Leaked video showing US helicopter shooting journalists and civilians

[grumbler]

I guess there are two versions to the events.  In one version, I may have carelessly used quotes while doing what I thought was clearly a paraphrasing, while making a post based on my memory of watching the video.  In another version, I deliberately made a lie that would be easily caught, and was caught by another poster known to always be astute and fair in his comments.  I'll let the others figure out which version is more plausible.  Let's just say that I'm not worried.

I don't think that there are two "versions to the events," just the one.  There are different interpretations.  Neither your preferred "interpretation" nor your strawman have any weight, though, so I don't know why you bother.

I do find it curious how what was at worst clumsy paraphrasing with no intention to mislead gets jumped on, but comments like dps's get a free pass.  His description of the events, that the van was picking up the bodies and the weapons, was wrong in very important ways, that could very well change the conclusion about the appropriateness of engaging it.

You didn't read dps's comments very clearly.  He says that "they fired on the van to keep the people in it from taking away the bodies and weapons" which is what the pilots themselves said.  Now, you may have belonged to the telepathy club in college and so you know that the pilots were wrong, and didn't shoot for the reasons they stated they were shooting, but that doesn't make anything dps said wrong.  He didn't become a telepathy expert by joining a club (or maybe a discussion group; I forget how one gets expertise) so he can only report on the reality that he perceives with his senses.

In any case, it amuses me to see you try to claim now that "please, please, let me blow up that van" is merely a "clumsy" (and therefor presumably innocent) paraphrase of "Come on, let us shoot!"   

I suppose that your later contention that what you said was merely "let me blow up the van" was just a clumsy paraphrase of your own earlier clumsy paraphrase?

Is it clumsy paraphrases all the way down?

Of course, neither of us intended to mislead, so neither of us was lying and deserves to be called a liar, but I think it makes a powerful statement behind the motivation of some posters when they decide to call others liars.

We agree that dps had no intention to mislead.  You disagree that you have been caught in the lie of misquoting yourself after you decided to replace a short actual quote with a long and dishonest "paraphrase," but I don't think anyone expects you to be honest about your own misdeeds.  The evidence speaks louder here than you do.

I am not trying to say anything about your motives for lying, btw.  Your pitiful attempts to ascribe motives to me is such a woefully transparent ad hominem that one can only laugh.

[grumbler]

However, giving an unqualified pass to everything that the military does, because you're in your chair and they're there on the battlefield, sounds like a copout to avoid having to think about tough questions. 

Good thing no one is arguing that, then, isn't it?

[DGuller]

Is it clumsy paraphrases all the way down?

Yes, actually.  The first time I carelessly put what I knew to be a paraphrase in quotes.  The second time, I didn't look up exactly what I said before, and forgot about "please, please" and "come on" in the beginning of the paraphrase and phrase in question, respectively.  My memory wasn't as reliable in this thread as it usually is, and I take responsibility for it.

However, to lie, you have to have the intention to mislead.  Are you really claiming that I intended to significantly mischaracterize the quotes in question?

[Malthus]

Here's an interesting blog entry about this video, I thought: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/ .  This military guy concurs that the first engagement was understandable, even if possibly in error, but the second one was not.  Obviously it's just one military guy, and for all I know he could be regarded as a nutcase by people in the know, but he sounds reasonable.

That's actually more or less what I thought - the first was fully defensible, even if it turned out to be in error (who were the non-reporters who were shot, anyway?) the second was not.

Of course, I'm no soldier.

Thing is, such stuff is almost inevitable, given the nature of the conflict. The ironic part is that the reason this incident got controversy was that reporters were killed - and they were killed in the first, defensible attack.

[Habbaku]

Here's an interesting blog entry about this video, I thought: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/ .  This military guy concurs that the first engagement was understandable, even if possibly in error, but the second one was not.  Obviously it's just one military guy, and for all I know he could be regarded as a nutcase by people in the know, but he sounds reasonable.

That's actually more or less what I thought - the first was fully defensible, even if it turned out to be in error (who were the non-reporters who were shot, anyway?) the second was not.

Of course, I'm no soldier.

Thing is, such stuff is almost inevitable, given the nature of the conflict. The ironic part is that the reason this incident got controversy was that reporters were killed - and they were killed in the first, defensible attack.

[Jaron]

Here's an interesting blog entry about this video, I thought: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/ .  This military guy concurs that the first engagement was understandable, even if possibly in error, but the second one was not.  Obviously it's just one military guy, and for all I know he could be regarded as a nutcase by people in the know, but he sounds reasonable.

That's actually more or less what I thought - the first was fully defensible, even if it turned out to be in error (who were the non-reporters who were shot, anyway?) the second was not.

Of course, I'm no soldier.

Thing is, such stuff is almost inevitable, given the nature of the conflict. The ironic part is that the reason this incident got controversy was that reporters were killed - and they were killed in the first, defensible attack.

[DGuller]

What the deal with people quoting mis-formatted replies without writing anything?  Is that some kind of an inside joke or something?

[Razgovory]

What the deal with people quoting mis-formatted replies without writing anything?  Is that some kind of an inside joke or something?

What are you talking about?  Everyone has formatted correctly.  Are the posts not working on your PC?

[DGuller]

What the deal with people quoting mis-formatted replies without writing anything?  Is that some kind of an inside joke or something?

What are you talking about?  Everyone has formatted correctly.  Are the posts not working on your PC?

No.  Malthus's post appears inside the quotation, and Habbaku's and Jaron's replies both appear without any text added.  It's same in Firefox and IE.  Do you actually see something different?

[CountDeMoney]

DGuller, stop being such a contrarian pussy already.

[DGuller]

DGuller, stop being such a contrarian pussy already.

WTF, what am I being contrarian about?

[Fate]

DGuller, stop being such a contrarian pussy already.

[sbr]

What the deal with people quoting mis-formatted replies without writing anything?  Is that some kind of an inside joke or something?

What are you talking about?  Everyone has formatted correctly.  Are the posts not working on your PC?

No.  Malthus's post appears inside the quotation, and Habbaku's and Jaron's replies both appear without any text added.  It's same in Firefox and IE.  Do you actually see something different?

I always assumed it meant they agreed with the statement that was quoted but felt it was obvious enough that it didn't need any more commentary.

[Razgovory]

What the deal with people quoting mis-formatted replies without writing anything?  Is that some kind of an inside joke or something?

What are you talking about?  Everyone has formatted correctly.  Are the posts not working on your PC?

No.  Malthus's post appears inside the quotation, and Habbaku's and Jaron's replies both appear without any text added.  It's same in Firefox and IE.  Do you actually see something different?

Yeah, but it's okay.  They are mostly insulting you.

[DGuller]

I always assumed it meant they agreed with the statement that was quoted but felt it was obvious enough that it didn't need any more commentary.

That's what it usually means, but here I almost always see it only when the original post has screwed up formatting.  It's also usually grumbler who does it.