...including children.
http://www.wikileaks.org/
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/05/wikileaks-video-of-u.html
I honestly don't know what to say. I have no doubt people here will find lots to say, though...
edit: more info
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/05/wikileaks-more-backg.html
It doesn't show clearly that these people were armed with AK-47s and RPGs, but they were (the ground troops found the weapons when they secured the scene).
Journalists really shouldn't appear in the open with insurgents. It is dangerous.
Was it really necessary to destroy the van that was picking up the wounded guy?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2Fago.jpg&hash=fe2515e9d37177d2b5d84323a760b8fbe86f0c8c)
The people responsible for this should be ashamed. What happened to common decency, why broadcast people's last moments for the whole world to see?
What's so shocking or offensive about this video?
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2010, 02:07:37 PM
It doesn't show clearly that these people were armed with AK-47s and RPGs, but they were (the ground troops found the weapons when they secured the scene).
Journalists really shouldn't appear in the open with insurgents. It is dangerous.
Link? I didn't see that mentioned with the video when I saw it on Greenwald's blog, and it would change my opinion quite a bit.
"Well we admit they were armed, BUT THEY APPEARED RELAXED"
LOL Outrage FIAL
Quote from: Syt on April 06, 2010, 02:14:08 PM
What's so shocking or offensive about this video?
Peepole got killt and there were Amerikkkans laffing aboutit.
They are VERY obviously armed, and you can see the asshole peaking around the corner with an RPG around 4:20. Obviously the troops are engaged that are talking to the Apaches, otherwise they wouldn't be on the same freq as the apaches, but on the radio with higher elements instead.
Journalists shouldn't be embedded with insurgents, because we open up on them when they have no clue it's coming. Journalists die all the time with us, IED's, sniper fire, etc. and it doesn't make the news. And they watch insurgents kill us too, so they take the risks to be on the other side and this time it didn't "pay off".
Edit: This sounds like it happened fairly close to where I was, according to the grid coordinates. Obviously months before I was there though.
Edit 2: Engagement of the bongo truck is suspect, they should have gotten ground elements there quicker, but you never know if it's a high profile individual insurgents are there to rescue.
If the van was really full of insurgents, why the fuck would they fully expose themselves so quickly after previous enemy contact? Couldn't they hear and see the two Apaches still circling around their fresh kills? Seems more like a bunch of panicked civilians.
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2010, 04:06:08 PM
If the van was really full of insurgents, why the fuck would they fully expose themselves so quickly after previous enemy contact? Couldn't they hear and see the two Apaches still circling around their fresh kills? Seems more like a bunch of panicked civilians.
I'm guessing insurgents do all sorts of wacky, nonsensical things.
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2010, 04:06:08 PM
If the van was really full of insurgents, why the fuck would they fully expose themselves so quickly after previous enemy contact? Couldn't they hear and see the two Apaches still circling around their fresh kills? Seems more like a bunch of panicked civilians.
Doubt the pilots of Apache gunships have the capacity for Dostoyevsky-level psychological introspection while attempting to take down guys with RPGs. Just a thought.
Durka durka, let's gather out in the open line of sight of two clearly audible and visible Apaches. Durka durka, let's send more pigs to slaughter once it's clear the Americans are a bit trigger happy.
I mean, if this is the quality of insurgent we've been facing since 2003, it's really speaks poorly on the US military. Hurry the fuck up already and win the war.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 06, 2010, 02:10:03 PM
Was it really necessary to destroy the van that was picking up the wounded guy?
Dunno what the ROE was.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 06, 2010, 02:16:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2010, 02:07:37 PM
It doesn't show clearly that these people were armed with AK-47s and RPGs, but they were (the ground troops found the weapons when they secured the scene).
Journalists really shouldn't appear in the open with insurgents. It is dangerous.
Link? I didn't see that mentioned with the video when I saw it on Greenwald's blog, and it would change my opinion quite a bit.
NPR
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2010, 04:18:50 PM
Durka durka, let's gather out in the open line of sight of two clearly audible and visible Apaches. Durka durka, let's send more pigs to slaughter once it's clear the Americans are a bit trigger happy.
I mean, if this is the quality of insurgent we've been facing since 2003, it's really speaks poorly on the US military. Hurry the fuck up already and win the war.
Apaches are really really quiet. And you have to actually look for them to find them, they aren't as easy to spot as you may think.
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 06, 2010, 04:27:47 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2010, 04:18:50 PM
Durka durka, let's gather out in the open line of sight of two clearly audible and visible Apaches. Durka durka, let's send more pigs to slaughter once it's clear the Americans are a bit trigger happy.
I mean, if this is the quality of insurgent we've been facing since 2003, it's really speaks poorly on the US military. Hurry the fuck up already and win the war.
Apaches are really really quiet. And you have to actually look for them to find them, they aren't as easy to spot as you may think.
Alright, I can accept that. My only frame of reference is the inner city and you can hear (if not see) the news type helicopters from miles away.
I came.
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 06, 2010, 04:27:47 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2010, 04:18:50 PM
Durka durka, let's gather out in the open line of sight of two clearly audible and visible Apaches. Durka durka, let's send more pigs to slaughter once it's clear the Americans are a bit trigger happy.
I mean, if this is the quality of insurgent we've been facing since 2003, it's really speaks poorly on the US military. Hurry the fuck up already and win the war.
Apaches are really really quiet. And you h:mad:ave to actually look for them to find them, they aren't as easy to spot as you may think.
Fate Rule violation!
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 06, 2010, 04:41:06 PM
I came.
No shit. My pants are a dairy factory strafed with a 30mm chain gun of spooge after that vid.
Quote from: The Brain on April 06, 2010, 02:16:28 PM
"Well we admit they were armed, BUT THEY APPEARED RELAXED"
LOL Outrage FIAL
That was a laffer.
And sorry, but any video that opens with an Orwell quote automatically fails.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2010, 04:45:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 06, 2010, 04:41:06 PM
I came.
No shit. My pants are a dairy factory strafed with a 30mm chain gun of spooge after that vid.
Only thing that turns me on more is dead Swedes or AC-130 videos.
It's a shame that, in combat, the Apache pilots didn't have the chance to replay the footage over and over again to look for every possible clue and subtlety like the internet chatterati have.
I heard the NPR story. Another thing they mentioned was the guys in the Apache thought the cameramen were hoisting RPGs on their shoulders.
On the other hand the journalists were from Reuters, so maybe it wasn't accidental.
When civvies get killed because combatants are not clearly identifying themselves as non-civilian, the fault does not lie with whomever pulls the trigger, but with those combatants who are using civilian dress to hide their status.
And why is it especially tragic that journalists with insurgent forces are killed when those forces come under fire from the good guys, any more so then when the bad guys kill them when they are with the good guys?
The best thing about this video is that the victims look like a bunch of liberal gay hippies from San Francisco. Dreams can become reality.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on April 06, 2010, 05:34:08 PM
look like a bunch of liberal gay hippies from San Francisco
:lol:
Saw this earlier, didn't post it here because I couldn't find a video that wasn't edited with quotes and shit. Despite all the claims of "Murder!" at no time did the pilots show any indication that they thought they were firing on journalists or civilians. I'm not a military guy, but as far as I could tell they were not acting inappropriately.
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 05:23:32 PM
When civvies get killed because combatants are not clearly identifying themselves as non-civilian, the fault does not lie with whomever pulls the trigger, but with those combatants who are using civilian dress to hide their status.
Apaches don't kill people. Military aged (brown) males kill people!
Were they really civilians though? The US ground forces recovered the two cameras. The investigative report states that the Reuters guys were taking photographs of an American Humvee only 100 feet away from the scene. Nothing of value was lost.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2010, 05:15:48 PMOn the other hand the journalists were from Reuters, so maybe it wasn't accidental.
Well, they did have names like Namir and Saeed. I mean, really now. It's not like they were bona fide Reuters employees named Daphne and Adair.
Freelance contractors that get paid on a per diem for work submitted take their lives in their own hands hanging with insurgents for the big scoop.
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2010, 06:03:04 PM
Apaches don't kill people. Military aged (brown) males kill people!
Brown?
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 06, 2010, 06:34:02 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2010, 06:03:04 PM
Apaches don't kill people. Military aged (brown) males kill people!
Brown?
That's the name of my cat. :)
Went all martinus on the situation and thought he meant the military was brown. :P
I see now he's just saying dark people kill other people. :P
Burn those fuckers down.
Pat is going to give you all such a lecture.
I'm sure he might give you POW fucking tips also.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 06, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
Pat is going to give you all such a lecture.
Why? Is he pro-terrorist or something?
Quote from: Neil on April 06, 2010, 07:24:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 06, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
Pat is going to give you all such a lecture.
Why? Is he pro-terrorist or something?
This is a classic smug Euro drive by thread. He'll pop back on to lecture. He can't help himself.
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 06, 2010, 06:34:02 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2010, 06:03:04 PM
Apaches don't kill people. Military aged (brown) males kill people!
Brown?
You keep biting, so he keeps trolling.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2010, 07:28:07 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 06, 2010, 06:34:02 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 06, 2010, 06:03:04 PM
Apaches don't kill people. Military aged (brown) males kill people!
Brown?
You keep biting, so he keeps trolling.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg11.abload.de%2Fimg%2F633502081079603594-thezz6c.jpg&hash=cd829767453a14121d636ab8683ec60859c94bfa)
I finally watched the video. It's obviously packaged as an anti-American piece, which is unfortunate, but a lot of the content just can't be exaggerated. The first engagement I can understand, I don't think that the potential enemy's state of relaxation should figure into rules of engagement. However, when they blow the van apart, it starts looking like senseless violence.
Is there any reason that's not obvious to a layman like me why there was a need to blow up that van? It looks like the people from the van were unarmed, and picked up the one guy who was wounded, and also appeared unarmed. It looked completely unnecessary as far as I could see. It also doesn't help that the guys in the helicopter sound like complete sadistic psychos. Maybe making comments like that is how you deal with the stress of being in combat, but it still sounds extremely bad.
Yeah, from my standpoint blowing up the bongo truck looked suspect, and authorization was given hastily and without knowing the full extent of the situation by the commander on the ground.
And about the sadistic stuff, these guys are together all day every day, and not only when they are locked in the cockpit for two 6 hour stints above Baghdad every day for 12+ months. This is how guys talk to each other, for better or worse. These things are only reviewed and looked at when something goes 'wrong' or someone makes a big deal about something. But yes, they were a little vocal and outspoken instead of being precise and cold like many of the apache feeds I have seen.
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2010, 07:32:37 PM
I finally watched the video. It's obviously packaged as an anti-American piece, which is unfortunate, but a lot of the content just can't be exaggerated. The first engagement I can understand, I don't think that the potential enemy's state of relaxation should figure into rules of engagement. However, when they blow the van apart, it starts looking like senseless violence.
Is there any reason that's not obvious to a layman like me why there was a need to blow up that van?
I cannot (obviously) speak for what they were thinking, but I would guess that there may not be any reason at all.
But combat is like that - when you start killing people, I would guess it becomes pretty easy to just keep on killing people, even when the obvious "need" to do so no longer really exists.
So, to play devils advocate, lets assume there was no good reason to blow away that van. Does that mean doing so was an error? Probably in hindsight.
My problem is that I cannot in good conscience sit back in my comfy chair and judge the decisions made by those who are in such radically dis-functional circumstances (from the standards of what any of us consider "normal", anyway). That doesn't mean I think it is ok, but it does mean I am not going to be very quick to assume that their actions are necessarily criminal or even sadistic. Just unfortunate - but then, war IS unfortunate, by definition.
I am sure now that this is leaked, there will be an investigation - however, I am pretty sure once it was clear a couple journos got themselves killed, there was already an investigation. I would like to know what the Army concluded from that, even if I am not sure it would be very good for the Army to release those findings.
On the other hand, civilians need to keep a tight leash on our military forces lest they become the only body they are answerable to. So while it is uncomfortable to criticize people in a warzone from the safety of our homes, it may be the only thing that keeps their feet and their minds firmly grounded in reality.
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 09:06:28 PM
I am sure now that this is leaked, there will be an investigation - however, I am pretty sure once it was clear a couple journos got themselves killed, there was already an investigation. I would like to know what the Army concluded from that, even if I am not sure it would be very good for the Army to release those findings.
The investigation is ongoing, I believe. Whatever the findings, they will be labeled either a whitewash or a witch hunt.
OK, so here is what I saw with the van.
They had engaged hostile targets, and they had friendlys moving into the area to secure, and then this van shows up, and starts picking up bodies.
Are they civilians? Are they going to shoot at the ground unit that is on its way? Who knows?
The decision to let them engage was probably hasty, and in hindsight may have been a mistake given some time to reflect on it - but I am not particularly surprised it was made.
After watching the video, I am a bit surprised - it isn't nearly as damning as I thought it would be. It's not like the Apache pilots could know there were kids in that van - who the fuck drives up to a combat zone with kids in the fucking car?
And their language - it isn't that bad. Typical soldier speak, from what I have seen.
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 09:34:07 PM
After watching the video, I am a bit surprised - it isn't nearly as damning as I thought it would be. It's not like the Apache pilots could know there were kids in that van - who the fuck drives up to a combat zone with kids in the fucking car?
Thing is, this wasn't a warzone during the invasion of Iraq. It's an ostensibly occupied city.
I'm not saying the soldier's decision wasn't justified, especially as more info comes out about the circumstances, but let's not pretend these guys were walking in the middle of nowhere. The combat zone was where they lived.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression America had a professional army.
You know, meaning our soldiers should approach their jobs with full professionalism and seriousness, not act like cowboys raising hell through the old west.
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 10:04:27 PM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression America had a professional army.
You know, meaning our soldiers should approach their jobs with full professionalism and seriousness, not act like cowboys raising hell through the old west.
I recommend you stop being such a faggot.
Quote from: Neil on April 06, 2010, 10:15:09 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 10:04:27 PM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression America had a professional army.
You know, meaning our soldiers should approach their jobs with full professionalism and seriousness, not act like cowboys raising hell through the old west.
I recommend you stop being such a faggot.
You must be confusing me for someone else.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 06, 2010, 09:37:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 09:34:07 PM
After watching the video, I am a bit surprised - it isn't nearly as damning as I thought it would be. It's not like the Apache pilots could know there were kids in that van - who the fuck drives up to a combat zone with kids in the fucking car?
Thing is, this wasn't a warzone during the invasion of Iraq. It's an ostensibly occupied city.
I'm not saying the soldier's decision wasn't justified, especially as more info comes out about the circumstances, but let's not pretend these guys were walking in the middle of nowhere. The combat zone was where they lived.
Yeah, and if I lived in a combat zone, and had my kids in the damn car, there is no way I am driving it anywhere near where shooting just went on.
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 10:04:27 PM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression America had a professional army.
You know, meaning our soldiers should approach their jobs with full professionalism and seriousness, not act like cowboys raising hell through the old west.
But they did just that. What about them do you think was so unprofessional? The fact that they laughed at some point?
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 10:37:17 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 10:04:27 PM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression America had a professional army.
You know, meaning our soldiers should approach their jobs with full professionalism and seriousness, not act like cowboys raising hell through the old west.
But they did just that. What about them do you think was so unprofessional? The fact that they laughed at some point?
I'd say that the "please, please, let me blow up that van" doesn't quite come off right to general audience.
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 10:37:17 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 10:04:27 PM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression America had a professional army.
You know, meaning our soldiers should approach their jobs with full professionalism and seriousness, not act like cowboys raising hell through the old west.
But they did just that. What about them do you think was so unprofessional? The fact that they laughed at some point?
I didn't see anything funny about what they were doing. Would you not think it odd if paramedics laughed at your injuries while they took you to the hospital, or a policeman laughed at you while you told him how you came home to find your spouse murdered? War is a serious business, not some video game as these men seem to think. Where is the humor? Note I am not passing any judgment on what they did, just their conduct while doing it.
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2010, 10:40:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 10:37:17 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 10:04:27 PM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression America had a professional army.
You know, meaning our soldiers should approach their jobs with full professionalism and seriousness, not act like cowboys raising hell through the old west.
But they did just that. What about them do you think was so unprofessional? The fact that they laughed at some point?
I'd say that the "please, please, let me blow up that van" doesn't quite come off right to general audience.
But they didn't say that.
I do think that a lot of it doesn't come off right to people who don't understand what is going on, which is why the military should be a bit better about realizing that in this day and age, everything they say is likely to be heard by people who don't understand the context.
But the guy didn't say "Please let me blow up that van" he said something like "Can I engage? Can I engage? They are taking the bodies and weapons..."
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 11:11:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 10:37:17 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 10:04:27 PM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression America had a professional army.
You know, meaning our soldiers should approach their jobs with full professionalism and seriousness, not act like cowboys raising hell through the old west.
But they did just that. What about them do you think was so unprofessional? The fact that they laughed at some point?
I didn't see anything funny about what they were doing. Would you not think it odd if paramedics laughed at your injuries while they took you to the hospital, or a policeman laughed at you while you told him how you came home to find your spouse murdered? War is a serious business, not some video game as these men seem to think. Where is the humor? Note I am not passing any judgment on what they did, just their conduct while doing it.
I think you would be rather surprised at the things that paramedics, cops, and such joke about on a rather regular basis, especially to each other when there is no expectation that anyone else will be listening.
And they weren't saying these things to anyone but themselves, so your analogies are Martyesque in their suckitude.
Quote from: garbon on April 06, 2010, 11:45:06 PM
Quote from: citizen k on April 06, 2010, 05:55:44 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on April 06, 2010, 05:34:08 PM
look like a bunch of liberal gay hippies from San Francisco
:lol:
:huh:
I didn't realize liberal gay hippies looked like that. Not to mention the mixing of san fran stereotypes by the uninformed e. euro.
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2010, 10:40:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 10:37:17 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 10:04:27 PM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression America had a professional army.
You know, meaning our soldiers should approach their jobs with full professionalism and seriousness, not act like cowboys raising hell through the old west.
But they did just that. What about them do you think was so unprofessional? The fact that they laughed at some point?
I'd say that the "please, please, let me blow up that van" doesn't quite come off right to general audience.
This wasn't meant for a general audience, I doubt everything you say you think twice about saying just because it could potentially be heard if something goes wrong.
These are for oversight, like it is being used for in the investigation. This isn't intended for NBC nightly news and Al Jazeera. As I said, these may be a bit of extreme comments, but they're basically thinking out loud and not about how they are being monitored in case something is wrong.
I generally choose my words when I know I'm on tape/speaker. :smarty:
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 11:50:37 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 11:11:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 10:37:17 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 10:04:27 PM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression America had a professional army.
You know, meaning our soldiers should approach their jobs with full professionalism and seriousness, not act like cowboys raising hell through the old west.
But they did just that. What about them do you think was so unprofessional? The fact that they laughed at some point?
I didn't see anything funny about what they were doing. Would you not think it odd if paramedics laughed at your injuries while they took you to the hospital, or a policeman laughed at you while you told him how you came home to find your spouse murdered? War is a serious business, not some video game as these men seem to think. Where is the humor? Note I am not passing any judgment on what they did, just their conduct while doing it.
I think you would be rather surprised at the things that paramedics, cops, and such joke about on a rather regular basis, especially to each other when there is no expectation that anyone else will be listening.
And they weren't saying these things to anyone but themselves, so your analogies are Martyesque in their suckitude.
I went to court with an ex-girlfriend as a ride and moral support. While sitting there we heard two lawyers joking about a child sex abuse case. Once they realized someone had overheard them they quickly shut up and hurried off, they never acknowledged us though. When you deal with something every single day it loses it's emotional impact, no matter how serious the situation may be to people to whom the situation is foreign.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2010, 09:25:59 PM
Whatever the findings, they will be labeled either a whitewash or a witch hunt.
Or both.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 12:15:13 AM
Surely just laughing at the ludicrous nature of the statement?
Alex just wanted to make sure we weren't thinking about those
conservative gay hippies in SF.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2010, 09:25:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 09:06:28 PM
I am sure now that this is leaked, there will be an investigation - however, I am pretty sure once it was clear a couple journos got themselves killed, there was already an investigation. I would like to know what the Army concluded from that, even if I am not sure it would be very good for the Army to release those findings.
The investigation is ongoing, I believe. Whatever the findings, they will be labeled either a whitewash or a witch hunt.
I read it was already completed (the incident happened 3 years ago after all) and found the soldiers were acting in accordance to the rules of engagement.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 12:06:05 AM
I generally choose my words when I know I'm on tape/speaker. :smarty:
Same here, I'm always mindful of what I'm putting in the e-mail. You never know when your recorded communication might be used in some kind of a legal proceeding, to be taken out of context or misinterpreted.
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 11:49:02 PM
But they didn't say that.
I'm paraphrasing, of course. The actual quote is "Come on, let us shoot!" at 9:38, with the crosshair pointed at the van. Could it be taken the wrong way by people not in the know? Of course. Does it sound bad to people not in the know? Most definitely.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 01:34:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 12:06:05 AM
I generally choose my words when I know I'm on tape/speaker. :smarty:
Same here, I'm always mindful of what I'm putting in the e-mail. You never know when your recorded communication might be used in some kind of a legal proceeding, to be taken out of context or misinterpreted.
Yeah, but you're a Russian and that's second nature to you people.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 01:08:24 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 12:15:13 AM
Surely just laughing at the ludicrous nature of the statement?
Alex just wanted to make sure we weren't thinking about those conservative gay hippies in SF.
Please, I've watched "Milk". There is no mention of conservative gay hippies, just liberal gay hippies on the streets, in the public office, even in wheelchairs. At the end the hero triumphs and defeats the enemy by killing him, making America safe once more from the forces of evil.
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 11:11:48 PM
Would you not think it odd if paramedics laughed at your injuries while they took you to the hospital, or a policeman laughed at you while you told him how you came home to find your spouse murdered?
Happens all the time.
QuoteNote I am not passing any judgment on what they did, just their conduct while doing it.
Fag.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on April 07, 2010, 03:47:42 AM
Please, I've watched "Milk".
Which makes you as qualified as Marty to speak on faggit issues. Carry on.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 06, 2010, 09:37:39 PM
Thing is, this wasn't a warzone during the invasion of Iraq. It's an ostensibly occupied city.
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that there is no war there, or that the war is not taking place in Baghdad?
QuoteI'm not saying the soldier's decision wasn't justified, especially as more info comes out about the circumstances, but let's not pretend these guys were walking in the middle of nowhere. The combat zone was where they lived.
The van had the brother, wife, and kids of one of the insurgents in it. They had just seen their insurgent relative get gunned down during an op. They would logically, of course, have considered that maybe exposing the kids to the same danger that had just taken out dad might not be a good idea, but they were also probably desperate to help get dad to a hospital (not knowing he was already dead).
So, the van rushes into the combat to try to rescue dad, and gets attacked. Serving as an insurgent ambulance will sometimes have that result, especially as there are no Red Cross/Crescent markings (it being an entirely unofficial ambulance). As far as the guys in the helo and on the ground knew, this could have been a suicide bomber's vehicle prepping for a run on the troops, or whatever.
Turns out, though, that the kids seem to have facotred into no one's considerations; not the US pilots, because they didn't know about them, and not their mom or uncle, because they seemed to be anxious to save the kids' dad without thinking about the dangers.
Life sucks for some people, for reasons beyond their control. So it is with these kids. There doesn't have to be anyone to blame.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 01:40:30 AM
I'm paraphrasing, of course. The actual quote is "Come on, let us shoot!" at 9:38, with the crosshair pointed at the van. Could it be taken the wrong way by people not in the know? Of course. Does it sound bad to people not in the know who are looking for evidence to support a conclusion developed in the absence of evidence? Most definitely.
FYP. It "most definitely" sounds bad to people who want it to sound bad. You can identify those people because they "paraphrase" to make statements look as damning as possible, hoping that no one will point out that their paraphrase is dishonest.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on April 07, 2010, 03:47:42 AM
Please, I've watched "Milk". There is no mention of conservative gay hippies, just liberal gay hippies on the streets, in the public office, even in wheelchairs. At the end the hero triumphs and defeats the enemy by killing him, making America safe once more from the forces of evil.
My point was that there is little reason to say liberal hippies. Like, duh.
Quote from: Jaron on April 06, 2010, 11:11:48 PM
War is a serious business,
Wrong. To put it like that trivializes war.
I watch milk all the time. It's not that interesting. Tasty though. It's never given me these kinds of ideas about gays in wheel chairs. I think you might be projecting a bit on the beverage.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 06:47:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 01:40:30 AM
I'm paraphrasing, of course. The actual quote is "Come on, let us shoot!" at 9:38, with the crosshair pointed at the van. Could it be taken the wrong way by people not in the know? Of course. Does it sound bad to people not in the know who are looking for evidence to support a conclusion developed in the absence of evidence? Most definitely.
FYP. It "most definitely" sounds bad to people who want it to sound bad. You can identify those people because they "paraphrase" to make statements look as damning as possible, hoping that no one will point out that their paraphrase is dishonest.
I believe I had it right the first time. No need to be a belligerent asshole, I'm describing how I, as a layman, felt watching that video, and why I think other people like me would see the same thing. Once in a while it's OK to STFU if you have nothing worthwhile to say, we won't forget you exist if one time you pass up on an opportunity to be needlessly abrasive.
Grumbler has a point though. You're not just a layman. You're a layman with an axe to grind.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 12:06:05 AM
I generally choose my words when I know I'm on tape/speaker. :smarty:
:rolleyes:
Neither you or guller are on tape 12 hours a day.
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 07, 2010, 08:26:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 12:06:05 AM
I generally choose my words when I know I'm on tape/speaker. :smarty:
:rolleyes:
Neither you or guller are on tape 12 hours a day.
True, some people make poor career decisions.
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 07, 2010, 08:26:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 12:06:05 AM
I generally choose my words when I know I'm on tape/speaker. :smarty:
:rolleyes:
Neither you or guller are on tape 12 hours a day.
Actually Dguller is. They brought some cameras and few thugs to watch him all day so he feels at home in the work environment.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on April 07, 2010, 03:47:42 AM
Please, I've watched "Milk". There is no mention of conservative gay hippies, just liberal gay hippies on the streets, in the public office, even in wheelchairs. At the end the hero triumphs and defeats the enemy by killing him, making America safe once more from the forces of evil.
My point was that there is little reason to say liberal hippies. Like, duh.
Actually, if I say only hippies, people would get all mushy and repeat, like zombies, "Make love not war". If I say gay hippies, some would be disgusted (logical), but some would recollect the happy, care-free existence that they always dreamt of (minus the sodomitic anal probing, of course), by misusing the word "gay". But the liberal label works like a charm every damn time: anyone would understand that the enemy within is much more dangerous than the enemy abroad and that we must build on the gigantic work of such people as Dan White, Aaron McKinney or Philip II of Macedon, the vanquisher of the Sacred Fag Band of Thebes.
Somebody stole my Dan White troll. :mad:
Quote from: Alexandru H. on April 07, 2010, 08:39:33 AM
Actually, if I say only hippies, people would get all mushy and repeat, like zombies, "Make love not war". If I say gay hippies, some would be disgusted (logical), but some would recollect the happy, care-free existence that they always dreamt of (minus the sodomitic anal probing, of course), by misusing the word "gay". But the liberal label works like a charm every damn time: anyone would understand that the enemy within is much more dangerous than the enemy abroad and that we must build on the gigantic work of such people as Dan White, Aaron McKinney or Philip II of Macedon, the vanquisher of the Sacred Fag Band of Thebes.
Then why say "hippies"? You've got that covered by saying gay liberals in SF.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2010, 08:43:27 AM
Somebody stole my Dan White troll. :mad:
Yeah, but he tried to use it on me.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 06:38:21 AM
The van had the brother, wife, and kids of one of the insurgents in it. They had just seen their insurgent relative get gunned down during an op. They would logically, of course, have considered that maybe exposing the kids to the same danger that had just taken out dad might not be a good idea, but they were also probably desperate to help get dad to a hospital (not knowing he was already dead).
Honest question: where do you get that info from (the fact that they weren't civilians and that his family was in the van)?
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 06, 2010, 04:50:05 PM
AC-130 videos.
Best part of CoD4 was the mission where you are in an AC130 blowing up Russians with your choice of 25mm, 40mm, or 105mm guns. The whole thing looks like gun camera footage. It was that detail that convinced a buddy of mine to get an Xbox 360.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 01:40:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2010, 11:49:02 PM
But they didn't say that.
I'm paraphrasing, of course. The actual quote is "Come on, let us shoot!" at 9:38, with the crosshair pointed at the van. Could it be taken the wrong way by people not in the know? Of course. Does it sound bad to people not in the know? Most definitely.
I guess. I am not really in the know, and I don't think it is that horrific. He is a soldier, and he thinks he has a legit target and time is of the essence. Shrug.
Quote from: derspiess on April 07, 2010, 09:00:55 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 06, 2010, 04:50:05 PM
AC-130 videos.
Best part of CoD4 was the mission where you are in an AC130 blowing up Russians with your choice of 25mm, 40mm, or 105mm guns. The whole thing looks like gun camera footage. It was that detail that convinced a buddy of mine to get an Xbox 360.
Now, stuff like that can get me back into video games.
There is tons of possiblity to kill Russians in COD4 & MW2.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 08:12:12 AM
I believe I had it right the first time.
Disagree.
QuoteNo need to be a belligerent asshole, I'm describing how I, as a layman, felt watching that video, and why I think other people like me would see the same thing.
Nice, mature statement. Very convincing, I am sure. Especially the "asshole" bit. And if there is no reason to be belligerent, why
are you being belligerent? Your assumption that other people see things the way you do is probably unwarranted.
QuoteOnce in a while it's OK to STFU if you have nothing worthwhile to say, we won't forget you exist if one time you pass up on an opportunity to be needlessly abrasive.
I am willing to bet that you don't see the irony in this statement at all. As a bonus, you probably don't even realize how pathetically juvenile it sounds.
Quote from: BVN on April 07, 2010, 08:49:25 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 06:38:21 AM
The van had the brother, wife, and kids of one of the insurgents in it. They had just seen their insurgent relative get gunned down during an op. They would logically, of course, have considered that maybe exposing the kids to the same danger that had just taken out dad might not be a good idea, but they were also probably desperate to help get dad to a hospital (not knowing he was already dead).
Honest question: where do you get that info from (the fact that they weren't civilians and that his family was in the van)?
Interview with the guy's wife/mother of the kids, heard on the radio (which was a re-broadcast of something from some time ago, I think). Not sure what you mean about "they weren't civilians" - is anyone saying that the wife and kids were not, in fact, civilians?
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 10:30:33 AM
And if there is no reason to be belligerent, why are you being belligerent?
Might have something to do with being called "dishonest". I don't particularly take it well when someone questions my honesty to score a point in an argument. It's an extremely pathetic and destructive style of debating. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about paraphrasing "let me shoot" while aiming a 30 mm canon at the van into "let me blow up the van".
QuoteI am willing to bet that you don't see the irony in this statement at all. As a bonus, you probably don't even realize how pathetically juvenile it sounds.
By this point I think the majority of posters here know what you're all about, so I don't think I'm losing prestige by cutting to the chase in expressing my disdain for your debating methods.
grumbler is correct. Blow the mother frakers up! Given that this is brown on brown violence, I can't see why anyone would care who wins or dies.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 08:27:10 AM
True, some people make poor career decisions.
Lol they make a hell of a lot more money than you do, and I will be in a few years too. :cheers:
The audio makes it very clear that the Apache crews were not deliberately targetting journalists or civilians. End of story.
Quote from: dps on April 07, 2010, 01:11:36 PM
The audio makes it very clear that the Apache crews were not deliberately targetting journalists or civilians. End of story.
Why is everyone concentrating on the first engagement, which is not that controversial, when it's really the engagement of the van later on that raises questions?
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 01:17:14 PM
Quote from: dps on April 07, 2010, 01:11:36 PM
The audio makes it very clear that the Apache crews were not deliberately targetting journalists or civilians. End of story.
Why is everyone concentrating on the first engagement, which is not that controversial, when it's really the engagement of the van later on that raises questions?
The audio makes it clear that when they engaged the van they were not deliberately targeting journalists or civilians as well.
What is the complaint anyway - is it what they did, or how they did it, and the fact that they were not properly solemn and sad about what they were doing?
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 01:17:14 PM
Quote from: dps on April 07, 2010, 01:11:36 PM
The audio makes it very clear that the Apache crews were not deliberately targetting journalists or civilians. End of story.
Why is everyone concentrating on the first engagement, which is not that controversial, when it's really the engagement of the van later on that raises questions?
What questions? They fired on the van to keep the people in it from taking away the bodies and weapons.
I think the van was trying to get the missing WMDs to Syria.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2010, 01:22:12 PM
What is the complaint anyway - is it what they did, or how they did it, and the fact that they were not properly solemn and sad about what they were doing?
The complaint is that they did it. The language, laughter, and all that stuff are just aggravating circumstances, that make a bad-looking situation look even worse.
Face it, rules of engagement or not, red cross or not, when the average rational person sees a couple of unarmed men trying to carry another unarmed wounded man out, and they get blown apart in return, it doesn't look right. Maybe there is an acceptable explanation to this action, but that explanation better over-ride the basic feeling that "this is just wrong".
Quote from: dps on April 07, 2010, 01:25:50 PM
What questions? They fired on the van to keep the people in it from taking away the bodies and weapons.
They weren't taking away the bodies and the weapons, it looked like they were taking away the one unarmed guy who survived the initial attack.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 11:48:25 AM
Might have something to do with being called "dishonest".
So you are now saying that there is a reason to be belligerent, when earlier you said there was none? Which is the "honest" statement?
QuoteI don't particularly take it well when someone questions my honesty to score a point in an argument. It's an extremely pathetic and destructive style of debating.
Dishonest paraphrases inside quotation marks created just to score points in a debate are pathetic, you are right. And they are definitely worth pointing out, even if their authors subsequently feel embarrassed and lash out.
QuoteThere is absolutely nothing dishonest about paraphrasing "let me shoot" while aiming a 30 mm canon at the van into "let me blow up the van".
But there is plenty of dishonesty in trying now to re-write your actual words
Quote"please, please, let me blow up that van"
into this new formulation.
I don't see how you can be upset about being called out for dishonest quotes when you do it even while trying to show that you don't do it dishonestly.
QuoteBy this point I think the majority of posters here know what you're all about, so I don't think I'm losing prestige by cutting to the chase in expressing my disdain for your debating methods.
Oh, I think everyone knows what we are both about, and in this case they are left in no doubt as to my disgust for your lies.
But I bet you don't even get the irony of your being caught lying while wailing about being caught lying! :lol:
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 07, 2010, 12:50:03 PM
Lol they make a hell of a lot more money than you do, and I will be in a few years too. :cheers:
Actually in a few years I'll probably be making more than you and with no danger to my person. :hug:
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2010, 01:22:12 PM
What is the complaint anyway - is it what they did, or how they did it, and the fact that they were not properly solemn and sad about what they were doing?
The complaint is that they did it. The language, laughter, and all that stuff are just aggravating circumstances, that make a bad-looking situation look even worse.
OK. Of course, what makes the bad looking situation worse is actually changing their words to something they did not say, that is in fact worse than what they did say.
What they did say wasn't really all that terrible. Not even noteworthy, when placed into the context of private conversation among soldiers.
Quote
Face it, rules of engagement or not, red cross or not, when the average rational person sees a couple of unarmed men trying to carry another unarmed wounded man out, and they get blown apart in return, it doesn't look right. Maybe there is an acceptable explanation to this action, but that explanation better over-ride the basic feeling that "this is just wrong".
I don't see anything wrong with shooting up a van that is helping your enemies escape, and could potentially contain more people looking to ambush the ground elements that are moments away, and you are there to support.
How do you know the people in the van are unarmed anyway?
The over-riding concern here is the safety of the OUR side, remember. Not making sure that civilians won't be offended by mean soldiers. Those men flying those helicopters are not the UN, trying to make sure nothing bad happens to non-combatants. Rather they are soldiers, and there first priority is making sure nothing bad happens to the people they are there to support. Of secondary (albeit very important) concern is making sure that nothing bad happens to bystanders, much less people who place themselves actively into the combat situation and appear to be helping the people who were just looking to kill you moments before.
Quote from: Fate on April 07, 2010, 11:55:10 AM
Given that this is brown on brown violence, I can't see why anyone would care who wins or dies.
Your racist comments have been reported. :banned:
Quote from: citizen k on April 07, 2010, 03:04:50 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 07, 2010, 11:55:10 AM
Given that this is brown on brown violence, I can't see why anyone would care who wins or dies.
Your racist comments have been reported. :banned:
I think he is trying to make a joke about Apaches being a tribe of "brown people."
Not a good joke, but, methinks, a joke.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 01:55:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 11:48:25 AM
Might have something to do with being called "dishonest".
So you are now saying that there is a reason to be belligerent, when earlier you said there was none? Which is the "honest" statement?
QuoteI don't particularly take it well when someone questions my honesty to score a point in an argument. It's an extremely pathetic and destructive style of debating.
Dishonest paraphrases inside quotation marks created just to score points in a debate are pathetic, you are right. And they are definitely worth pointing out, even if their authors subsequently feel embarrassed and lash out.
QuoteThere is absolutely nothing dishonest about paraphrasing "let me shoot" while aiming a 30 mm canon at the van into "let me blow up the van".
But there is plenty of dishonesty in trying now to re-write your actual words Quote"please, please, let me blow up that van"
into this new formulation.
I don't see how you can be upset about being called out for dishonest quotes when you do it even while trying to show that you don't do it dishonestly.
QuoteBy this point I think the majority of posters here know what you're all about, so I don't think I'm losing prestige by cutting to the chase in expressing my disdain for your debating methods.
Oh, I think everyone knows what we are both about, and in this case they are left in no doubt as to my disgust for your lies.
But I bet you don't even get the irony of your being caught lying while wailing about being caught lying! :lol:
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 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. 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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 03:32:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 01:55:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 11:48:25 AM
Might have something to do with being called "dishonest".
So you are now saying that there is a reason to be belligerent, when earlier you said there was none? Which is the "honest" statement?
QuoteI don't particularly take it well when someone questions my honesty to score a point in an argument. It's an extremely pathetic and destructive style of debating.
Dishonest paraphrases inside quotation marks created just to score points in a debate are pathetic, you are right. And they are definitely worth pointing out, even if their authors subsequently feel embarrassed and lash out.
QuoteThere is absolutely nothing dishonest about paraphrasing "let me shoot" while aiming a 30 mm canon at the van into "let me blow up the van".
But there is plenty of dishonesty in trying now to re-write your actual words Quote"please, please, let me blow up that van"
into this new formulation.
I don't see how you can be upset about being called out for dishonest quotes when you do it even while trying to show that you don't do it dishonestly.
QuoteBy this point I think the majority of posters here know what you're all about, so I don't think I'm losing prestige by cutting to the chase in expressing my disdain for your debating methods.
Oh, I think everyone knows what we are both about, and in this case they are left in no doubt as to my disgust for your lies.
But I bet you don't even get the irony of your being caught lying while wailing about being caught lying! :lol:
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 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. 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.
What was wrong about dps' comments? At the 9:35 mark the people in the van were moving one body, I think it was the wounded guy. An reasonable person on the scene would assume they would take more bodies and any weapons they might have had.
Quote from: sbr on April 07, 2010, 03:58:54 PM
What was wrong about dps' comments? At the 9:35 mark the people in the van were moving one body, I think it was the wounded guy. An reasonable person on the scene would assume they would take more bodies and any weapons they might have had.
Really, a reasonable person would assume that? You see someone getting a wounded guy into the van, and the natural assumption is that they would go for dead bodies and weapons next?
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.
QuoteFor those unaware of my background, I have spent quite a lot of time (a conservative estimate would be around 4500 hours) viewing aerial footage of Iraq (note: this time was not in viewing TADS video, but footage from Raven, Shadow, and Predator feeds). I am certain my voice can be heard on several transmissions with several different Crazyhorse aircraft, as I have called them to assist troops on the ground more times in my 24-months in Iraq than I could even attempt to guess. I need no reassurances to determine the presence of an RPG7 or an AK-variant rifle, especially not from a craft flying as low as Apache (even after the video has been reduced in dimensions to a point at which it is nearly useless).
QuoteAt 4:08 to 4:18 another misidentification is made by Crazyhorse 18, where what appears to clearly be a man with a telephoto lens (edit to add: one of the Canon EF 70-200mm offerings) on an SLR is identified as wielding an RPG. The actual case is not threatening at all, though the misidentified case presents a major perceived threat to the aircraft and any coalition forces in the direction of its orientation. This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error.
(note: It has to be taken into consideration that there is no way that the Crazyhorse crew had the knowledge, as everyone who has viewed this had, that the man on the corner of that wall was a photographer. The actions of shouldering an RPG (bringing a long cylindrical object in line with one's face) and framing a photo with a long telephoto lens quite probably look identical to an aircrew in those conditions.)
I have made the call to engage targets from the sky several times, and know (especially during the surge) that such calls are not taken lightly. Had I been personally involved with this mission, and had access to real-time footage, I would have recommended against granting permission. Any of the officers with whom I served are well aware that I would continue voicing that recommendation until ordered to do otherwise. A few of them threatened me with action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for doing so. Better officers than they, fortunately, were always ready to go to bat for me and keep that from happening. That said, if either of the clearly visible weapons been oriented towards aircraft, vehicles, troops, or civilians I would have cleared Crazyhorse 18 hot in a heartbeat and defended my actions to the battle staff if needed.
QuoteThe point at which I cannot support the actions of Crazyhorse 18, at all, comes when the van arrives somewhere around 9:45 and is engaged. Unless someone had jumped out with an RPG ready to fire on the aircraft, there was no threat warranting a hail of 30mm from above. Might it have been prudent to follow the vehicle (perhaps with a UAV), or at least put out a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for the vehicle? Absolutely without question. Was this portion of the engagement even remotely understandable, to me? No, it was not.
"Military guys" are basically people who couldn't hold down a steady job, failed out of college, or both. Why would you take any of them at their word? Perhaps if he was a high ranking officer, but even then his point of view should be extremely suspect...
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 04:12:42 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 07, 2010, 03:58:54 PM
What was wrong about dps' comments? At the 9:35 mark the people in the van were moving one body, I think it was the wounded guy. An reasonable person on the scene would assume they would take more bodies and any weapons they might have had.
Really, a reasonable person would assume that? You see someone getting a wounded guy into the van, and the natural assumption is that they would go for dead bodies and weapons next?
Why would a reasonable person not? Why would a reasonable person come driving up to the scene we saw in the video? Remember the people making these decisions were in the cockpit of a helicopter, had friendly forces on the way and had moments to decide. They were not in their easy chair and have the ability to look at the video multiple times and spend hours analyzing it. I heard true concern in the voices of the pilots when that van showed up and started moving the body, not the excitement of "Yay we get to shoot some more!!".
I have never been in the military or in any situation that could even approach the conditions these people live their lives in. I am assuming that those pilots and the people they were in radio contact with are not cold blooded killers and felt at the time they were doing the right thing under their current RoE. I can't understand how someone could assume otherwise.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 07, 2010, 12:50:03 PM
Lol they make a hell of a lot more money than you do, and I will be in a few years too. :cheers:
Actually in a few years I'll probably be making more than you and with no danger to my person. :hug:
Where's the fun in that?
And glancing at recent threads in TBR, that seems extremely unlikely. :lmfao:
Quote from: sbr on April 07, 2010, 04:32:47 PM
Why would a reasonable person not? Why would a reasonable person come driving up to the scene we saw in the video?
They might've not seen what transpired originally, and just saw a heavily wounded guy crawling.
QuoteI am assuming that those pilots and the people they were in radio contact with are not cold blooded killers and felt at the time they were doing the right thing under their current RoE. I can't understand how someone could assume otherwise.
I'm not assuming anything one way or the other. 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. There are people in uniform who do things that are rash, or outright evil, and citizens have the right to ask questions about their actions regardless of what piece of furniture they're sitting on. In fact, I'd say they have an obligation to do that.
I'm torn on this issue. On one hand there is Pat. On the other there is Alcibiades. Could we blow up a van with both of them inside?
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 07, 2010, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2010, 08:27:10 AM
True, some people make poor career decisions.
Lol they make a hell of a lot more money than you do, and I will be in a few years too. :cheers:
Hopefully someone will put a bullet in your brain first. :cheers:
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2010, 04:50:02 PM
I'm torn on this issue. On one hand there is Pat. On the other there is Alcibiades. Could we blow up a van with both of them inside?
Join me in the Anti-Pat coalition. Be cool, for once.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.lib.umn.edu%2Fcarpe174%2Fcarpe174%2F050411_darthVader_hmed2_3p.hmedium.jpg&hash=e292c24e7e0d25d830724f12c7fe88ba135767cc)
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 03:32:59 PM
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.
QuoteI 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!" :lmfao:
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?
QuoteOf 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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 04:46:31 PM
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?
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 05:14:56 PM
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?
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 04:18:41 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2010, 05:34:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 04:18:41 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 07, 2010, 05:36:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2010, 05:34:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 04:18:41 PM
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.
Quote
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.
What the deal with people quoting mis-formatted replies without writing anything? Is that some kind of an inside joke or something?
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 05:43:08 PM
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 05:47:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 05:43:08 PM
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?
DGuller, stop being such a contrarian pussy already.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2010, 05:57:49 PM
DGuller, stop being such a contrarian pussy already.
WTF, what am I being contrarian about?
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 05:52:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 05:47:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 05:43:08 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 05:52:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 05:47:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 05:43:08 PM
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.
Quote from: sbr on April 07, 2010, 06:08:32 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 06:15:36 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 07, 2010, 06:08:32 PM
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.
You may not have noticed but Grumbler is a jerk.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 06:23:20 PM
You may not have noticed but Grumbler is a jerk.
He kept tripping Jesus while he was carrying that big ass cross.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2010, 06:26:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 06:23:20 PM
You may not have noticed but Grumbler is a jerk.
He kept tripping Jesus while he was carrying that big ass cross.
And when Socrates was given the Hemlock he kept shouting "Chug! Chug! Chug!"
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 06:23:20 PM
You may not have noticed but Grumbler is a jerk.
I've had my suspicions for a while.
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2010, 04:51:35 PM
Hopefully someone will put a bullet in your brain first. :cheers:
I hope you get athletes foot in your mouth. :console:
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 05:43:08 PM
What the deal with people quoting mis-formatted replies without writing anything? Is that some kind of an inside joke or something?
I've always assumed it was mocking people who fucked up the formatting.
Quote from: Kleves on April 07, 2010, 06:33:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 05:43:08 PM
What the deal with people quoting mis-formatted replies without writing anything? Is that some kind of an inside joke or something?
I've always assumed it was mocking people who fucked up the formatting.
You assume wisely. People who fuck up the formatting don't appear to have added anything, since their words appear inside the quotes, and then there is some kind of a group reflex to duplicate that appearance.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 06:15:36 PM
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.
:lmfao:
I love the pout! It fits you to a T.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 07:02:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 06:15:36 PM
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.
:lmfao:
I love the pout! It fits you to a T.
Your ability to read into something that isn't there is supreme, as always. I was merely making making my observation, without imposing a value judgment on the action of replying with no text.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 07:11:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 07:02:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 06:15:36 PM
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.
:lmfao:
I love the pout! It fits you to a T.
Your ability to read into something that isn't there is supreme, as always. I was merely making making my observation, without imposing a value judgment on the action of replying with no text.
:lmfao:
Again, the pouting. It is classic.
As you know quite well, not only is not me that "usually" makes the formatting error that leads to the seemingly blank post, it is almost
never me who does it. I did it the once, in fact, when the board was new (but I wouldn't expect you to know the precise number). Your "observation" is, as many of your statements in this thread, untrue. Nothing in that or my earlier statements that requires reading anything that isn't there.
DGuller, stop being such a fucking pouter.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 05:14:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 03:32:59 PM
QuoteI 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.
Yes, that's exactly where I got that bit--it was what the pilots said. Reading DGuller's posts, I have to wonder if he watched the video with the audio off.
I know that's what the pilots said when they wanted to get authorization to shoot. However, I didn't just listen to the pilots when I was watching the video, I was also trying to see what they were actually shooting at.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 08:22:31 PM
:lmfao:
Again, the pouting. It is classic.
As you know quite well, not only is not me that "usually" makes the formatting error that leads to the seemingly blank post, it is almost never me who does it. I did it the once, in fact, when the board was new (but I wouldn't expect you to know the precise number). Your "observation" is, as many of your statements in this thread, untrue. Nothing in that or my earlier statements that requires reading anything that isn't there.
I recall you doing that way more than once.
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2010, 12:09:53 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 08:22:31 PM
:lmfao:
Again, the pouting. It is classic.
As you know quite well, not only is not me that "usually" makes the formatting error that leads to the seemingly blank post, it is almost never me who does it. I did it the once, in fact, when the board was new (but I wouldn't expect you to know the precise number). Your "observation" is, as many of your statements in this thread, untrue. Nothing in that or my earlier statements that requires reading anything that isn't there.
I recall you doing that way more than once.
Ok, I decided to invest 10 minutes, just to check my sanity and memory. Well, looking through grumbler's posts to prove such a pointless point may not speak well of my sanity, it does speak well for my memory.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3938.msg200876#msg200876
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3946.msg200796#msg200796
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3761.msg193305#msg193305
I stopped after getting the third one, with the third one being from about 7 weeks ago. I'm sure I could rack up more if I went further, but this is enough to disprove your assertion. Obviously an honorable poster like you would be quick to offer an apology for wrongfully calling me a liar.
this morning, hungarian (non-state) TV news covering the video: "...video leaked about US troops shooting at pedestrians and laughing on them in 2007"
:bleeding: later they do explain the "pedestrians" were armed, but they also used the "relaxed" angle to un-justify shooting the bastards.
Once again I say: if the US collapses, I will build a bunker and keep laughing on all the anti-US wankers suffering through what they thought to be their dream age.
Is it normal for Afghani pedestrians to walk around with their rifles in the open? Wouldn't someone tackle them in a civilized country? :mad:
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 01:38:28 AM
Is it normal for Afghani pedestrians to walk around with their rifles in the open? Wouldn't someone tackle them in a civilized country? :mad:
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 01:38:28 AM
Is it normal for Afghani pedestrians to walk around with their rifles in the open? Wouldn't someone tackle them in a civilized country? :mad:
Touche'.
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2010, 01:28:39 AM
this morning, hungarian (non-state) TV news covering the video: "...video leaked about US troops shooting at pedestrians and laughing on them in 2007"
:bleeding: later they do explain the "pedestrians" were armed, but they also used the "relaxed" angle to un-justify shooting the bastards.
Once again I say: if the US collapses, I will build a bunker and keep laughing on all the anti-US wankers suffering through what they thought to be their dream age.
So, does your wagon double as a bunker or will you have to steal a bunker?
Someone needs to explain to these people that shooting enemy solders when they are "relaxed" is generally the best time for it.
When they are NOT relaxed, they are usually a lot harder to shoot, and sometimes even shoot back!
I always love video.
During our use of force training each year the instructor shows two video clips of the same scene each from a different squad car therefore each showing a different perspective. In the first clip, two cops walk up behind a black guy walking erratically and shoot him in the back. They basically unload a whole clip each into the guy. If anyone reasonable person saw this video clip the two officers would be charged with murder because it's clear that the "victim" is walking away from the cops. However, the instructor than shows the second clip of the same incident but different angle. In this clip you can see that the black guy is walking away but shooting back over his shoulder. The most amazing thing is that he didn't shoot the officer right behind him (it was almost Pulp Fictonesque). At this point the police officers return fire and hit the criminal. If any reasonable person saw the second clip it would be clear that the shooting was justified.
It's a very good training example of how video and witness testimony can see two clearly different things concerning the same incident.
Otto I caught the Hungarians planting their beets at Lechfeld. At Mohacs, the Turk caught them pulling the beets up.
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2010, 12:44:44 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2010, 12:09:53 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 08:22:31 PM
:lmfao:
Again, the pouting. It is classic.
As you know quite well, not only is not me that "usually" makes the formatting error that leads to the seemingly blank post, it is almost never me who does it. I did it the once, in fact, when the board was new (but I wouldn't expect you to know the precise number). Your "observation" is, as many of your statements in this thread, untrue. Nothing in that or my earlier statements that requires reading anything that isn't there.
I recall you doing that way more than once.
Ok, I decided to invest 10 minutes, just to check my sanity and memory. Well, looking through grumbler's posts to prove such a pointless point may not speak well of my sanity, it does speak well for my memory.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3938.msg200876#msg200876
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3946.msg200796#msg200796
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3761.msg193305#msg193305
I stopped after getting the third one, with the third one being from about 7 weeks ago. I'm sure I could rack up more if I went further, but this is enough to disprove your assertion. Obviously an honorable poster like you would be quick to offer an apology for wrongfully calling me a liar.
Not
one of those shows me making any format errors. :lol:
So, not only am I
not "usually" the one doing that, you cannot find any examples of me doing it at all?
Beautiful that you think this "does speak well" for your memory!
Do we have state television in the US? Is PBS state television?
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 11:29:19 AM
Not one of those shows me making any format errors. :lol:
So, not only am I not "usually" the one doing that, you cannot find any examples of me doing it at all?
Beautiful that you think this "does speak well" for your memory!
Did I say you were the one making the formatting errors? I believe I said you were the ones making empty replies to the posts with formatting errors. It appears that in additional to your amazing ability to read into something that isn't there, you also have an amazingly ability to not be able to read something that is there.
Jesus Christ Guller, just ignore Grumbler. He's trolling you.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2010, 11:34:44 AM
Do we have state television in the US? Is PBS state television?
It used to be Fox News, now I think it's MSNBC.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2010, 11:38:06 AM
Jesus Christ Guller, just ignore Grumbler. He's trolling you.
Not, not yet. Once he realizes he was wrong, then he would've been trolling me all along. And don't call me Jesus Christ.
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2010, 12:32:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2010, 11:38:06 AM
Jesus Christ Guller, just ignore Grumbler. He's trolling you.
Not, not yet. Once he realizes he was wrong, then he would've been trolling me all along. And don't call me Jesus Christ.
Sometimes you are as dense as Siege. Must be an immigrant thing.
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2010, 11:36:47 AM
Did I say you were the one making the formatting errors?
yes, you did. To wit:
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 06:15:36 PM
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.
"It" is a pronoun that refers back to the last gender-neutral noun - in this case, "[screwed up] formatting."
QuoteI believe I said you were the ones making empty replies to the posts with formatting errors.
That isn't what you said, as the bold above demonstrates. In fact, i made that clear in the post to which you are now responding: "not only is not me that "usually" makes the formatting error that leads to the seemingly blank post, it is almost never me who does it."
Even if that is what you meant (but failed) to say, the statement that "It's also usually grumbler [making empty replies to the posts with formatting errors]" your memory also obviously fails you in the examples you cite, plus the one you are responding to in this thread, as there are three examples of my doing it, and four of others doing it. Even in the
most biased possible sample (all of the times I did it, plus only those doing it when I am or those doing it in this discussion) I am not "usually" "the one who does it."
QuoteIt appears that in additional to your amazing ability to read into something that isn't there, you also have an amazingly ability to not be able to read something that is there.
I can only read what is there, not what you meant but failed to say. You, on the other hand, failed completely to comprehend my statement to which you are responding, even though I made sure that it was clear that I was referring to formatting errors.
So, what is amazing here is that your ability to ignore your own grammatical blunders, ignore my clear specification of what I refer to, and then blame your incomprehension on some imagined inability on my part! :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2010, 11:38:06 AM
Jesus Christ Guller, just ignore Grumbler. He's trolling you.
Sorry, just realized that the poster who fucks up the formatting in two of three examples posted by dgullible was you. :blush: That's gotta sting, and I understand why you now want this discussion stopped. To avoid embarrassing you further, I won't refer to those fuckups any more.
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 01:42:44 PM
"It" is a pronoun that refers back to the last gender-neutral noun - in this case, "[screwed up] formatting."
What's the last gender-neutral noun before the bolded "it" in the following sentence?
QuoteAs you know quite well, not only is not me that "usually" makes the formatting error that leads to the seemingly blank post, it is almost never me who does it.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2010, 12:48:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2010, 12:32:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2010, 11:38:06 AM
Jesus Christ Guller, just ignore Grumbler. He's trolling you.
Not, not yet. Once he realizes he was wrong, then he would've been trolling me all along. And don't call me Jesus Christ.
Sometimes you are as dense as Siege. Must be an immigrant thing.
Fuck you!
I'm trying to watch all this non-sensical debacle without saying a word, and you have to come in and blamish my good name.
Hey Raz, that guy in your avatar, is that the bald dude from Mythbusters?
For the record, I read DGuller's post to say what DGuller said he meant to say, not what Grumbler read it as.
But I'm an immigrant too.
Way to ruin a good thread, grumbler. :rolleyes:
Will grumbler "laugh" at the dogpile? :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2010, 03:04:18 PM
For the record, I read DGuller's post to say what DGuller said he meant to say, not what Grumbler read it as.
But I'm an immigrant too.
Thanks for keeping the record straight. For the record, I don't blame anything in this thread on anyone's status as an immigrant. I consider them pretty much indistinguishable from real humans.
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2010, 03:13:07 PM
Will grumbler "laugh" at the dogpile? :hmm:
:hmm: Good question.
I predict a slight snicker, but no guffaw. Let's wait and see.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2010, 03:04:18 PM
For the record, I read DGuller's post to say what DGuller said he meant to say, not what Grumbler read it as.
But I'm an immigrant too.
I guess we are all immigrants to the Bizarre World of Grumbler (tm).
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2010, 11:36:47 AM
Did I say you were the one making the formatting errors?
yes, you did. To wit:
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2010, 06:15:36 PM
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.
"It" is a pronoun that refers back to the last gender-neutral noun - in this case, "[screwed up] formatting."
And amazingly, I also understood exactly what DGuller meant when I read it first time, unlike Grumbler here. :P
QuoteThat'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.
Quote from: Siege on April 08, 2010, 03:03:58 PM
Hey Raz, that guy in your avatar, is that the bald dude from Mythbusters?
Was it the tentacles that tipped you off?
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 05:22:48 PMI guess we are all immigrants to the Bizarre World of Grumbler (tm).
I'm surprised that there's a substantial amount of immigration there.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2010, 05:44:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 05:22:48 PMI guess we are all immigrants to the Bizarre World of Grumbler (tm).
I'm surprised that there's a substantial amount of immigration there.
Marti can imagine as many immigrants as he wishes there. It is, after all, his delusion, and he is welcome to it. :hug:
Everyone is an immigrant in the real world, as far as I am concerned. I think people place way too much emphasis on what people are as groups (based on things like origin) and too little on who they are as individuals. when you consider that all people are born and all will die, that similarity drowns out any petty differences.
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 09:36:29 AM
when you consider that all people are born and all will die, that similarity drowns out any petty differences.
:mellow:
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2010, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 09:36:29 AM
when you consider that all people are born and all will die, that similarity drowns out any petty differences.
:mellow:
I think grumbler lit up the wrong stuff.
Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2010, 02:53:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2010, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 09:36:29 AM
when you consider that all people are born and all will die, that similarity drowns out any petty differences.
:mellow:
I think grumbler lit up the wrong stuff.
It is a deep thought, so don't worry your little head about trying to understand it. :mellow:
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 08:44:48 PM
It is a deep thought, so don't worry your little head about trying to understand it. :mellow:
It's about as deep as the Himalayas. It sounds more like a cheezy bumper sticker.
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 08:44:48 PM
It is a deep thought, so don't worry your little head about trying to understand it. :mellow:
Understand what? Head?
Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2010, 09:17:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 08:44:48 PM
It is a deep thought, so don't worry your little head about trying to understand it. :mellow:
Understand what? Head?
We know that you want to find out what it feels like to give the President head, but there was no reason to bring it up in this thread.
Quote from: Strix on April 09, 2010, 09:00:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 08:44:48 PM
It is a deep thought, so don't worry your little head about trying to understand it. :mellow:
It's about as deep as the Himalayas. It sounds more like a cheezy bumper sticker.
I wouldn't expect you to understand it, either. It is a simple concept to those that can understand, but an impossible one for those who cannot. :hug:
Zen grumbler isn't any more cute than vanilla grumbler. :(
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2010, 12:04:12 AM
Zen grumbler isn't any more cute than vanilla grumbler. :(
It's a lucky thing that "cute" isn't one of my values, then.
Good luck finding "cute" posters on languish, though. :hug:
Obviously cute is not one of your attributes. :mellow:
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2010, 12:50:01 AM
Good luck finding "cute" posters on languish, though. :hug:
:huh:
Quote from: The Brain on April 10, 2010, 01:37:27 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2010, 12:50:01 AM
Good luck finding "cute" posters on languish, though. :hug:
:huh:
Indeed, clearly you and I lead the pack by any objective standard.
Article claims 30 minutes was cut from the full version of the video
http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage
QuoteWhat happened during that missing half-hour? The Jawa Report cites the sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack. One pilot said in his statement that between the attack on the journalists and the second attack, two events occurred which may have softened the picture of the pilots provided by the video: 1) The pilots went to assist soldiers under attack, but saw a child and other "noncombatants" and held their fire. 2) The pilots saw a red SUV that may have contained insurgents, but held their fire because they couldn't get a positive identification. Here is the relevant part of the statement. (Click to enlarge.)
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 10:19:09 PM
I wouldn't expect you to understand it, either. It is a simple concept to those that can understand, but an impossible one for those who cannot. :hug:
As you have clearly demonstrated. I never said I didn't understand it. I just stated it's not a very deep thought. Apparently the difference between what is a deep thought and what makes a good bumper stick is hard for you to understand.
Quote from: Strix on April 10, 2010, 09:17:45 AM
As you have clearly demonstrated. I never said I didn't understand it. I just stated it's not a very deep thought. Apparently the difference between what is a deep thought and what makes a good bumper stick is hard for you to understand.
If you think that the fact that my statement "isn't very deep," you clearly didn't get it. My statement wasn't intended to be deep, nor was it intended to rhyme, nor use all the letters of the alphabet. Saying "it's not a very deep thought" is a non-sequitur.
Thus, you either didn't get it, or are pretending that you didn't.
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Strix on April 10, 2010, 09:17:45 AM
As you have clearly demonstrated. I never said I didn't understand it. I just stated it's not a very deep thought. Apparently the difference between what is a deep thought and what makes a good bumper stick is hard for you to understand.
If you think that the fact that my statement "isn't very deep," you clearly didn't get it. My statement wasn't intended to be deep, nor was it intended to rhyme, nor use all the letters of the alphabet. Saying "it's not a very deep thought" is a non-sequitur.
Thus, you either didn't get it, or are pretending that you didn't.
What was the intent of your statement?
I think I broke grumbler. :unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2010, 11:37:07 AM
What was the intent of your statement?
Read the statement again, trying not to move your lips, but going slowly enough that you don't miss any words:
QuoteEveryone is an immigrant in the real world, as far as I am concerned. I think people place way too much emphasis on what people are as groups (based on things like origin) and too little on who they are as individuals. when you consider that all people are born and all will die, that similarity drowns out any petty differences.
Now, think about what might be the intent behind a statement outlining how a person thinks about immigrants.
Could it be, just possibly, that a person intends to make a statement about immigrants?
Surely even you can figure out such a simple thing. It isn't rocket science.
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2010, 12:04:49 PM
I think I broke grumbler. :unsure:
You think... poorly. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 12:43:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2010, 11:37:07 AM
What was the intent of your statement?
Read the statement again, trying not to move your lips, but going slowly enough that you don't miss any words:
QuoteEveryone is an immigrant in the real world, as far as I am concerned. I think people place way too much emphasis on what people are as groups (based on things like origin) and too little on who they are as individuals. when you consider that all people are born and all will die, that similarity drowns out any petty differences.
Now, think about what might be the intent behind a statement outlining how a person thinks about immigrants.
Could it be, just possibly, that a person intends to make a statement about immigrants?
Surely even you can figure out such a simple thing. It isn't rocket science.
Is your point that immigrants have a lot in common with ants since they are individuals that are born and die? If so I must respectfully disagree. I put out poison and traps for ants but I don't think that would be ethical or effective really.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2010, 01:05:40 PM
Is your point that immigrants have a lot in common with ants since they are individuals that are born and die?
Is one similarity "a lot?" Is that your point?
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 01:16:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2010, 01:05:40 PM
Is your point that immigrants have a lot in common with ants since they are individuals that are born and die?
I think I broke Raz. :unsure.
I suppose what I said was just to deep for you. ^_^ Anyway, I don't want to argue with you about the merits of poisoning immigrants. I just think it's wrong no matter what you say. Lets just agree to disagree.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2010, 01:19:30 PM
I suppose what I said was just to deep for you. ^_^
It was deep in something, for sure! <_<
QuoteAnyway, I don't want to argue with you about the merits of poisoning immigrants.
Okay. :hug: Not a subject I know anything about.
QuoteI just think it's wrong no matter what you say.
Excellent. You have learned something, then. Make sure you tell the doctor about it (but also delete the caveat; just concede that it is wrong without qualifying it based on what anyone else says) next time he comes, and maybe he will agree to let you out of your parents' basement for some visits to the outside world.
Woah, settle down gramps. All this excitement is angrying up the blood! Just calm down a bit. You had a senior moment, but everything will be okay.
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 12:43:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2010, 12:04:49 PM
I think I broke grumbler. :unsure:
You think... poorly. :lol:
I don't know about that, you seem incoherent and unable to express your thoughts clearly. While you have many problems, which I'm always happy to list, lack of coherence has never been one of them until now.
What an odd threadjack...
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2010, 01:34:38 PM
I don't know about that, you seem incoherent and unable to express your thoughts clearly. While you have many problems, which I'm always happy to list, lack of coherence has never been one of them until now.
:lmfao: Always trying to make things about the poster, rather than the post, aren't you?
There is a phrase for that, from the latin. Let's see if you can figure out what it is:
a_ hom___mBy all means, keep it up. All it shows is that you are conceding you have no more arguments to make about the posts themselves any more. The more you go off on this tangent, the more obvious it is that you have nothing to say.
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 11, 2010, 01:40:49 PM
What an odd threadjack...
Well when you have Raz and DGullible allied, you know things are gonna get strange.
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 11, 2010, 01:40:49 PM
What an odd threadjack...
I'm not about to let Grumbler out crazy me! No matter what goofy shit he says.
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 01:47:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2010, 01:34:38 PM
I don't know about that, you seem incoherent and unable to express your thoughts clearly. While you have many problems, which I'm always happy to list, lack of coherence has never been one of them until now.
:lmfao: Always trying to make things about the poster, rather than the post, aren't you?
There is a phrase for that, from the latin. Let's see if you can figure out what it is: a_ hom___m
By all means, keep it up. All it shows is that you are conceding you have no more arguments to make about the posts themselves any more. The more you go off on this tangent, the more obvious it is that you have nothing to say.
What can I say, your posts always make people think of the poster. In certain ways.
The general idea that the poster is irrelevant to a discussion is quaint but retarded.
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 01:47:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2010, 01:34:38 PM
I don't know about that, you seem incoherent and unable to express your thoughts clearly. While you have many problems, which I'm always happy to list, lack of coherence has never been one of them until now.
:lmfao: Always trying to make things about the poster, rather than the post, aren't you?
There is a phrase for that, from the latin. Let's see if you can figure out what it is: a_ hom___m
By all means, keep it up. All it shows is that you are conceding you have no more arguments to make about the posts themselves any more. The more you go off on this tangent, the more obvious it is that you have nothing to say.
'DGullible'?
Grumbler is always the first to break out the ad homs.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2010, 01:58:42 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 11, 2010, 01:40:49 PM
What an odd threadjack...
I'm not about to let Grumbler out crazy me!
Not to worry. It cannot be done. :hug:
This thread is still going on :lol:
Quote from: katmai on April 11, 2010, 04:57:21 PM
This thread is still going on :lol:
Just when you start to think it couldn't possibly still have any steam, Raz starts muttering about poisoning immigrants and arguing with the voices in his head! :lol:
I sense a new meme in the making. He seems to be competing for some kind of craziness prize, or something. I think that, whatever it is, he is winning!
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2010, 01:34:38 PM
I don't know about that, you seem incoherent and unable to express your thoughts clearly. While you have many problems, which I'm always happy to list, lack of coherence has never been one of them until now.
:yes:
Quote from: The Brain on April 11, 2010, 02:16:36 PM
The general idea that the poster is irrelevant to a discussion is quaint but retarded.
Well look who said it...
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2010, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 12:43:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2010, 11:37:07 AM
What was the intent of your statement?
Read the statement again, trying not to move your lips, but going slowly enough that you don't miss any words:
QuoteEveryone is an immigrant in the real world, as far as I am concerned. I think people place way too much emphasis on what people are as groups (based on things like origin) and too little on who they are as individuals. when you consider that all people are born and all will die, that similarity drowns out any petty differences.
Now, think about what might be the intent behind a statement outlining how a person thinks about immigrants.
Could it be, just possibly, that a person intends to make a statement about immigrants?
Surely even you can figure out such a simple thing. It isn't rocket science.
Is your point that immigrants have a lot in common with ants since they are individuals that are born and die? If so I must respectfully disagree. I put out poison and traps for ants but I don't think that would be ethical or effective really.
We could put poisoned tacos and tequila out at the bases of cacti. When they get wise to that, we move up to poisoned cocaine and prostitutes.
Quote from: The Brain on April 11, 2010, 02:16:36 PM
The general idea that the poster is irrelevant to a discussion is quaint but retarded.
Good thing no one is arguing that, then, isn't it?
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2010, 07:04:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 11, 2010, 02:16:36 PM
The general idea that the poster is irrelevant to a discussion is quaint but retarded.
Well look who said it...
Who
did say it?
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2010, 07:31:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 07:28:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2010, 07:04:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 11, 2010, 02:16:36 PM
The general idea that the poster is irrelevant to a discussion is quaint but retarded.
Well look who said it...
Who did say it?
The Brain. :smarty:
:huh: The Brain isn't a general, and we are referring to a "general idea."
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 07:50:42 PM
:huh: The Brain isn't a general, and we are referring to a "general idea."
Nope. I've really tried, but this sentence doesn't work in any of the ways it seems it can be read. The grammar just doesn't work. You're worrying me Grumbler.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 11, 2010, 08:10:32 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 07:50:42 PM
:huh: The Brain isn't a general, and we are referring to a "general idea."
Nope. I've really tried, but this sentence doesn't work in any of the ways it seems it can be read. The grammar just doesn't work.
:lol:
Sorry. It depends on the reader knowing that the English word "general" is both a military rank and an adjective. Thus, it is a play on the concept of a "general idea" as both an idea that applies generally (The Brain's meaning), and as the idea of a general (thus the mock rebuttal that "Brain is not a general"). It is akin to the "Don't call me Shirley" response to a post that contains the word "surely" (that one probably puzzled you as well). Word play like this is probably more common in English than other languages, because it is a mess of words (many of them homophones) from so many different sources, but surely you have something similar in your native language?
QuoteYou're worrying me Grumbler.
Nothing t worry about, you just have to ask, and I can explain the joke to you. Understanding wordplay jokes can be hard for non-native speakers, but they should not let that worry them.
Aren't jokes supposed to be funny? :huh:
When grumbler was a kid, he never blew out candles on a birthday cake. They didn't have fire yet.
Can you guys go back on topic in discuss the evidence that the video was edited in order to make the apache pilots, and the US military by extent, look bad?
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2010, 09:34:46 PM
Aren't jokes supposed to be funny? :huh:
Not necessarily. Wordplay jokes and puns are often designed (as in this case) to elicit a groan rather than a laugh. :)
Quote from: Siege on April 12, 2010, 05:49:33 AM
Can you guys go back on topic in discuss the evidence that the video was edited in order to make the apache pilots, and the US military by extent, look bad?
What do you have to say abut it? What
is the evidence? There are two versions on wikileaks. One is 17:47 long and the other ("Uneditied") version is 39:14. Is the 39:14 one alleged to have been edited as well?
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 09:24:35 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 11, 2010, 08:10:32 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2010, 07:50:42 PM
:huh: The Brain isn't a general, and we are referring to a "general idea."
Nope. I've really tried, but this sentence doesn't work in any of the ways it seems it can be read. The grammar just doesn't work.
:lol:
Sorry. It depends on the reader knowing that the English word "general" is both a military rank and an adjective. Thus, it is a play on the concept of a "general idea" as both an idea that applies generally (The Brain's meaning), and as the idea of a general (thus the mock rebuttal that "Brain is not a general"). It is akin to the "Don't call me Shirley" response to a post that contains the word "surely" (that one probably puzzled you as well). Word play like this is probably more common in English than other languages, because it is a mess of words (many of them homophones) from so many different sources, but surely you have something similar in your native language?
That's what I mean. Due to your lower than your usual standard of grammatical usage it failed as a play on words. I could see what you were trying to do, but it did not flow well enough to work, especially when reading all parts of the exchange in sequence.
It was, in fact, "lame". Most definitely
not up to your usual standard of wordplay
I find it amusing that you attempt to hide your own relative failure on this occasion by lecturing me on my own language though... :lol:
Siege, take a look at http://www.schmedlap.com/weblog/post.aspx?id=100406-1 (http://www.schmedlap.com/weblog/post.aspx?id=100406-1). It may help answer some of your questions.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 06:23:01 AM
That's what I mean. Due to your lower than your usual standard of grammatical usage it failed as a play on words. I could see what you were trying to do, but it did not flow well enough to work, especially when reading all parts of the exchange in sequence.
Well, if you don't get it, you just don't get it. Wordplay cannot conform to all the rules of grammar, but then I am not worried about it because, in an online forum, proper grammar isn't really expected.
QuoteIt was, in fact, "lame". Most definitely not up to your usual standard of wordplay
Your opinion is noted. I have no idea why you would waste the lifespan noting that a "groaner" is lame, but you can choose to spend lifespan as you wish. This is the last i will have to say on the matter, as I also spend lifespan as I wish.
QuoteI find it amusing that you attempt to hide your own relative failure on this occasion by lecturing me on my own language though... :lol:
Your inability to recognize a standard concept in English writing (wordplay) made me assume it was not your native tongue. Shakespeare loved wordplay, and didn't bother with trying to make the grammar come out right:
From
Two Men of Verona, where Launce is supposed to be catching a boat:
"Speed: Away, ass! You'll lose the tide if you tarry any longer.
Launce:
It is no matter if the tied were lost; for it is the unkindest tied that ever any man tied."
"It is no matter if the tied were lost" is, of course, nonsense in grammatical terms.
I think your command of the language would be enhanced if you (1) read more Shakespeare, and (2) worried less about grammar in wordplay. So I guess I take back my earlier assertion: you
should be worried.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:46:55 AM
I think your command of the language would be enhanced if you (1) read more Shakespeare, and (2) worried less about grammar in wordplay. So I guess I take back my earlier assertion: you should be worried.
The two meanings of "general" are obvious to everyone on the forum, but there still needs to be some grammar in wordplay, Grumbler, or else it just reads as meaningless nonsense rather than wit. Your latest example failed at this, unlike the examples you quoted from Shakespeare, but I too will say no more on that subject.
I will, however, bookmark this thread to use as a reference the next time you post that you never indulge in personal attacks on posters.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 07:22:18 AM
I will, however, bookmark this thread to use as a reference the next time you post that you never indulge in personal attacks on posters.
:lmfao: Okay, whatever. I will bookmark it in case anyone someday claims that
I am the one obsessed with grammar.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 07:54:43 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 07:22:18 AM
I will, however, bookmark this thread to use as a reference the next time you post that you never indulge in personal attacks on posters.
:lmfao: Okay, whatever. I will bookmark it in case anyone someday claims that I am the one obsessed with grammar.
Fair enough. :D
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:08:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2010, 09:34:46 PM
Aren't jokes supposed to be funny? :huh:
Not necessarily. Wordplay jokes and puns are often designed (as in this case) to elicit a groan rather than a laugh. :)
The problem is that it wasn't a good pun, and it wasn't a bad pun. It was just a "Huh!?" pun. Not getting it is not a sign of us being unable to comprehend a wordplay, it's just a sign that we have at least bare minimum standards when it comes to humor.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:21:56 AMIs the 39:14 one alleged to have been edited as well?
Yes, I posted the link a couple pages ago while you guys were fighting. The 39 minute video supposedly has 30 minutes chopped off, where the Apache pilot does not engage two targets because of possible civilian casualties.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 12, 2010, 10:40:03 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:21:56 AMIs the 39:14 one alleged to have been edited as well?
Yes, I posted the link a couple pages ago while you guys were fighting. The 39 minute video supposedly has 30 minutes chopped off, where the Apache pilot does not engage two targets because of possible civilian casualties.
Anyone remember the argument me and Jake had a long time ago about the media distorting the story about an Apache pilot who killed some civilians who had congregated around a damaged Bradley?
I am simply STUNNED to find that the video would be doctored to put the US pilots in the worst light possible.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:08:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2010, 09:34:46 PM
Aren't jokes supposed to be funny? :huh:
Not necessarily. Wordplay jokes and puns are often designed (as in this case) to elicit a groan rather than a laugh. :)
Grumbler is all mixed up. His jokes elicit groans and and his sexual technique elicits laughs.
Btw, it wouldn't surprise me if Wikileaks doctored some inconvenient footage to make their point. While I like the concept behind the website they are extremely unprofessional. If you want to provide primary sources of hard to get information you don't edit in your two cents about murder or George Orwell. You let the primary sources speak for themselves and provide only enough information to give context as where, when and what the primary source is.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 12, 2010, 10:40:03 AM
Yes, I posted the link a couple pages ago while you guys were fighting. The 39 minute video supposedly has 30 minutes chopped off, where the Apache pilot does not engage two targets because of possible civilian casualties.
The problem is that this is gun camera footage. Where the gun camera isn't employed (as in decisions not to engage) there will be no footage.
"Edited" means more than just incomplete.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2010, 11:25:23 AM
Btw, it wouldn't surprise me if Wikileaks doctored some inconvenient footage to make their point. While I like the concept behind the website they are extremely unprofessional. If you want to provide primary sources of hard to get information you don't edit in your two cents about murder or George Orwell. You let the primary sources speak for themselves and provide only enough information to give context as where, when and what the primary source is.
Agreed. They really shot themselves in the foot by inserting such blunt editorial commentary. They made it so much easier for people who want to avoid thinking about the footage to avoid thinking about the footage. You don't reach out to people by making them all defensive beforehand.
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2010, 11:46:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2010, 11:25:23 AM
Btw, it wouldn't surprise me if Wikileaks doctored some inconvenient footage to make their point. While I like the concept behind the website they are extremely unprofessional. If you want to provide primary sources of hard to get information you don't edit in your two cents about murder or George Orwell. You let the primary sources speak for themselves and provide only enough information to give context as where, when and what the primary source is.
Agreed. They really shot themselves in the foot by inserting such blunt editorial commentary. They made it so much easier for people who want to avoid thinking about the footage to avoid thinking about the footage. You don't reach out to people by making them all defensive beforehand.
I disagree. Their editorializing will be appreciated by the very people who are their audience - those who have made their conclusions about what the video shows before they even watched it.
I don't look at this like "Oh, they made an error because they are going to fail to convince some people by doing that..." because I don't think organizations like this are looking to "convince" anyone of anything - they are looking to create some more hysteria and reinforce a certain image of the world that they accept as a matter of course.
In other words, you say their editorializing fails at their goal, and I say it actually does exactly what they want it to do. And it succeeded wonderfully, in this case.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:05:14 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 12, 2010, 10:40:03 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:21:56 AMIs the 39:14 one alleged to have been edited as well?
Yes, I posted the link a couple pages ago while you guys were fighting. The 39 minute video supposedly has 30 minutes chopped off, where the Apache pilot does not engage two targets because of possible civilian casualties.
Anyone remember the argument me and Jake had a long time ago about the media distorting the story about an Apache pilot who killed some civilians who had congregated around a damaged Bradley?
I am simply STUNNED to find that the video would be doctored to put the US pilots in the worst light possible.
Raises a point I have been thinking about for a while now. Increasing numbers of people are getting their news outside of traditional news outlets from sources that do not necessarily have the same degree of professionalism or journalistic integrity.
This thread is a perfect example. The internet is a wonderful thing. I get to exchange views with people like you as easily as I talk to my neighbours. But this story highlights the increased importance of critical thinking in an age when anyone can post "news".
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:51:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2010, 11:46:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2010, 11:25:23 AM
Btw, it wouldn't surprise me if Wikileaks doctored some inconvenient footage to make their point. While I like the concept behind the website they are extremely unprofessional. If you want to provide primary sources of hard to get information you don't edit in your two cents about murder or George Orwell. You let the primary sources speak for themselves and provide only enough information to give context as where, when and what the primary source is.
Agreed. They really shot themselves in the foot by inserting such blunt editorial commentary. They made it so much easier for people who want to avoid thinking about the footage to avoid thinking about the footage. You don't reach out to people by making them all defensive beforehand.
I disagree. Their editorializing will be appreciated by the very people who are their audience - those who have made their conclusions about what the video shows before they even watched it.
I don't look at this like "Oh, they made an error because they are going to fail to convince some people by doing that..." because I don't think organizations like this are looking to "convince" anyone of anything - they are looking to create some more hysteria and reinforce a certain image of the world that they accept as a matter of course.
In other words, you say their editorializing fails at their goal, and I say it actually does exactly what they want it to do. And it succeeded wonderfully, in this case.
Maybe they created the video out of whole cloth :tinfoil:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2010, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:05:14 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 12, 2010, 10:40:03 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:21:56 AMIs the 39:14 one alleged to have been edited as well?
Yes, I posted the link a couple pages ago while you guys were fighting. The 39 minute video supposedly has 30 minutes chopped off, where the Apache pilot does not engage two targets because of possible civilian casualties.
Anyone remember the argument me and Jake had a long time ago about the media distorting the story about an Apache pilot who killed some civilians who had congregated around a damaged Bradley?
I am simply STUNNED to find that the video would be doctored to put the US pilots in the worst light possible.
Raises a point I have been thinking about for a while now. Increasing numbers of people are getting their news outside of traditional news outlets from sources that do not necessarily have the same degree of professionalism or journalistic integrity.
This thread is a perfect example. The internet is a wonderful thing. I get to exchange views with people like you as easily as I talk to my neighbours. But this story highlights the increased importance of critical thinking in an age when anyone can post "news".
Well, I am not sure I agree that critical thinking is more important now than ever, but yeah, the ability to understand the context and goals of those who are giving you information so you can evaluate it for yourself is of course incredibly important.
For most people, it doesn't really matter though - they simply choose their sources based on what they want to be true, and find one that will tell them what they want to hear.
From the article DP posted a link to : http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage
QuoteYou've all seen the edited, 17 minute video of U.S. Apache helicopters killing two Reuters journalists in Iraq. Some of you may have sat through the 39 minute 'Full Version.". But even this video has a full half-hour of footage cut out from the middle. At 31:08, the video fades to black and—according to the time-stamp on the footage—resumes about 30 minutes later to show an additional missile attack.
QuoteThe gap was pointed out by The Jawa Report, which clearly has an axe to grind. (They call the video a "perverse and evil slight of hand.") But the fact remains that Wikileaks has passed off this video as the "full version," while the 17 minute clip is the "edited"—even though both are clearly edited mid-footage.
What happened during that missing half-hour? The Jawa Report cites the sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack. One pilot said in his statement that between the attack on the journalists and the second attack, two events occurred which may have softened the picture of the pilots provided by the video: 1) The pilots went to assist soldiers under attack, but saw a child and other "noncombatants" and held their fire. 2) The pilots saw a red SUV that may have contained insurgents, but held their fire because they couldn't get a positive identification
QuoteUpdate: Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did. But the point still stands: both the "edited" and the "full" version appear to have been selectively edited. Why leave in the second attack after the cut? And how can this be called an "uncut" or "unedited" version—the implication being that this video depicts what "really happened"—when 20 minutes of less-incriminating footage was removed? It also deepens the mystery of Wikileak's military source: Who is so disgruntled as to not only leak the video, but also edit out the slightest bit of redeeming footage?
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:51:58 AM
I disagree. Their editorializing will be appreciated by the very people who are their audience - those who have made their conclusions about what the video shows before they even watched it.
I don't look at this like "Oh, they made an error because they are going to fail to convince some people by doing that..." because I don't think organizations like this are looking to "convince" anyone of anything - they are looking to create some more hysteria and reinforce a certain image of the world that they accept as a matter of course.
In other words, you say their editorializing fails at their goal, and I say it actually does exactly what they want it to do. And it succeeded wonderfully, in this case.
I disagree with that. This isn't some anti-war blog we're talking about, this is an organization that tries to promote all kinds of whistle-blowing, and which extends far, far beyond US military actions.
That's why making editorial comments like they did is so counter-productive. When you're in the business of blowing a whistle, your objectivity is by far the #1 asset. You want people to listen when you've got something damning to say.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:56:40 AM
Well, I am not sure I agree that critical thinking is more important now than ever, but yeah, the ability to understand the context and goals of those who are giving you information so you can evaluate it for yourself is of course incredibly important.
For most people, it doesn't really matter though - they simply choose their sources based on what they want to be true, and find one that will tell them what they want to hear.
I am thinking about this in the context of the way I obtained the news when I was young and how my boys now obtain it. When I was young there was no such thing as choosing a source of news. There was the CBC - the only channel we got and the Vancouver Sun newspaper.
The CBC had a very good reputation for reliable accurate reporting.
In the US, during the same time, were mor major networks to watch and more papers to choose from, but all were mainstream highly professional news organizations.
You are quite right that now people have choice. It is that ability to choose the requires the ability to sift credible news from the rest.
Sure, there were less sources back then, but I'm not sure how reliable they really were. I suspect that we simply had less means to double check those rare few sources back then due to the oligopoly of the news.
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2010, 12:14:16 PM
Sure, there were less sources back then, but I'm not sure how reliable they really were. I suspect that we simply had less means to double check those rare few sources back then due to the oligopoly of the news.
Well, I can only comment on the news I obtained. Because the CBC was the only news network that was accessable by all Canadians it was subject to a high degree of scrutiny which, in part, added to its reputation for reliability and accuracy.
But in today's 24/7 news network, blogging, online news kind of world a similar form of scrutiny of our news sources not practical and so the burden falls entirely on the consumer of news - which leads me back to my comment about the increased need for critical thought.
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2010, 12:07:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:51:58 AM
I disagree. Their editorializing will be appreciated by the very people who are their audience - those who have made their conclusions about what the video shows before they even watched it.
I don't look at this like "Oh, they made an error because they are going to fail to convince some people by doing that..." because I don't think organizations like this are looking to "convince" anyone of anything - they are looking to create some more hysteria and reinforce a certain image of the world that they accept as a matter of course.
In other words, you say their editorializing fails at their goal, and I say it actually does exactly what they want it to do. And it succeeded wonderfully, in this case.
I disagree with that. This isn't some anti-war blog we're talking about, this is an organization that tries to promote all kinds of whistle-blowing, and which extends far, far beyond US military actions.
That's why making editorial comments like they did is so counter-productive. When you're in the business of blowing a whistle, your objectivity is by far the #1 asset. You want people to listen when you've got something damning to say.
I look at it differently.
You say "Hey, your objectivity is really important to your mission of being whistle blowers, you shouldn't do things that damage it so much!" and I look at it and say "If they cared about appearing objective, they clearly would not do something that is so obviously NOT objective - QED, they don't care about objectivity, QED they aren't really in the business of being objective whistle blowers" even if appearing to be in that business might be useful to their actual business.
Some people are so entrenched in their position that they no long know what being objective is.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2010, 01:32:22 PM
Some people are so entrenched in their position that they no long know what being objective is.
I don't think most people really value objectivity though - it is often seen as something to be avoided at all costs, or a sign of weakness.
"Faith" is a virtue, after all.
This coming from the guy who decries tribalism in everyone on the board and beats his chest defending the US at every opportunity.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2010, 01:40:27 PM
This coming from the guy who decries tribalism in everyone on the board and beats his chest defending the US at every opportunity.
Oh dear, there goes Raz again.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 01:23:39 PM
I look at it differently.
You say "Hey, your objectivity is really important to your mission of being whistle blowers, you shouldn't do things that damage it so much!" and I look at it and say "If they cared about appearing objective, they clearly would not do something that is so obviously NOT objective - QED, they don't care about objectivity, QED they aren't really in the business of being objective whistle blowers" even if appearing to be in that business might be useful to their actual business.
If the whistle-blowing business is just a cover for wikileaks, then it's one very intricate cover. They've been blowing the whistles for years before this that had nothing to do with US or Iraq, and reportedly collected more than a million damning documents. Their real mission must be pretty damn huge in order for them to spend so much energy working on their cover.
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2010, 02:01:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 01:23:39 PM
I look at it differently.
You say "Hey, your objectivity is really important to your mission of being whistle blowers, you shouldn't do things that damage it so much!" and I look at it and say "If they cared about appearing objective, they clearly would not do something that is so obviously NOT objective - QED, they don't care about objectivity, QED they aren't really in the business of being objective whistle blowers" even if appearing to be in that business might be useful to their actual business.
If the whistle-blowing business is just a cover for wikileaks, then it's one very intricate cover. They've been blowing the whistles for years before this that had nothing to do with US or Iraq, and reportedly collected more than a million damning documents. Their real mission must be pretty damn huge in order for them to spend so much energy working on their cover.
Argument from false dichotomy. I am not saying that their whistle-blowing activities are some elaborate cover, I am saying that their goal is likely not to be "objective whistle blowers". Clearly, it is NOT their goal, otherwise they would not have so clearly violated any sense of objectivity.
It doesn't have to be all one or the other, and as an organization whose basic mission is to simply provide a way to allow some people to publish things they leaked, having an agenda is not really all that much of a deterrent anyway. They are pretty clearly anti-government in general (not surprising given their mission). I don't think there is anything specific to Iraq or the US, other than that the US is a obvious target for the anti-government groups.
This is pretty damn funny:
QuoteScientology
On 7 April 2008, Wikileaks reported receiving a letter (dated 27 March) from the Religious Technology Centre claiming ownership of several recently leaked documents pertaining to OT Levels within the Church of Scientology. These same documents were at the centre of a 1994 scandal. The email stated:
" The Advanced Technology materials are unpublished, copyrighted works. Please be advised that your customer's action in this regard violates United States copyright law. Accordingly, we ask for your help in removing these works immediately from your service.
-- Moxon and Kobrin[61]
"
The letter continued on to request the release of the logs of the uploader, which would remove their anonymity. Wikileaks responded with a statement released on Wikinews stating: "in response to the attempted suppression, Wikileaks will release several thousand additional pages of Scientology material next week",[62] and did so.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 01:44:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2010, 01:40:27 PM
This coming from the guy who decries tribalism in everyone on the board and beats his chest defending the US at every opportunity.
Oh dear, there goes Raz again.
Why are you responding? It just encourages his trolls.
I doubt that he is going to soon restart the argument with the voices in his head about poisoning immigrants.
This is from wiki, so I am not sure whether it is bullshit or not, but it does provide a rather different tone to what happened:
QuoteAccording to the U.S. Army investigation report released by the United States Central Command, the engagement started at 10:20 Iraqi local time and ended at 10:41. A unit from Bravo Company 2-16 was within 100 meters of the individuals that were fired upon with 30mm AH-64 Apache cannons. The company was charged with clearing their sector from any small armed forces, and had been under fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). The company was supported by two Apache helicopters from the 1st Cavalry Division's Aviation Brigade, callsigns "Crazyhorse 18" and "Crazyhorse 19". Two men were identified by Crazyhorse 18 as carrying an RPG launcher and an AKM or AK-47. When the cameraman on the ground aimed his camera in the direction of Bravo Company 2-16, a pilot remarked "He's getting ready to fire". An Apache maneuvered around a building to get a clear field of fire and shot all nine men, killing eight. A van then approached the area and attempted to load a wounded man. After getting permission to fire, the Apache crew fired on the van. When Bravo Company arrived at the scene, they found two RPGs and an AK-47 or AKM. They also found two Canon EOS digital cameras with telephoto lenses. Two children were found in the van, a four year old girl with gunshot wounds and an eight year old boy with multiple wounds, including brain damage arising from shrapnel damage to his right temporal lobe. Both children were evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital via Forward Operating Base Loyalty, then transferred to an Iraqi medical facility the next day.[5]
While the Air Weapons Team was providing support at the first engagement area they were informed by ground troops that they were receiving small arms fire from the south / southwest. The crew for Crazyhorse 18 then located multiple individuals with weapons about 400 meters east of coalition forces and was given clearance to engage the targets. However, the co-pilot/gunner then observed a child and some other non-combatants in the vicinity of the individuals and decided to hold off on the engagement until the non-combatants were clear. After the non-combatants were clear Crazyhorse 18 engaged the targets. The crew for Crazyhorse 19 could not engage due to target obfuscation from buildings and dust.[5]
The team observed several individuals from this group, some possibly wounded, run into a large multistory building. The co-pilot/gunner for Crazyhorse 19 spotted 3 individuals near this building get into a red SUV and drive away to the west. For about 5 to 10 minutes the team diverted its attention to this vehicle. However, according to the co-pilot for Crazyhorse 18 they failed to positively identify the occupants as combatants and returned to the previous engagement area.[5]
These events, between the attack on the van and the attack on the building, were not captured on the leaked video footage
Interesting points:
1. The wikileaks video does not at all make it clear that this all happened within the context of on ongoing battle, with ground elements being quite close and having already received small arms fire.
2. Obviously excising out the part about the red SUV makes the entire thing much more damning, since the central message is "Hey, look at these hotdog chopper pilots who just want to kill anyone they can!". And of course the rather sad result of the children being wounded would lose much of its power if we know that the pilots were not at all callous about collateral damage.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 02:25:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 01:44:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2010, 01:40:27 PM
This coming from the guy who decries tribalism in everyone on the board and beats his chest defending the US at every opportunity.
Oh dear, there goes Raz again.
Why are you responding? It just encourages his trolls.
But sometimes he *isn't* trolling, and actually has interesting things to say.
I know this is foolish of me, but for some reason, I don't want to let go of the hope that Raz can be a useful contributor, so I try to give him the benefit of the doubt. And he can be pretty damn funny from time to time.
Of course, then I get this result, so I go back to ignoring him for months again. No good deed and all that, I suppose.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 02:09:03 PM
It doesn't have to be all one or the other, and as an organization whose basic mission is to simply provide a way to allow some people to publish things they leaked, having an agenda is not really all that much of a deterrent anyway. They are pretty clearly anti-government in general (not surprising given their mission). I don't think there is anything specific to Iraq or the US, other than that the US is a obvious target for the anti-government groups.
This is the way it strikes me. I think that there are elements within Wikileaks that are very prone to view US military actions in Iraq as "murder" whether collateral or not, and they would be the ones likeliest to insist that they get charge of the web page releasing these kinds of videos.
They would also be the most prone to label their page "Collateral murder" rather than something neutral and informative. They would also be the ones least likely to question why there is a gap in the view record or even acknowledge that the gap existed.
None of that implies that they suppressed anything, though. They may have just exploited what they had.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 02:27:10 PM
But sometimes he *isn't* trolling, and actually has interesting things to say.
Respond to the interesting posts and ignore the others. that is effectively ignoring Raz completely, but leaving the possibility of rewarding him if he controls himself.
Did anyone watch the Colbert Report tonight? Colbert had the wikileaks founder on. It should be online soon.
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2010, 11:40:20 PM
Did anyone watch the Colbert Report tonight? Colbert had the wikileaks founder on. It should be online soon.
Is he a dick in person or is he like people on Languish and just saves that for the internet?
Ah too bad I missed it, he lay into him?
Here is a link: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260785/april-12-2010/exclusives---julian-assange-unedited-interview . Not a softball interview by any means. I don't want to be on the other side of Colbert when he stops dicking around, and actually plays the role of a journalist with a brain.
Interviews like this make me think that Colbert would be devastating as a host of Meet The Press. He's supremely intelligent, supremely knowledgeable, very quick on his feet, and will instantly pounce on any weakness. He's wasting his talent in his current, increasingly juvenile, show.
So he's a dick in person as well. The guy's got his head so far his ass he doesn't realize he's being revealed as a self-righteous asshole.
I like his comment that he would not leak a list of his sources.
I thought the teling bits were:
(1) Assange admitted that the whole "collateral murder" title was designed to make a political statement, rather than to simply report the facts;
(2) Colbert had to interrupt the serious business of the interview to make amusing/entertaining cracks like "haven't you heard that ignorance is bliss?"
(3) Assange noted that he is in a business and that this was one for the money, not to "expose the truth" per se;
(4) No one even brought up the possibility that the "missing 20 minutes" may be "missing" because the targeting system may not have been employed, and so the camera wouldn't have been active, thus nothing is "missing."
I agree that Assange came off as a self-important jerk, but we kinda knew that before this interview. Self-important jerks go into the media, if they can. I thought he came out of this pretty well. He is a self-important jerk, but not a sanctimonious one. He was very up-front about what he was doing. I grudgingly respect his stance on this.
Colbert was pretty good, as usual. John Stewart is still miles better as an entertainer and comedian.
Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2010, 06:45:09 PM
Interviews like this make me think that Colbert would be devastating as a host of Meet The Press. He's supremely intelligent, supremely knowledgeable, very quick on his feet, and will instantly pounce on any weakness. He's wasting his talent in his current, increasingly juvenile, show.
He probably has a bigger impact and audience on Comedy Central.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 02:09:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2010, 02:01:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 01:23:39 PM
I look at it differently.
You say "Hey, your objectivity is really important to your mission of being whistle blowers, you shouldn't do things that damage it so much!" and I look at it and say "If they cared about appearing objective, they clearly would not do something that is so obviously NOT objective - QED, they don't care about objectivity, QED they aren't really in the business of being objective whistle blowers" even if appearing to be in that business might be useful to their actual business.
If the whistle-blowing business is just a cover for wikileaks, then it's one very intricate cover. They've been blowing the whistles for years before this that had nothing to do with US or Iraq, and reportedly collected more than a million damning documents. Their real mission must be pretty damn huge in order for them to spend so much energy working on their cover.
Argument from false dichotomy. I am not saying that their whistle-blowing activities are some elaborate cover, I am saying that their goal is likely not to be "objective whistle blowers". Clearly, it is NOT their goal, otherwise they would not have so clearly violated any sense of objectivity.
It doesn't have to be all one or the other, and as an organization whose basic mission is to simply provide a way to allow some people to publish things they leaked, having an agenda is not really all that much of a deterrent anyway. They are pretty clearly anti-government in general (not surprising given their mission). I don't think there is anything specific to Iraq or the US, other than that the US is a obvious target for the anti-government groups.
How cohesive of an organization" is wikileaks? It's a wiki, so I had assumed not at all before this thread. Is there actually someone or a group of someones truly in charge of what goes up on their site and how?