RSSWatching discussions on the WikiLeaks video
Apr 08
It’s been interesting to watch the discussions on the WikiLeaks video over the last few days, which had been billed as a coverup of something massive. The leaked video is from a US helicopter gunship shooting into a courtyard, after mistakenly identifying cameras as weapons, and killing up to 11 people including 2 Reuters journalists.
Here are some discussions on the subject:
- Leaked video shows US military forces shooting Reuters journalists, civilians on the Vancouver Sun
- Saw the video Wikileaks posted; here’s a measured interpretation from someone who’s been over there, and also here on Reddit.
Putting aside any discussion on whether the war was right or legal (since it has no real relation to interpreting this video), this video hardly seems outrageous. We know there have been hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq (haven’t looked lately at the estimates). I don’t see why one case where a person could semi-reasonably guess they’re seeing a person pointing weapons at them (at first glance) should be considered ground-breaking.
Isn’t it even more outrageous when a plane, or cruise missile, bombs an apartment building, which we have plenty of footage of?
The video is important, however, in providing supporting evidence against the war in general.
Apr 09, 2010 @ 08:27:45
You want ground-breaking? What about the other recently leaked military tragedy?
The US military raided a 3 year old’s birthday party and killed 2 men, who were later determined not to be insurgents, and 3 pregnant women. They admitted to killing the men, but not the pregnant women, whom they initially claimed must have been killed by the insurgents moments before they arrived. Evidence indicates that the bullets were removed from the women’s bodies. The US now admits covering up the events but not yet to removing the bullets.
Taken together with Abu Ghraib, Falujah and the many other horrifying war crimes the US has covered in the middle east, these events point to a pattern of behavior that explains why the US is never greeted as a liberator.
When you can’t even stand unarmed on a street corner, or congregate for a child’s birthday, without fear of sudden death at the hands of American forces, what kind of freedom is that?
Apr 09, 2010 @ 09:01:22
Would it be possible to invade, occupy and then pacify a country without some events like these taking place? Aside from Abu Ghraib, I’d think civilian deaths are unavoidable when a military is stepping into the role of pacifying a population, which is a great reason not to. Police are trained to work with civilians; militaries are trained to fight enemies.
Apr 09, 2010 @ 10:50:42
Is it possible to “pacify” a country by committing the same atrocities that your enemies do? Is it possible to pacify a country at all? Or are we just buying into the delusion that the people we’re fighting on the ground are Al Quaida terrorists and not freedom fighters, locals who oppose occupation by any foreign forces?
And since independence for one’s nation is a desire of pretty much everyone on Earth, wouldn’t it stand to reason that there would always be a resistance to such occupations? After a while, you’re just killing the same people you claim to have liberated. There’s no division anymore.
It’s true that there are Iraqis and Afghanis who are grateful for the US/Nato invasions of their countries, but even they will celebrate the day we all leave.
But let’s say we succeed in pacifying those countries and installing democracies there. As soon as we leave, they’ll revert back to misogynist theocracies and curse us for our actions.
And why not? We destroyed their infrastructures for electricity, communications, transportation, agriculture and have yet to rebuild them because we’re trapped in an endless cycle fighting the resistance of the entire population.
Not to mention that much of the money that we’re dumping into those countries disappears into the pockets of corrupt bureaucrats and ends up buy arms for the same forces we’re fighting, which makes the entire effort futile. It’s impossible for us to end a resistance we’re funding.
Round and round we go.