i love how there is always a convenient post-release correction to justify controversial US military or political activity…
I guess i can totally see how supposed “innocent’s” carrying AK’s and RPG’s spotted from a helicopter in the sky justifies the death of Reuters reporters and children in a van driven by civilians picking up wounded people off the street.
but hey… “It’s their fault for bringing kids into a battle”
sort of like those people in New Orleans, learns’em good for living in a flood zone.
don’t forget about those people in the trade center… it was attacked before, they should have known better.
He committed treason … The punishment for which is death by hanging. Which I think he deserves.
Other than that … talking about military anything with Canadians is a futile argument. They(the majority) really in general don’t get it, Neither do the majority of Americans for that matter.
Ahmed can’t access this section anymore for obvious reasons.
You obviously didn’t watch the vid if you’re making that argument so let me help you
Reporters hanging out with clearly armed people (confirmed.)
Reporters not wearing required press-identification gear
Reporters and armed dudes moving around only blocks away from American soldiers
Reporter aims his uber long lens at hummers which are part of the American convoy (You can see the picture he took with that camera in the video)
Support chopper, who’s job it is to protect the soldiers, mistakes the reporters uber long lens for an RPG (Yeah, bad call but they’ve already seen others with weapons)
People die
As for the van it was not marked as an ambulance or on the “Protected Collateral Objects” listed in the rules of engagement. The van that was trying to help the fighters was fair game even if the men who exited the van weren’t armed. Ironically, Wikileaks published the military’s Rules of Engagement on their website; http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf which explains all this in detail. (lol, woops.)
If that’s not justification, it’s at least a damn good reason to why they all got killed. Again; active war zone. The reporters took a risk hanging out with the wrong people. The civilians took a risk trying to save the wrong people.
If you noticed a gunship killing a bunch of armed dudes in this same context, would you drive your Kia Rondo into the line of fire to save them while your kids were in the back seat?
Absolutely.
Also, link me to the proof that 2 kids were even killed? And not some unsubstantiated rumors. You probably won’t be able to since no one has ever found out for sure. And you can bet if they were killed, Wikileaks would have posted pictures of them and their injuries.
you’re not convincing anyone who doesnt already agree with you
whether the children are actually alive or dead is irrelevant anyways
rules of engagement against civilians? i guess all the people walking to work last weekend in toronto deserved to be detained for 4 hours… rules of engagement man… rules of engagement.
“dude you can’t rescue your neighbours unless you have a sign on your van”
“YOU AIMED YOUR LENS AT A HUMMER MAN!!! DIE!!”
“you man, where is your ID??? DIE!!!”
Josh, in the eyes of a reasonable outsider your post gives this less and less context, not more. Thanks for admitting that it debatable as to whether the military should even be there though… that’s an interesting thing to say in the same breathe as rules of engagement
that’s exactly my point… drawing similarities between events that can be over-contexted into explanation when taken individually… but as a group paint a clear pattern of behaviour / policy.
It is very fortunate that most of us have never been on the opposite side of these types of aggression or political break-down. It affords you an excuse for not being empathetic.
I guess we should just apply similar policies towards the way we manage these forums… if you post in a thread where people are arguing we should apply the same blanket moderation to all users (read: you’re in a warzone)
Ah yes, it took me a while but I finally got it out of you! You’re trying to make the broader point that killing people is bad, regardless of rules or context. Which is fine. No one can argue with that.
My point is that Wikileaks tired to make people feel “empathetic” towards those being killed by ignoring the facts of the situation. I’m definitely not empathetic towards a journalists who obviously disregarded his safety. I’d be more inclined to feel remorse for the kids, but as you said, they’re irrelevant anyway
the difference between dead and almost dead is irrelevant… the difference between almost dead (the lesser of the prior two) and just chillin in the front seat of daddie’s van is very relevant.
if you micro-analyze past your concession that the entire scenerio’s justifiability is in question and look solely at what happened on the ground in isolation and assume all requisite arguements are in your favour (habouring nukes, terrorists, oil for food program, killing the kurds etc. etc.) you could draw your conclusion with some reason.
the problem is that all of the assumptions are questionable… when you compound questionable assumptions the rules of engagement become laughable.
but anyways… thanks to the chopper pilot for killing (or nearly killing) those two little girls who surely would have married terrorists and made terrorist babies who would have put our freedom at risk
LOL Bing. These are soldiers fighting a WAR and doing their best to make sure the mission gets completed and TROOPS stay alive. Collateral damage happens and sometimes being over cautious keeps your best friends alive. I would be all about supporting your view it if at all seemed like an intentional wrongdoing.
fair game, afterall, i am speaking on behalf of more than you realize anyhow.
Truth is, it’s a real shame, your collective perspective on this.
All the way from did he have nukes, was he involved in 9/11, > > declaring someone’s neighbourhood a warzone > > Did the guy have a sign on the side of his van? > > therefore it is justifiable, the killing (or almost) of little girls.
why does it matter if there were 2 or 1 or if they are only almost dead and not totally dead?
Take a step 50,000 ft back… Your arguement in support of the troops in question is still dependent on every arguementative point above it… the permutation is weighted impossibly against you and yet somehow you still find ways to justify the expenditure of millions, the deaths of hundreds of thousands (including thousands of your own) and the mortgaging of a future that is put in greater question because all this… not protected by it.
then you have a 22 year old kid who stands up and tries to shed some light on it for people on the outside and you’re cool with him going to jail. It’s fine to acknowledge that it ‘will’ happen, but not that it ‘should’ happen… hence the whistle blower point earlier… it’s okay on wallstreet (just barely) and it’s okay in other parts of corporate life, just not when it involves things more important i guess…
i’m pretty sure one of you guys actually referred to ME as being brainwashed at some point over the years… yet the logical progression above is pretty much a textbook case
your short-sightedness only makes the rest of us prouder to be Canadian despite the obvious similarities (see: G20) albeit on a much smaller and therefore slightly more tolerable scale… i still however maintain that smashing windows and torching police cars was a perfectly acceptable response (probably too modest)… you should all be doing the same
The more important things it involves is saving the lives of coalition forces. When the lives of the good guys(coalition forces) are at stake then yes it takes precedence.
This 22 year old kid released classified material. He swore an oath to his country to abide by certain rules while enlisted in the US military. He broke that oath. An oath any one that's ever been in almost ANY military understands. A promise to not betray his army, this has always been punishable by death since the beginning of the formation of armies.
The reason this is an issue from the military side is the cutting and splicing of videos to brain wash ignorant youths into becoming terrorists. I watched an Al Qaeda recruiting video of a firefight I was in, the attack on Abu Ghraib to be specific this time, where they cut everything to spin it so that they all won and got out alive all whilst killing many infidel americans.
This 22 year old kid is not a whistle blower or a hero. He's an ignorant idiotic dumb ass who betrayed his country. With his act he betrayed any one of his friends he had in the military.
To the point really: He was in the military ... not a free citizen in a civilian job. Federal inmates have more rights than a soldier does. All soldiers volunteer to be where they are in America. They know they are subject to any and all U.C.M.J. action as well as Geneva Convention war crimes. Every time a soldier pulls the trigger he knows he's responsible for every round that comes out the muzzle of his weapon. This kids actions were the same as if a soldier recruited 10 suicide bombers which cost the lives of 17 more soldiers and 32 Iraqi citizens.
I’m sure someone could taken an ever further “step back” to argument. We could probably go all the way back to the dawn of time putting events in broader context.
But that’s not this topic of this thread. I’m not debating the war; I’m debating the validity Wikileak’s position. And since you can’t refute my points, you’re trying to turn the conversation to the “greater debate” of the war
