Wikileaks.org "exposed" what they called "Collateral Murder" with the release of previously unseen footage on what they call an "indiscriminate" and "unprovoked slaying". The title leads to premeditation:
mur·der (mûr
d
r)
dr)n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
You can go HERE for the website they've dedicated to it and view their footage. The reporting of incidents where the innocent are indiscriminately killed or where Rules Of Engagement (ROE) were not followed is IMPORTANT and should be exposed. Those involved SHOULD feel the full extent of international law and justice SHOULD be done, but I really don't think this incident fits.
The deaths of the two reporters Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh is a tragedy as they died attempting to bring news to the world. You'd be fairly safe in assuming all reporters in war zones know the risks involved in moving unprotected throughout areas where conflict is taking place. No one should die at work.
The problem I have with THIS information is that it is apparently biased, and incomplete. The focus of Wikileak's video is on the 'murder' of 'innocents'. At about 3 minutes of their 17 - odd minute video is this .... that they DO NOT even mention, but they CAN indentify the two reporters just previous to this shot and the bags they're carrying?. These two weapons are VASTLY more obvious than the bags the reporters were carrying - IMO. How come they didn't mention them?.
To me, it seems fairly obvious those two are carrying weapons. One appears to be a folding stock AK47 - or some derivative - and the other is carrying an RPG. You can even see how he's holding it and how he stands it at his feet with a weighty end up. That's one big fucken camera if it isn't. Kinda impractical for combat photography you'd think.To me, unfortunately for the two reporters, she's all over from there. Yes, I believe the pilots misidentified the two reporters as combatants, but those two, were correctly indentified - IMO.
THIS ARTICLE pretty much echoes my thoughts on the misinformation that WikiLeaks APPARENTLY is doing with incomplete and unsubstantiated assumptions and just straight out glossing over some information. Let me remind you, "indiscriminate" and "unprovoked slaying" of "unarmed civilians".
From transcript AT CollateralMurder.com
| 18:56 | Six; this is Four. I got one individual looks like he's got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break. |
| 32:33 | This is Bushmaster Six. Has that RPG round been extended already or is it still live, over. |
| 32:38 | Looks live to me. |
More of this will come out over time. Seems to me though, that this MAY have been used to get WikiLeaks some attention which, to me, makes their apparent shot at getting hits more predatory than anything in their footage. That might make them playing the public for fools, and most are biting. Hope I'm wrong.
-------------------------------------------|Edit|--------------------------------------
Here's a vid I made this morning with more information regarding WikiLeaks terminology and suggestions.
I’m in favour of the release of any information like this, as it’s highly undesirable that the armed forces in conflicts such as this shouldn’t be accountable only to themselves (remember My Lai? That was an utter disgrace.), or regard themselves as being in any way above the law (or their own rules of engagement).
ReplyDeleteBut WikiLeaks seem to have handled this one badly by putting their own spin on it (most obviously in the use of the word ‘murder’, which cannot be said to apply be any known interpretation of the word). What the public needs is to have a balanced and informative view of the incident. So, pointing out and identifying the photographers was good: what they should also have done is to have pointers to the other men who were perceived to be carrying weapons. And of course giving it context: I was at first wondering if US helicopters routinely flew around looking for people to shoot at in ordinary street scenes; it appears though that they were called up in the wake of an attack on US troops.
Reuters and others were quite right in demanding the release of details of the incident. But WikiLeaks would have served their own cause better by presenting the information in an unbiased manner, and let people form their own opinions.
Yeah, I agree. My honest opinion about this is that it barely reached the level cutting edge reporting around about trash mags going about Brangelina and their kids. It's just a shot at shock publicity for the purpose of attention. Before it went under I rated WikiLeaks somewhere around Global Security Dot Org, now it barely ranks around The Onion, for me.
ReplyDeleteReally, if we're looking at unbiased information, quite obviously they failed miserably, and what's even worse is the militant support this is getting via the ignorant that couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag.
Thanks for taking the time Simon.
See if they'd sent your unholy army of drunken monkeys in dick togs this NEVARRR would have happened.
ReplyDeleteI was fairly disgusted by the vid when I first saw it, but this article helped put it in context.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/08psych.html?src=mv
Puma
Totally agree. This is why there's fuck all exposure to the details of conflict.
ReplyDelete