Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Quetzalcoatl
Youngling
Posts: 134
Joined: 2008-09-09 03:07pm
Location: Tenōchtitlan

Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Quetzalcoatl »

I don't know if anybody has been following the news:

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/americas/201 ... s-pentagon
WikiLeaks, a whistle blowing website run by The Sunshine Press, is due to release today what it says is previously unseen footage of a "Pentagon murder-coverup".

Last month the group said it had decrypted the US military video, which shows many civilians and journalists being killed.

The announcement has generated a lot of buzz for the group, and consequently, a lot of concerns for them too. WikiLeaks says it has been spied on aggressively since the announcement, both by US and Icelandic authorities.

Iceland, at least, has denied that claim though.

But it is far from the first time the group has been at the centre of controversy. WikiLeaks regularly publishes anonymously sourced, often classified documents from governments, corporations, and other private or powerful organisations.

Illustrating the consequences of this in a March editorial, Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, wrote:

Over the last few years, WikiLeaks has been the subject of hostile acts by security organisations. In the developing world, these range from the appalling assassination of two related human rights lawyers in Nairobi last March [an armed attack on my compound there in 2007 is still unattributed] to an unsuccessful mass attack by Chinese computers on our servers in Stockholm, after we published photos of murders in Tibet. In the West this has ranged from the overt, the head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the BND, threatening to prosecute us unless we removed a report on CIA activity in Kosovo, to the covert, to an ambush by a “James Bond” character in a Luxembourg car park, an event that ended with a mere “we think it would be in your interest to…”.
Article continues but you get the idea.


Apparently they have some sort of smoking gun video. Knowing the penchant of wikileaks for drama I'm skeptical, but...

If we assume that it is legitimate, it could not come at a worse time for the US army. USSOCOM has just admitted that Green Berets murdered three women in Afghanistan.

In about 15 minutes we'll see what this is all about.
"Maybe next time a girl touches his scrote he won't jump and run away."
"Well Quetz doesn't seem like a complete desperate loser, and seems like an OK guy... almost to the point of being a try hard OK guy IMO "How dare you fondle my jewels young lady!"

-Sanchez and Havok, on my problems with women
User avatar
Quetzalcoatl
Youngling
Posts: 134
Joined: 2008-09-09 03:07pm
Location: Tenōchtitlan

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Quetzalcoatl »

"Maybe next time a girl touches his scrote he won't jump and run away."
"Well Quetz doesn't seem like a complete desperate loser, and seems like an OK guy... almost to the point of being a try hard OK guy IMO "How dare you fondle my jewels young lady!"

-Sanchez and Havok, on my problems with women
User avatar
loomer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4260
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by loomer »

Direct link to the actual wikileaks release site:
Not easy viewing
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
User avatar
loomer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4260
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by loomer »

I have just finished viewing this and it's too late to edit the initial post.

We just witnessed footage of the murder of two unarmed journalists, 10+ (12 or so if you hold the view that the 'AKs' were actually just tripods) civvies, the firing of 30mm chainguns into the wall of a house at one point. I strongly recommend, when possible. I'm not shocked or surprised that the crews were laughing and joking - normal.

But I am outraged at what I just saw, including their poor performance in identifying hostiles and report of phantom gunfire, and everyone else should be as well.
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
User avatar
adam_grif
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2755
Joined: 2009-12-19 08:27am
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by adam_grif »

I'm a bit confused. I mean, they were wrong when they ID'd them, but they never really got much of a good look at their kit. I can see how they might have confused them, and we're only anylizing this footage now, having been told that they're cameras / tripods before we saw it. In their defense, there's probably ten RPG's for every shoulder mounted Camera in Baghdad. I can definately see why they would have slipped up on the ID here.

The only particuarly outraging thing there was that they (according to Wikileaks) covered it up after the fact and refused to release the footage.

(I've just got further proof that I don't have a heart because I was more outraged by the fact that they said Bradleys were tanks than at the footage itself)
A scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, 'What is the tortoise standing on?'

'You're very clever, young man, very clever,' said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down.'
User avatar
Ryan Thunder
Village Idiot
Posts: 4139
Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Location: Canada

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Ryan Thunder »

Complete with a George Orwell quote! How edgy.
adam_grif wrote:I'm a bit confused. I mean, they were wrong when they ID'd them, but they never really got much of a good look at their kit. I can see how they might have confused them, and we're only anylizing this footage now, having been told that they're cameras / tripods before we saw it. In their defense, there's probably ten RPG's for every shoulder mounted Camera in Baghdad. I can definately see why they would have slipped up on the ID here.
Yeah, they poison the well by trying to tell you what you're seeing before you see the clip, and tossing in photos of grieving family members to get you all worked up. That should've gone in after, if at all.
SDN Worlds 5: Sanctum
User avatar
Gil Hamilton
Tipsy Space Birdie
Posts: 12962
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Gil Hamilton »

What I'm not clear is besides the whole thing where they decided that cameras and tripods were weapons, but why the shot the van to shit. They couldn't think of any other reason someone might stop to pick up a person lying on the streets, wounded? You didn't see the people from the van go after the other bodies, they went to lift the wounded guy into their van. Obvious conclusion: they were driving, saw a guy shot up on the streets, and rendered aid to him.
I'm a bit confused. I mean, they were wrong when they ID'd them, but they never really got much of a good look at their kit. I can see how they might have confused them, and we're only anylizing this footage now, having been told that they're cameras / tripods before we saw it. In their defense, there's probably ten RPG's for every shoulder mounted Camera in Baghdad. I can definately see why they would have slipped up on the ID here.
The guy in the footage wasn't carrying a shoulder mounted video camera, but a handheld. Secondly, if they didn't get a good look at what the guys were holding, how did come up with RPGs and AK-47s (specifically AK-47s, no less)? You'll also notice that the amount of weapons reported went up from what objects we saw.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
User avatar
Ryan Thunder
Village Idiot
Posts: 4139
Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Location: Canada

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Ryan Thunder »

Don't get me wrong, by the way, steps need to be taken to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, if any can be taken at all. It is a tragedy.
SDN Worlds 5: Sanctum
User avatar
Highlord Laan
Jedi Master
Posts: 1394
Joined: 2009-11-08 02:36pm
Location: Christo-fundie Theofascist Dominion of Nebraskistan

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Highlord Laan »

Classic case of mis-identification and friendly fire. Hardly murder, but still a tragic fuckup.

Tossing in the Orwell quote and pictures of the family however, shows that wikileaks is going for jerking emotional strings and grandstanding than anything else. Not surprised. Hell, it works for the media, no reason it shouldn't here.
Last edited by Highlord Laan on 2010-04-05 11:49am, edited 1 time in total.
Never underestimate the ingenuity and cruelty of the Irish.
User avatar
loomer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4260
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by loomer »

You'd assume AK-47 because the AK family is as close to a standard rifle armament as the insurgents have, not because you saw it in sufficient detail, and though I think these guys are not particularly competent, they went in expecting weapons. It's identifying the cameras, which though not on casual observation camera-like in appearance did not appear to be weapons, that is galling.
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

Wow.

How do people acquire classified gunship camera footage of atrocities, anyway?
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
User avatar
Ryan Thunder
Village Idiot
Posts: 4139
Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Location: Canada

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Ryan Thunder »

EDIT: meant to hit "preview", not post, mod please delete.
SDN Worlds 5: Sanctum
User avatar
Big Phil
BANNED
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2004-10-15 02:18pm

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Big Phil »

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Wow.

How do people acquire classified gunship camera footage of atrocities, anyway?
How is this an atrocity? Atrocity implies intent (i.e., they knew these were civilians and journalists and killed them because of it). This is just a colossal fuckup. If I'd been told that these were insurgents carrying rifles and RPGs, there's a chance I might have perceived it that way - and considering this was a quick ID by a pilot and gunner in a helicopter, is there any real surprise they fucked up?
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
User avatar
adam_grif
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2755
Joined: 2009-12-19 08:27am
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by adam_grif »

What I'm not clear is besides the whole thing where they decided that cameras and tripods were weapons, but why the shot the van to shit. They couldn't think of any other reason someone might stop to pick up a person lying on the streets, wounded? You didn't see the people from the van go after the other bodies, they went to lift the wounded guy into their van. Obvious conclusion: they were driving, saw a guy shot up on the streets, and rendered aid to him.
By that stage they've already been assuming that they're hostile insurgents for several minutes, and iirc one of the dudes mistakenly reported that they were "going for the bodies and the weapons". They didn't even get a good look at that happening before they reported it, which is a fuckup of course, but I'm thinking the gunners were paranoid that they would get away with the "wounded insurgents and their weapons" and was trying to rush the people into giving permission to fire.
The guy in the footage wasn't carrying a shoulder mounted video camera, but a handheld. Secondly, if they didn't get a good look at what the guys were holding, how did come up with RPGs and AK-47s (specifically AK-47s, no less)? You'll also notice that the amount of weapons reported went up from what objects we saw.
You may be right about the type of camera there, but the way it's slung over their shoulders and they'er walking with them defienately looks like they've got a rifle on them, and those "tripods" look a shitload like guns too. IDing them as AK's specifically is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what make of gun they have. It's as good a guess as any, and all that matters is that they're armed. These people are on the prown for insurgents, and they projected the typical insurgent model on top of them.

The behaviour of all the individuals involved is easily interpeted under this filter. They look like they've got guns, and one of them carefully checks around the corner. Yes, he was just seeing if the street was clear, but they already think they're armed insurgents, so it gets intereted as them concealing themselves to do something nefarious and terroristy. FUcking look at it again, it looks like the dude's holding an RPG sans the warhead when he's peeking around the corner. I have no idea what it even was really.

Everybody here knows they weren't insrugents and knows they were carrying camera gear, so we all have coloured expectations and are projecting this onto the images we're seeing. We expect to see it all, so we see it all, and people are going to get outraged at this because "OH THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY CAMERAS AND NOT WEAPONS", when the exact opposite effect (the assumption that they're insurgents since they do kind of look that way, they're expecting insurgents, and they don't have the privelidged knowledge that we do) was happening to those people in the helicopter.

Keep in mind I ain't saying this is all justified, but it's damn easy to see how it happened and why they made those mistakes.
Last edited by adam_grif on 2010-04-05 12:03pm, edited 1 time in total.
A scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, 'What is the tortoise standing on?'

'You're very clever, young man, very clever,' said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down.'
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

Oh well. As long as it uncovers perpetrated atrocities, I certainly can't fault the people who illegally obtained this footage. Hell, more power to them.

You've gotta wonder how often stuff like this happens. If a bunch of guys with shoulder cams get murdered by American gunships, as if it's a routine thing, is this stuff a frequent occurence? Do they usually kill insurgents most of the time, but with unfortunate accidents like this being rare? Do American pilots get reprimanded whenever they inadvertently butcher non-combatants, or is it just taken for granted that stuff like this will inevitably happen (and will be hushed so no one hears about it)? How safe is it to venture outside an American-occupied city, while carrying something that can be vaguely construed as a weapon, while American gunships are flying overhead?

For all we know, things like these could've happened LOTS of times - except no pesky journos were killed, just a bunch of Iraqi raghead civilians, so nobody asked any awkward questions or bothered to illegally procure atrocity footages.
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
User avatar
Dominus Atheos
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3901
Joined: 2005-09-15 09:41pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Dominus Atheos »



Actual footage starts at 2:45.

Wow, it didn't take long for the usual suspects to come out and start defending this. :roll:

Here's a question for those people: Can you give any reason why the heli should have been granted permission to fire on the van that was loading the wounded? Last I checked the Geneva conventions protected wounded soldiers and medical evac units.

Oh I forgot, the Geneva conventions and general laws of war don't apply to brown people. :roll:
User avatar
Dominus Atheos
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3901
Joined: 2005-09-15 09:41pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Dominus Atheos »

And it's important to remember that things like this are much more common then we are led to believe. Glenn Greenwald:

Image
Blood is seen near a shoe and a hairband inside a room where five members of an Afghan family were killed near Gardez, in Paktia province, Friday, Feb. 12, 2010.

On February 12 of this year, U.S. forces entered a village in the Paktia Province in Afghanistan and, after surrounding a home where a celebration of a new birth was taking place, shot dead two male civilians (government officials) who exited the house in order to inquire why they had been surrounded, and then shot and killed three female relatives (a pregnant mother of ten, a pregnant mother of six, and a teenager) who sought to help the victims. The Pentagon then issued a statement claiming that (a) the dead males were "insurgents" or terrorists, (b) the bodies of the three women had been found by U.S. forces bound and gagged inside the home, and (c) suggested that the women had already been killed by the time the U.S. had arrived, likely the victim of "honor killings" by the Taliban militants killed in the attack.

Although numerous witnesses on the scene as well as local investigators vehemently disputed the Pentagon's version, and insisted that all of the dead (including the women) were civilians and were killed by U.S. forces, the American media largely adopted the Pentagon's version, often without any questions. But enough evidence has now emerged disproving those claims such that the Pentagon was forced yesterday to admit that their original version was totally false and that it was U.S. troops who killed the women:
After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid.
One NATO official said that there had likely been an effort to cover-up what happened by U.S. troops via evidence tampering on the scene (though other NATO officials deny this claim). The Times of London actually reported yesterday that, at least according to Afghan investigators, "US special forces soldiers dug bullets out of their victims' bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened."

What is clear -- yet again -- is how completely misinformed and propagandized Americans continue to be by the American media, which constantly "reports" on crucial events in Afghanistan by doing nothing more than mindlessly and unquestioningly passing along U.S. government claims as though they are fact. Here, for instance, is how the Paktia incident was "reported" by CNN on February 12:

Image

Note how the headline states as fact that the women were dead as the result of an "honor killing." The entire CNN article does nothing but repeat what an "unnamed senior military official said" about the incident, and it even helpfully explained:
An honor killing is a murder carried out by a family or community member against someone thought to have brought dishonor onto them.

The U.S. official said it isn't clear whether the dishonor in this case stemmed from accusations of acts such as adultery or even cooperating with NATO forces.

"It has the earmarks of a traditional honor killing," said the official, who added the Taliban could be responsible. . .

The operation unfolded when Afghan and international forces went to the compound, which was thought to be a site of militant activity. A firefight ensued and several insurgents died, several people left the compound, and eight others were detained.
Similarly, The New York Times, while noting that there were "varying accounts of what happened" among U.S. forces and their allies in the Afghan police, also passed along the Pentagon's false version of events with no questioning. Here's the NYT's February 12 article in its entirety:
Several civilians were killed in Paktia Province on Friday when a joint Afghan-NATO force went to investigate a report of militant activity, but NATO and the Afghan police gave varying accounts of what happened. A NATO statement said the joint force went to a compound in the village of Khatabeh, in the Gardez district, where insurgents opened fire on them from a residential compound. Several insurgents were killed and a large number of men, women and children fled and were detained by the NATO force. Inside the compound, soldiers "found the bodies of three women who had been tied up, gagged and killed," the NATO statement said. The Paktia Province police chief, Aziz Ahmad Wardak, confirmed the episode but said the dead in the house were two men and three women, who he said were killed by Taliban militants. He said the killings took place while the residents were celebrating the birth of a baby.
CNN conveyed its version of events without the slightest contradiction or doubt, and the NYT simply ignored entirely the claims of the residents of the village -- notwithstanding the fact that serious conflicts about what actually took place were known from the very beginning. Consider, for instance, this February 12 article by Amir Shah of the Associated Press, who actually bothered to pick up a phone to determine if the Pentagon's claims were true before "reporting" them as fact; this is what Shah found:
However, relatives of the dead accused American forces of being responsible for the deaths of all five people when contacted by The Associated Press by phone.

A man who identified himself as Hamidullah said he had been in the home as some 20 people gathered to celebrate the birth of a son when a group of men he described as "U.S. special forces" surrounded the compound.

When one man came out into the courtyard to ask why, Hamidullah said he watched U.S. forces gun him down.

"Daoud was coming out of the house to ask what was going on. And then they shot him," he said.

Then they killed a second man, Hamidullah said. The rest of the group were forced out into the yard, made to kneel and had their hands bound behind their back, he said, breaking off crying without giving any further details.

A deputy provincial council member in Gardez, Shahyesta Jan Ahadi, said news of the operation has inflamed the local community that believes the Americans were responsible for the deaths.

"Last night, the Americans conducted an operation in a house and killed five innocent people, including three women. The people are so angry," he said.
The Pentagon's version of events was vehemently disputed from the start. But there was not a hint of any of that in the CNN or NYT "reporting," which simply adopted the press release claims of NATO forces. That Press Release, false from start to finish, claimed that "a combined force of Afghan and international troops last night found the bound and gagged bodies of two women and the bodies of two men during an operation in the province's Gardez district," and "members of the combined force found the bodies inside." Ironically, the Pentagon Press Release ended this way: "'ISAF continually works with our Afghan partners to fight criminals and terrorists who do not care about the life of civilians,' ISAF spokesman Canadian army Brig. Gen. Eric Tremblay said." On March 16 -- more than a month later, and only after a major investigative report about this incident was published by Jerome Starkey of The Times of London -- the NYT ran a story detailing the gruesome claims of residents about what really happened; click that link for the horrific details and to get a sense for how false were the Pentagon and U.S. media's original claims about what took place.

Contrast the pure propaganda dissemination of the American media with the immediate reporting of the Pajhwok Afghan News, an independent news agency created in Afghanistan to enable war reporting by Afghans. Here is how they reported the Pakita incident from the beginning, on Febraury 12 (via NEXIS):
US Special Forces have shot dead a district intelligence chief along with four family members in the volatile southeastern province of Paktia, a senior police officer claimed on Friday. Brig. Gen. Ghulam Dastagir Rustamyar explained that Daud and his family were celebrating the birth of his son. But acting on a misleading tip-off, foreign troops raided the intelligence official's residence. . . . He said the dead included Daud, his brother Zahir, an employee of the attorney's office, and three women. . . .

But the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) claimed Afghan and international forces found the bound and gagged bodies of three women during the operation in Gardez late Thursday night. "The joint force went to a compound near the village of Khatabeh, after intelligence confirmed militant activity. Several insurgents engaged the joint force in a firefight and were killed," the ISAF press office in Kabul said. . . .

When the troops entered the compound, according to the press release, they conducted a thorough search and found the bodies of three women who had been tied up, gagged and killed. "The bodies had been hidden in an adjacent room."
Note the crucial difference: the Afghan news service shaped its report based on the statements of actual witnesses on the ground and local investigators, while also including the Pentagon's version of events. Put another way, anyone reading about what happened from American news outlets would be completely misled and propagandized, while anyone reading the Pajhowk Afghan News would have been informed, because they treated official U.S. claims with skepticism rather than uncritical reverence.

* * * * *

All of this is a chronic problem, not an isolated one, with war reporting generally and events in Afghanistan specifically. Just consider what happened when the U.S. military was forced in 2008 to retract its claims about a brutal air raid in Azizabad. The Pentagon had vehemently denied the villagers' claim that close to 100 civilians had been killed and that no Taliban were in the vicinity: until a video emerged proving the villagers' claims were true and the Pentagon's false. Last week, TPM highlighted a recent, largely overlooked statement from Gen. McChrystal, where he admitted, regarding U.S. killings of Afghans at check points: "to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it. . . . We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force." And as I documented before, the U.S. media constantly repeats false Pentagon claims about American air attacks around the world in order to create the false impression that Key Terrorists were killed while no civilians were.

At the Nieman Watchdog Foundation, Jerome Starkey, the Afghanistan war reporter for The Times of London who published the March 13 investigative report, has a crucial, must-read piece on all of this. Amazingly, his Nieman piece was written three weeks ago, and recounted in detail: (a) how clearly the U.S.-led forces had lied about what happened in Paktia; and (b) the reasons why the U.S. media continuously spews false government propaganda about the war. Starkey wrote under this headline:

Image

In this mid-March piece, Starkey explained how he had discovered that NATO's claims about the Paktia incident were false (he recounted that evidence in gruesome detail in the Times on March 13, three days before the NYT finally returned to the story to correct its original reporting), and more importantly, highlighted why the U.S. media so frequently disseminates false NATO claims with no questioning:
The only way I found out NATO had lied -- deliberately or otherwise -- was because I went to the scene of the raid, in Paktia province, and spent three days interviewing the survivors. In Afghanistan that is quite unusual.

NATO is rarely called to account. Their version of events, usually originating from the soldiers involved, is rarely seriously challenged. . . .

It's not the first time I've found NATO lying, but this is perhaps the most harrowing instance, and every time I go through the same gamut of emotions. I am shocked and appalled that brave men in uniform misrepresent events. Then I feel naïve.

There are a handful of truly fearless reporters in Afghanistan constantly trying to break the military's monopoly on access to the front. But far too many of our colleagues accept the spin-laden press releases churned out of the Kabul headquarters. Suicide bombers are "cowards," NATO attacks on civilians are "tragic accidents," intelligence is foolproof and only militants get arrested.
Starkey describes some of the understandable reasons so many reporters do nothing more than regurgitate officials claims: resource constraints, organizations limits, dangers of traveling around, and the "embed culture." But he also recounts how NATO tries to intimidate, censor and punish any reporters like him who report adversely on official claims. Illustratively, in response to Starkey's March 13 article detailing what really happened at Paktia and the cover-up that ensued, NATO issued a formal statement singling him out and accusing him of publishing an article that was "categorically false." As recently as that mid-March statement, NATO was still claiming -- falsely -- that the women in Paktia were killed prior to the arrival of American troops, and they were impugning the integrity of the reporter (Starkey) who was proving otherwise.

There are some very courageous and intrepid reporters in Afghanistan, including some who work for American media outlets. It was, for instance, a superb and brave investigative report by the NYT's Carlotta Gall in Afghanistan that uncovered what really happened in that air attack on Azizabad and who documented the Pentagon's false claims. But far more often, Americans are completely misled about events in Afghanistan by the combination of false official claims and mindless stenographic American "journalism." And no matter how many times this process is exposed -- from Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight to Pat Tillman's death by Al Qeada -- this relentless propaganda machine never seems to diminish.
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Coyote »

In the field you expect every terrorist to be packing an AK, so it becomes shorthand for "guy with a rifle". If the weapon is vague or indistinct, you just "default" to "AK".

Plus, there's no reason to nitpick under usual circumstances-- it's not like anything is gained by confusing the issue by saying, "wait, no, that's not an AK, that's a South African G-4." It only matters much later, when the field intel guys get to come up and examine the take to note whether or not insurgents are suddenly getting a supply of weapons from an unusual source.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
User avatar
Big Phil
BANNED
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2004-10-15 02:18pm

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Big Phil »

Dominus Atheos wrote:
Actual footage starts at 2:45.

Wow, it didn't take long for the usual suspects to come out and start defending this. :roll:

Here's a question for those people: Can you give any reason why the heli should have been granted permission to fire on the van that was loading the wounded? Last I checked the Geneva conventions protected wounded soldiers and medical evac units.

Oh I forgot, the Geneva conventions and general laws of war don't apply to brown people. :roll:
Who is defending this, or are you just being hysterical? Not one person has said this was okay, or that the people killed deserved it, or that the cover-up was acceptable. Please point to one person who has defended what happened, or kindly shut your yapper.
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
User avatar
Aaron
Blackpowder Man
Posts: 12031
Joined: 2004-01-28 11:02pm
Location: British Columbian ExPat

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Aaron »

loomer wrote:You'd assume AK-47 because the AK family is as close to a standard rifle armament as the insurgents have, not because you saw it in sufficient detail, and though I think these guys are not particularly competent, they went in expecting weapons. It's identifying the cameras, which though not on casual observation camera-like in appearance did not appear to be weapons, that is galling.
Its very easy in this sort of situation to mistake a benign thing for a weapon, I mistook a spotlight for a Carl G in an exercise once after being ambushed for example. Once your in the mindset that anyone you see could be a potential insurgent then you start to react accordingly.

Was this acceptable? No

Is it understandable? Yes
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Image
User avatar
Siege
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2004-12-11 12:35pm

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Siege »

I don't see how it's "easy to see how it happened" at all. These weren't a bunch of rookies at a dangerous Sadr City checkpoint reacting to a vehicle coming at them at high speed, they're soldiers in a helicopter gunship. You'd think people like that would think twice and professionally double-check their findings before indiscriminately hosing down a group of people with a chaingun. But no, apparently twenty seconds and some grainy black-and-white footage is all the justification one needs to kill a whole bunch of people.

It doesn't matter if you or I think that camera looks a bit like an RPG at a distance, these clowns up in the chopper are supposed to have been trained to recognize a weapon when they see one, as well as (I would bloody hope) recognize the plethora of objects that could conceivably be mistaken for a weapon for what they actually are. And if they aren't sure about just what they're seeing, they should vector in that group of guys they were talking to early in the video to take a closer look, instead of just blowing groups of people away.

Instead they're acting like aerial cowboys, seeing weapons where there are none and reporting gunfire where there exists none. The thought that they might have mistakenly identified the group of "insurgents" doesn't even seem to enter their decision-making process. If this is "in accordance with the Rules of Engagement" then the bloody Rules of Engagement ought to be changed, because obviously there's people flying about the Baghdad skies wholly deficient in proper threat identification skills.
Image
SDN World 2: The North Frequesuan Trust
SDN World 3: The Sultanate of Egypt
SDN World 4: The United Solarian Sovereignty
SDN World 5: San Dorado
There'll be a bodycount, we're gonna watch it rise
The folks at CNN, they won't believe their eyes
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

The van is the part that really gets me. The initial fuck-up is understandable. It's idiotic, to be sure, but not an atrocity. But the van showed up, clearly doing nothing but helping a wounded man on the side of the road (with nothing that could be identified as a weapon involved), and the asshole gunner starts cursing, "C'mon, let us shoot. Fuck." It is hard to defend them when the conversations they are having make them sound like a couple of cowboys playing Call of Duty. "Look at those dead bastards," etc. Once the van gets involved it is no longer understandable, and bordering on sadistic.
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

The worst thing is that this kind of thing seems like it can easily be a common-place occurence. How many OTHER guys with cameras or other objects ended up getting inadvertently blown away by American gunners who made the easy mistake of mistaking them for armed insurgents?
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by MKSheppard »

Ziggy Stardust wrote:But the van showed up, clearly doing nothing but helping a wounded man on the side of the road (with nothing that could be identified as a weapon involved), and the asshole gunner starts cursing, "C'mon, let us shoot. Fuck." It is hard to defend them when the conversations they are having make them sound like a couple of cowboys playing Call of Duty. "Look at those dead bastards," etc. Once the van gets involved it is no longer understandable, and bordering on sadistic.
Uh huh yeah, because an unmarked van showing up and policing up the site by removing bodies methodically is so unsuspicious.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Big Phil
BANNED
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2004-10-15 02:18pm

Re: Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

Post by Big Phil »

Ziggy Stardust wrote:The van is the part that really gets me. The initial fuck-up is understandable. It's idiotic, to be sure, but not an atrocity. But the van showed up, clearly doing nothing but helping a wounded man on the side of the road (with nothing that could be identified as a weapon involved), and the asshole gunner starts cursing, "C'mon, let us shoot. Fuck." It is hard to defend them when the conversations they are having make them sound like a couple of cowboys playing Call of Duty. "Look at those dead bastards," etc. Once the van gets involved it is no longer understandable, and bordering on sadistic.
Confirmation bias - once they decided the first group was bad guys carrying rifles and RPGs, everything else afterward supported that initial judgment.
Shroom Man 777 wrote:The worst thing is that this kind of thing seems like it can easily be a common-place occurence. How many OTHER guys with cameras or other objects ended up getting inadvertently blown away by American gunners who made the easy mistake of mistaking them for armed insurgents?
I'm sure it is a common occurrence; American soldiers still kill each other from time to time because they make mistakes. Is it any wonder that accidental killings of civilians and journalists (and the subsequent cover-ups) happen as well? It's a damned war zone... soldiers are stressed, angry, scared, tired, hungry, etc., and make mistakes. That's understandable. What's unacceptable is the cover-ups that happen later. Our soldiers really ought to just admit when they fuck up, but given the political situation I understand why they feel the need to lie about things.
Last edited by Big Phil on 2010-04-05 12:53pm, edited 2 times in total.
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
Post Reply