without the quotes and annotations?
It might be on Wikileaks. However, I will suffer not a government to murder a reporter. Especially when they covered it up. That's a dangerous, dangerous road.
However, I will suffer not a government to murder a reporter.
Murder requires intent to purposefully kill another individual for a specific reason. Apart from the fact that this is a war zone, apart from the fact that there were ground operations not more than a few blocks away, and apart from the fact that there were clearly weapons within the group; can you even give a plausible reason why the government would want to murder a specific reporter on purpose?
can you even give a plausible reason why the government would want to murder a specific reporter on purpose?
Nope. However, I would think that if someone shoots a man outside a war zone because he thinks the man is pointing a gun at him, and it turns out to be a camera, that the shooter would be convicted of murder. The men were vetted reporters moving with escorts, which explains the weapons.
However, even though I recognize that any report accepts a risk of being caught in the crossfire from either side while reporting on the war, the fact of the matter is that the US military would not admit that it had killed the journalists, would not admit that it injured children (though they were brought to a US base before the High Command told soldiers to move the kids to an Iraqi hospital), and then--when pressed to reveal the truth--claimed that the group was fired upon in accordance with classified Rules of Engagement. When the rules were leaked (and also independently verified by a retired intelligence officer), it was revealed that there was no reason to target these people. The military lied and covered it up like a motherfucker on this one.
War journalists die all the time, some from friendly fire. I recognize that. The fail here is that there was no reason for these guys to die, and they were shot anyway. Those choppers never should have received clearance to fire.
I would think that if someone shoots a man outside a war zone because he thinks the man is pointing a gun at him, and it turns out to be a camera, that the shooter would be convicted of murder. The men were vetted reporters moving with escorts, which explains the weapons.
I'm pretty confident that that would be manslaughter, as long as you could convince a jury that you really believed it was a weapon.
However, I would think that if someone shoots a man outside a war zone because he thinks the man is pointing a gun at him, and it turns out to be a camera, that the shooter would be convicted of murder.
Actually, just from my common knowledge here, it would probably be some form of voluntary manslaughter.
The men were vetted reporters moving with escorts, which explains the weapons.
I don't see how this makes any difference to the situation. They were with non-uniformed men carrying weapons (an RPG no less) in a hostile zone while American's were carrying out operations in the area against known insurgents/militia.
However, even though I recognize that any report accepts a risk of being caught in the crossfire from either side while reporting on the war, the fact of the matter is that the US military would not admit that it had killed the journalists, would not admit that it injured children (though they were brought to a US base before the High Command told soldiers to move the kids to an Iraqi hospital), and then--when pressed to reveal the truth--claimed that the group was fired upon in accordance with classified Rules of Engagement. When the rules were leaked (and also independently verified by a retired intelligence officer), it was revealed that there was no reason to target these people.
The reputable sources I read on the site linked didn't make it clear that this was the case. Obviously I don't think that any government would admit that they injured children, however unfortunate that may be. I honestly think the video alone of the situation is not enough to either establish or disprove any sort of legitimate threat in the area. If ground forces were under continual and concentrated attacks by militia forces in that area than I would think that it would be more than reasonable to engage men with small arms and anti-tank weapons.
War journalists die all the time, some from friendly fire. I recognize that. The fail here is that there was no reason for these guys to die, and they were shot anyway.
Yes, war sucks.
They never should have received clearance to fire.
However, I will suffer not a government to murder a reporter. Especially when they covered it up. That's a dangerous, dangerous road.
Alright. This has officially gone too far, and started leaving a very bitter taste in my metaphorical mouth.
Let's have a quick breakdown the video they're presenting - at least on youtube, I'm still waiting on the "Full version" to download, and I'm pretty sure that there's buckley's chance of them releasing the Raw Guncam Footage. Also, I have no audio, and after the first time two times I watched it, youtube stopped working for me, I'm going from memory here.
First of all, Let's ignore the preamble. It's little more than a cynical attempt to tug one's heartstrings, and to provide their own context to a video that they are, ultimately, providing out of context. They're not saying "Here is a video. Make up your mind. Also, after that, this is what we think." they're saying "This was murder by the millitary. Look how sad this respected journalist's son and collegues are. Look how much of a tragedy this Murder is. Oh, and by the way, here is the video, with helpful annotations that we have added in with the benifit of hindsight, and on having all the facts availiable, and hyper-zoomed shots not availiable to the people actually present. Wonders of technology, eh?"
Most obviously, the video is presented out of context. We immediately jump to a group of males, some of which - without the benifit of helpful annotations by civilians with full hindsight, no situational pressure, and the facts availiable - look to be armed, in an area where a group of Humvees and Bradleys were soon to be passing through. Eight minute response time, in the middle of a city like bagdad, in an area where they have just had what they think of as a hostile contact, with that amount of vehicles of that size, and you think they wern't heading that way anyway? Bullshit they're not - This is the US army, not the fuckin' Kool Aid Man - they do actualy use the roads and paths already there, rather than just busting through walls shouting "OOOHHH YEAAAAH!" On top of that, These are notoriously tight and twisty streets of Bagdad. Compared to that, what you think of as a street is practically central bloody park. Add to that that the Helo gunners were checking for danger close before they opened fire - with the 30MM cannon, rather than dropping a hydra on them - these guys were not that far away.
They looked like they were armed to the helo crews, and moving with purpose, in an area that a group of vehicles were passing through. With me so far?
Now, from the guncam footage alone, if you ignore the "Helpful" annotations, it looks entirely possible that at least one of the group is carring a dissassembled RPG. The RPG 7 breaks down to less than half the length for carrying - about the size of a medium tripod, which from the guy setting up around the corner, it looks like he was setting up his camera on.
As Andrew mentioned, look at about 3:39 - it looks a hell of a lot more like a weapon being assembled in cover, than a guy setting up a camera on a tripod. And, they certainly didn't fire then - They waited to come around and possibly get a better view, while calling for clearance to engage at their discresion. When they came around, they were in a group, and could have very easily been concealing weapons between them.
Then, we have the hard contact.
Then, The van pulls up. So, people you are sure are insurgents, sure enough to open fire on, are picking up their wounded and weapons - you gonna let them? No, you are not. Yes, there were kids in the van - But tell me you saw that BEFORE you got the hyper-zoomed, annotated version of the picture pointing them out, and I'll call you a liar. And as good as these pilots are, it's doubtful that they would have picked up that these were kids in the van. the video you're seeing - the un-annotated and unedited parts - are raw guncam footage, which comes directly from what the gunner is seeing in his helmet mounted display.
As for the accusation that the childeren were given a poorer standard of care? You're high. Yes, they were ordered to be taken to a local hospital. However, they were not only childeren who were pulled from a group of what they thought were insurgents - so not nessassarily the sort of people you want to take into a millitary hospital - but they were also in a van which was hit with a bunch of High Explosive Dual Purpose rounds - they're lucky to be much more than a smear on the upholstry. No condition report is given - they may have been injured badly enough that there simply was not time to get the bradley back to the base hospital, and instead, they chose to get them the fastest care possible.
As for supposedly running over a body - did you even notice that when they switched to the hyper-zoom, annotated version, they cut off a statement from the gunner saying how it might have been an illusion? And even with the annotation, even in the hyperzoom, it's rediculously hard to pick out that particular spot as a body, rather than a feature of the scenery. On top of that - it looks to be about five or six yards from where they'd previously claimed the exact same body was. O rly? Magic teleporting dead bodies? Well, that's a new trick.
Speaking of the cuts, that brings me to a previous point I noted - There are a lot of cuts to this video, where they choose to shove in an out of context quote here, and an annotated and zoomed shot there. the video doesn't start back where they left off - it always starts after an unknown amount of time passed, with all comms data and visual data being lost from that period of time - we have to take them at their word that what they are telling us happened in the footage they cut out is true, and as is already clear, they're not afraid to cut and edit the video to say what they want.
Alright, that's the brief version so far. I'll give it another go when I finish with the "Full version" and after watching the youtube version a few times more, when I get it to work again.
But even just from this, it's pretty clear - they are pushing an agenda, cynically and extremely offensively tugging on people's emotions to do so, and painting men who have acted exactly as they were trained to do under the circumstances - and without the benifit of the information that group of inexperienced, untrained, and uneducated on the topic civvies has availiable to them - as Murderers, and throwing in a conspiracy theory for bonus fun.
This video makes me angry. But not at the soldiers, or the millitary, or even the war, but at the out and out arseholes who made this video. They're exploiting a tragedy to push their agenda in a manipulative and cynical fashion. Innocent people died thanks to a case of mistaken identity, And they are using it to push their fucking conspiracy theory agenda. That is the most disgusting and offensive thing I've seen in a very, very long time.
Edit - Luckily, I refreshed before I posted this. So, Replies to other stuff in the next post, which should immediately follow. Be patient, it'll take a minute.
Actually, just from my common knowledge here, it would probably be some form of voluntary manslaughter.
Valid. So, for all intents and purposes, and in light of the debate, I'll revert to a neutral position on the topic.
They were with non-uniformed men carrying weapons (an RPG no less) in a hostile zone while American's were carrying out operations in the area against known insurgents/militia.
Well, what looked like an RPG, anyway.
This is debatable.
Upon further analysis on my end, you're right.
Alright. This has officially gone too far, and started leaving a very bitter taste in my metaphorical mouth.
Let me just state that I have no opinion on the annotations. I was just going by the footage, and the arguments have swayed me.
Nope. However, I would think that if someone shoots a man outside a war zone because he thinks the man is pointing a gun at him, and it turns out to be a camera, that the shooter would be convicted of murder. The men were vetted reporters moving with escorts, which explains the weapons.
No, to the best of my knowlege, as Andrew Said, that's Voluntary Manslaughter. Also, you forget - this isn't outside a war zone. It's right in the middle of one.
However, even though I recognize that any report accepts a risk of being caught in the crossfire from either side while reporting on the war, the fact of the matter is that the US military would not admit that it had killed the journalists, would not admit that it injured children (though they were brought to a US base before the High Command told soldiers to move the kids to an Iraqi hospital), and then--when pressed to reveal the truth--claimed that the group was fired upon in accordance with classified Rules of Engagement. When the rules were leaked (and also independently verified by a retired intelligence officer), it was revealed that there was no reason to target these people. The military lied and covered it up like a motherfucker on this one.
Horseshit, and with an added dash of "You have no clue what you're talking about, do you?"
High Command Had nothing to do with the decision to take the injured children to an Iraqi hospital. Even to suggest so shows that the person suggesting it doesn't have a clue how the millitary chain of command works. A decision of that size (which is, as horrible as it sounds, a fucking tiny one, relatively) would be handled most likely no higher than a E6 or E7, and I'd be suprised if it made it that far up the chain. The only time it would make it to this Nebulous "High command" you speak of would be in after action reports, and by that time, they're not in a position to order a goddamned thing, unless you want to claim they're also Time Lords. Also, we have no information of other than that they were injured, with everything else(including a classified statement that they are chosing to TELL us about rather than SHOW us proof of, which doesn't jibe with reality) being purely the statement of the makers of the video and website - were taken to an Iraqi hospital, rather than to a US army base - the nearest of which being Camp Victory, Northeast of Bagdad airport - The base being more than 20 kilometers west and south of the location of the incident, but also requiring the troops to drive through most of Bagdad in a large, heavy armored vehicle, outside of the Green zone. Considering the van was struck with a number of HEDP rounds, including one through the windshield when the kids were sitting in the front seat, they're only alive by pure miracle, and even then, would have been really badly messed up.
More likely theory that's devoid of conspiracy theory bullshit - The kids were injured badly enough that they could not keep them stable untill they got to the somewhat ironicly named Camp Victory, and instead decided to route to a local hospital, where they could at least attempt to stabilize the childeren before attempting further care. Don't forget - the Primary care was a US Army Medic, not an ambulence, or a hospital. They're lucky they made it that far, I'd say, and it's only by luck and the skill of the attending corpsman that they manged it.
Will the Army come out and say "Hey, we kinda fucked up, shot up a bunch of innocents, and nearly killed two kids"? Propably not. But a coverup? Orders from some Nebulous, ill defined, and pretty-much-using-the-term-as-a-buzzword high command? Not a chance.
Now, as for the rules being leaked? Really? I'd like to see these rules, and the credentials of this Intelligence officer that confirmed them, and an assesment of those rules that isn't from an untrained, inexperienced, and generally clueless civilian, who pretty clearly has a fucking agenda.
The fail here is that there was no reason for these guys to die, and they were shot anyway. Those choppers never should have received clearance to fire.
No, Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
True, it was a tragedy, and there was no proper reason for these people to die. They were not actually attempting to take action against US forces - despite how it looked on the guncam. They were honestly not trying to harm anyone. However, They were in a combat zone, in an area that a US patrol was passing through, with what looked to a Helo crew like weapons, and therefore, to that crew, there was a reason they should die - they thought they were armed insurgents, in an area through which a US patrol was passing, and one of them had been spotted with what very much looked to be an RPG. That was the information they had availiable to them. And considering, as much of a tragedy as it was, they absolutely should have had clearance to fire, and to refuse them that clearance would be to be putting the lives of a number of US soldiers at risk.
This is debatable.
No, it's not, for the reasons outlined above. Clearance is not an order to fire, which is entirely on the gunner. He has clearance, he can fire, or he can not. Having clearance to fire simply means "You may fire if nessassay according to your judgement and the information you have availiable." There are cases - purely from memory, and they're not exactly easy to find - where soldiers have been court martialed for their actions, despite being given the clearance to fire.
Well, what looked like an RPG, anyway.
Irrelevant. It looked like an RPG, and they could not confirm from the data they had that it wasn't, therefore they had no other option but to consider the person seen with it was armed with one. They were in hostile territory. They looked like they had a weapon. Under those circumstances, you must assume they have one, because if you're wrong, there will be a bunch of soldiers who won't be in the postion to assume jack shit ever again.
Let me just state that I have no opinion on the annotations. I was just going by the footage, and the arguments have swayed me.
You outright called their actions murder, and are repeating unproven information that the only source for so far was the makers of the video and website. it is an assumption that you were taking them seriously, but a justifiable one. Pardon if I seem a little harsh and confrontational in the way I state my position, but a type like I talk, and as fred will tell you, this is pretty much how I talk, though you don't get any inflection or context from the written form.
Murder = intentional (or depravedly reckless) homicide (level of intent is debatable and not at all definitive). No reason is necessary, just intent. Voluntary Manslaughter = intentional homicide mitigated by a defense like heat of passion Involuntary Manslaughter = unintentional reckless homicide (caused by an act) Criminally Negligent Homicide = unintentional negligent homicide (caused by an omission)
Obviously different jurisdictions have their own quirks, but this is generally how the US categorizes things. Of course, when in a war and following orders, we do not generally consider a soldier shooting at the enemy to be criminally-punishable murder. Feel free to argue about what standard applies.
As far as the video goes, if you go into a war zone, then you accept the danger of being caught in the crossfire. It sucks, and it's tragic, but no one is highlighting the individual civilians that are killed in every day just for living in the countries where factions are fighting, so why is the death of a reporter who voluntarily put himself in danger such a big shock?
Ah! I speak a little too soon - I've not got the chance to look it over yet, but wikileaks have - as of a few minutes ago - posted extra information to their website. Will look it over later on.
You outright called their actions murder, and are repeating unproven information that the only source for so far was the makers of the video and website. it is an assumption that you were taking them seriously, but a justifiable one. Pardon if I seem a little harsh and confrontational in the way I state my position, but a type like I talk, and as fred will tell you, this is pretty much how I talk, though you don't get any inflection or context from the written form.
Fair's fair. My previous post was a concession of defeat as much as anything. When the arguments flared up, I started peeking about (surprisingly, Huffington Post had some of the best "slow your roll" discussion of this) and discovered, much as you posted, that Wikileaks isn't quite unbiased.
So anyway, yeah. I'm with you. I think the past-tense in "You outright called their actions murder" is key here, and I'd just ask that you recognize that the "repetition of unproven information" isn't something I'm still doing.
So anyway, yeah. I'm with you. I think the past-tense in "You outright calledtheir actions murder" is key here, and I'd just ask that you recognize that the "repetition of unproven information" isn't something I'm still doing.
It is key to exactly what I was saying - That you said it. I'm not saying that you are continuing down that road, or that you have not reconsidered your position, It's all good, no worries here. Admittedly, some of my outrage at the makers of the video did bleed into what I was saying, but at no point was it directed at you with any malice.
However, I was unclear within the same sentance - I should have said "And you have given to us unproven information given only by wikileaks", which still while not the best way to put it, the closest to what I meant. I didn't mean you were or are repeating it over and over, just that you had repeated what wikileaks had said. Pardon me for putting that poorly, I should have done that a bit better.
Comments
The reason this is a bucket of fail? He actually had a career before Terminator Salvation, dumbass. Macbeth? Gettin' Straight? Christ, even bootmen? Did you at least see Dirty Deeds, I mean, christ, it's got John Goodman in it, you'd think you'd have bothered to watch that?
Oh wait, of course not. He didn't exist before he started starring in the usual dreck hollywood pumps out year after year. Excuse me for forgetting, nothing actually exists outside the borders of the US, and most of my life has been a particularly vivid fever dream.
'Merrca. Where Canon lenses fire RPGs.
Sitting in front of your computer with annotations as to who's who and carrying what isn't a luxury soldiers have. Feel free to make moral judgments after the fact, but remember you aren't the one who has to make the decisions in the moment.
Can someone show us the raw video without the quotes and annotations?
edit: video finished while writing this, it appears to be fully unedited except for a from wikileaks bit on the front.
However, even though I recognize that any report accepts a risk of being caught in the crossfire from either side while reporting on the war, the fact of the matter is that the US military would not admit that it had killed the journalists, would not admit that it injured children (though they were brought to a US base before the High Command told soldiers to move the kids to an Iraqi hospital), and then--when pressed to reveal the truth--claimed that the group was fired upon in accordance with classified Rules of Engagement. When the rules were leaked (and also independently verified by a retired intelligence officer), it was revealed that there was no reason to target these people. The military lied and covered it up like a motherfucker on this one.
War journalists die all the time, some from friendly fire. I recognize that. The fail here is that there was no reason for these guys to die, and they were shot anyway. Those choppers never should have received clearance to fire.
Let's have a quick breakdown the video they're presenting - at least on youtube, I'm still waiting on the "Full version" to download, and I'm pretty sure that there's buckley's chance of them releasing the Raw Guncam Footage. Also, I have no audio, and after the first time two times I watched it, youtube stopped working for me, I'm going from memory here.
First of all, Let's ignore the preamble. It's little more than a cynical attempt to tug one's heartstrings, and to provide their own context to a video that they are, ultimately, providing out of context. They're not saying "Here is a video. Make up your mind. Also, after that, this is what we think." they're saying "This was murder by the millitary. Look how sad this respected journalist's son and collegues are. Look how much of a tragedy this Murder is. Oh, and by the way, here is the video, with helpful annotations that we have added in with the benifit of hindsight, and on having all the facts availiable, and hyper-zoomed shots not availiable to the people actually present. Wonders of technology, eh?"
Most obviously, the video is presented out of context. We immediately jump to a group of males, some of which - without the benifit of helpful annotations by civilians with full hindsight, no situational pressure, and the facts availiable - look to be armed, in an area where a group of Humvees and Bradleys were soon to be passing through. Eight minute response time, in the middle of a city like bagdad, in an area where they have just had what they think of as a hostile contact, with that amount of vehicles of that size, and you think they wern't heading that way anyway? Bullshit they're not - This is the US army, not the fuckin' Kool Aid Man - they do actualy use the roads and paths already there, rather than just busting through walls shouting "OOOHHH YEAAAAH!"
On top of that, These are notoriously tight and twisty streets of Bagdad. Compared to that, what you think of as a street is practically central bloody park.
Add to that that the Helo gunners were checking for danger close before they opened fire - with the 30MM cannon, rather than dropping a hydra on them - these guys were not that far away.
They looked like they were armed to the helo crews, and moving with purpose, in an area that a group of vehicles were passing through. With me so far?
Now, from the guncam footage alone, if you ignore the "Helpful" annotations, it looks entirely possible that at least one of the group is carring a dissassembled RPG. The RPG 7 breaks down to less than half the length for carrying - about the size of a medium tripod, which from the guy setting up around the corner, it looks like he was setting up his camera on.
As Andrew mentioned, look at about 3:39 - it looks a hell of a lot more like a weapon being assembled in cover, than a guy setting up a camera on a tripod. And, they certainly didn't fire then - They waited to come around and possibly get a better view, while calling for clearance to engage at their discresion. When they came around, they were in a group, and could have very easily been concealing weapons between them.
Then, we have the hard contact.
Then, The van pulls up. So, people you are sure are insurgents, sure enough to open fire on, are picking up their wounded and weapons - you gonna let them? No, you are not. Yes, there were kids in the van - But tell me you saw that BEFORE you got the hyper-zoomed, annotated version of the picture pointing them out, and I'll call you a liar. And as good as these pilots are, it's doubtful that they would have picked up that these were kids in the van. the video you're seeing - the un-annotated and unedited parts - are raw guncam footage, which comes directly from what the gunner is seeing in his helmet mounted display.
As for the accusation that the childeren were given a poorer standard of care? You're high. Yes, they were ordered to be taken to a local hospital. However, they were not only childeren who were pulled from a group of what they thought were insurgents - so not nessassarily the sort of people you want to take into a millitary hospital - but they were also in a van which was hit with a bunch of High Explosive Dual Purpose rounds - they're lucky to be much more than a smear on the upholstry. No condition report is given - they may have been injured badly enough that there simply was not time to get the bradley back to the base hospital, and instead, they chose to get them the fastest care possible.
As for supposedly running over a body - did you even notice that when they switched to the hyper-zoom, annotated version, they cut off a statement from the gunner saying how it might have been an illusion? And even with the annotation, even in the hyperzoom, it's rediculously hard to pick out that particular spot as a body, rather than a feature of the scenery. On top of that - it looks to be about five or six yards from where they'd previously claimed the exact same body was. O rly? Magic teleporting dead bodies? Well, that's a new trick.
Speaking of the cuts, that brings me to a previous point I noted - There are a lot of cuts to this video, where they choose to shove in an out of context quote here, and an annotated and zoomed shot there. the video doesn't start back where they left off - it always starts after an unknown amount of time passed, with all comms data and visual data being lost from that period of time - we have to take them at their word that what they are telling us happened in the footage they cut out is true, and as is already clear, they're not afraid to cut and edit the video to say what they want.
Alright, that's the brief version so far. I'll give it another go when I finish with the "Full version" and after watching the youtube version a few times more, when I get it to work again.
But even just from this, it's pretty clear - they are pushing an agenda, cynically and extremely offensively tugging on people's emotions to do so, and painting men who have acted exactly as they were trained to do under the circumstances - and without the benifit of the information that group of inexperienced, untrained, and uneducated on the topic civvies has availiable to them - as Murderers, and throwing in a conspiracy theory for bonus fun.
This video makes me angry. But not at the soldiers, or the millitary, or even the war, but at the out and out arseholes who made this video. They're exploiting a tragedy to push their agenda in a manipulative and cynical fashion. Innocent people died thanks to a case of mistaken identity, And they are using it to push their fucking conspiracy theory agenda. That is the most disgusting and offensive thing I've seen in a very, very long time.
Edit - Luckily, I refreshed before I posted this. So, Replies to other stuff in the next post, which should immediately follow. Be patient, it'll take a minute.
High Command Had nothing to do with the decision to take the injured children to an Iraqi hospital. Even to suggest so shows that the person suggesting it doesn't have a clue how the millitary chain of command works. A decision of that size (which is, as horrible as it sounds, a fucking tiny one, relatively) would be handled most likely no higher than a E6 or E7, and I'd be suprised if it made it that far up the chain. The only time it would make it to this Nebulous "High command" you speak of would be in after action reports, and by that time, they're not in a position to order a goddamned thing, unless you want to claim they're also Time Lords. Also, we have no information of other than that they were injured, with everything else(including a classified statement that they are chosing to TELL us about rather than SHOW us proof of, which doesn't jibe with reality) being purely the statement of the makers of the video and website - were taken to an Iraqi hospital, rather than to a US army base - the nearest of which being Camp Victory, Northeast of Bagdad airport - The base being more than 20 kilometers west and south of the location of the incident, but also requiring the troops to drive through most of Bagdad in a large, heavy armored vehicle, outside of the Green zone. Considering the van was struck with a number of HEDP rounds, including one through the windshield when the kids were sitting in the front seat, they're only alive by pure miracle, and even then, would have been really badly messed up.
More likely theory that's devoid of conspiracy theory bullshit - The kids were injured badly enough that they could not keep them stable untill they got to the somewhat ironicly named Camp Victory, and instead decided to route to a local hospital, where they could at least attempt to stabilize the childeren before attempting further care. Don't forget - the Primary care was a US Army Medic, not an ambulence, or a hospital. They're lucky they made it that far, I'd say, and it's only by luck and the skill of the attending corpsman that they manged it.
Will the Army come out and say "Hey, we kinda fucked up, shot up a bunch of innocents, and nearly killed two kids"? Propably not. But a coverup? Orders from some Nebulous, ill defined, and pretty-much-using-the-term-as-a-buzzword high command? Not a chance.
Now, as for the rules being leaked? Really? I'd like to see these rules, and the credentials of this Intelligence officer that confirmed them, and an assesment of those rules that isn't from an untrained, inexperienced, and generally clueless civilian, who pretty clearly has a fucking agenda. No, Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
True, it was a tragedy, and there was no proper reason for these people to die. They were not actually attempting to take action against US forces - despite how it looked on the guncam. They were honestly not trying to harm anyone. However, They were in a combat zone, in an area that a US patrol was passing through, with what looked to a Helo crew like weapons, and therefore, to that crew, there was a reason they should die - they thought they were armed insurgents, in an area through which a US patrol was passing, and one of them had been spotted with what very much looked to be an RPG. That was the information they had availiable to them. And considering, as much of a tragedy as it was, they absolutely should have had clearance to fire, and to refuse them that clearance would be to be putting the lives of a number of US soldiers at risk. No, it's not, for the reasons outlined above. Clearance is not an order to fire, which is entirely on the gunner. He has clearance, he can fire, or he can not. Having clearance to fire simply means "You may fire if nessassay according to your judgement and the information you have availiable."
There are cases - purely from memory, and they're not exactly easy to find - where soldiers have been court martialed for their actions, despite being given the clearance to fire. Irrelevant. It looked like an RPG, and they could not confirm from the data they had that it wasn't, therefore they had no other option but to consider the person seen with it was armed with one. They were in hostile territory. They looked like they had a weapon. Under those circumstances, you must assume they have one, because if you're wrong, there will be a bunch of soldiers who won't be in the postion to assume jack shit ever again. You outright called their actions murder, and are repeating unproven information that the only source for so far was the makers of the video and website. it is an assumption that you were taking them seriously, but a justifiable one. Pardon if I seem a little harsh and confrontational in the way I state my position, but a type like I talk, and as fred will tell you, this is pretty much how I talk, though you don't get any inflection or context from the written form.
Homicide = killing another human being
Murder = intentional (or depravedly reckless) homicide (level of intent is debatable and not at all definitive). No reason is necessary, just intent.
Voluntary Manslaughter = intentional homicide mitigated by a defense like heat of passion
Involuntary Manslaughter = unintentional reckless homicide (caused by an act)
Criminally Negligent Homicide = unintentional negligent homicide (caused by an omission)
Obviously different jurisdictions have their own quirks, but this is generally how the US categorizes things. Of course, when in a war and following orders, we do not generally consider a soldier shooting at the enemy to be criminally-punishable murder. Feel free to argue about what standard applies.
As far as the video goes, if you go into a war zone, then you accept the danger of being caught in the crossfire. It sucks, and it's tragic, but no one is highlighting the individual civilians that are killed in every day just for living in the countries where factions are fighting, so why is the death of a reporter who voluntarily put himself in danger such a big shock?
So anyway, yeah. I'm with you. I think the past-tense in "You outright called their actions murder" is key here, and I'd just ask that you recognize that the "repetition of unproven information" isn't something I'm still doing.
However, I was unclear within the same sentance - I should have said "And you have given to us unproven information given only by wikileaks", which still while not the best way to put it, the closest to what I meant. I didn't mean you were or are repeating it over and over, just that you had repeated what wikileaks had said. Pardon me for putting that poorly, I should have done that a bit better.