The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying.
However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.
"It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events."
Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs.
"Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat," Hanzlik said.
Military officials have also pointed out that the men in the video are the only people visible on those streets. That indicated something was going on and that these individuals still felt they could walk freely, one official told Fox News.
WikiLeaks didn't edit them out. The video they have on their site left the audio in that said there were machine guns and missile launchers on the ground. They just highlighted the reporters, because that is who they were concerned about. Now, if WikiLeaks had edited out the soldiers stating some of the men had weapons, that would be something different. But they didn't. The just highlighted which of the men were reporters.
WikiLeaks didn't edit them out. The video they have on their site left the audio in that said there were machine guns and missile launchers on the ground. They just highlighted the reporters, because that is who they were concerned about. Now, if WikiLeaks had edited out the soldiers stating some of the men had weapons, that would be something different. But they didn't. The just highlighted which of the men were reporters.
The quote didn't say they edited it out. What it says is they slowed down and highlighted the camera of the journalists but not the weapons that were present. The point seems to be that the military were led to believe these were insurgents. In the audio I don't hear any of the military identifying the two journalists as journalists by saying "ok wait, we see a camera, they must be journalists"...as sad as it was, those journalists were in in a combat area amongst combat enemies at the time.
What bothers me is the callousness of the US men heard...but Ive never been in that situation so I don't know the emotion that is involved
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
The quote didn't say they edited it out. What it says is they slowed down and highlighted the camera of the journalists but not the weapons that were present. The point seems to be that the military were led to believe these were insurgents. In the audio I don't hear any of the military identifying the two journalists as journalists by saying "ok wait, we see a camera, they must be journalists"...as sad as it was, those journalists were in in a combat area amongst combat enemies at the time.
What bothers me is the callousness of the US men heard...but Ive never been in that situation so I don't know the emotion that is involved
Yeah, I saw that Fox piece to and they acted like Wikileaks tried to edit things out. That's what I was talking about.
As for the callousness of the soldiers, it was extremely rough for me to hear. However, I would think if you were in a war that might be the only way to get through it, maybe emotionally remove yourself from your enemy. As you said, we have not been in that situation, so it is hard for us to understand.
I watched the video and agree with your post Prax. The wikileaks version is clearly an attempt to harm the US military and they did slant it terribly.
As for the emotion involved and the callouslness.... as a Desert Storm vet, I appreciate both you and Twisp pointing out the emotional difficulty one faces in combat situations.
You dont know. Callouses build up to protect a person against pain.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Why were the Reuters reporters working so closely with armed militia? That alone should cast some doubt on the impartiality of their previous work.
The "reporters" were actually local stringers hired by Reuters because the local thugs won't allow "outsiders" into the areas they control. By hiring these stringers, Reuters and other "news" outlets are actually allowing one side of the conflict to supply their own reporters and to manufacture the news for them. This is a practice perfected by the Palestinians and their infamous "Pallywood" productions that included such big international hits as the faked killing of Mohammed al Durra.
On the faked al Durrah incident, just compare The Guardian's "explanation" and "proof" that the Israelis killed the boy to an actual photograph of the site that was widely available at the time. The Guardian had to add two buildings to that don't exist to their schematic to disguise the actual paths of the bullets that struck the wall above the boy and his father.
Bottom line: the "Press" lied, and they were able to lie because of the use of Palestinian stringers in this case.
The Israeli defensive action against the rocket sites in Lebanon and the subsequent "war" against Iranian funded and armed Hezbollah was another chance for this type of libelous propaganda.
To understand Wikileak's motivation here, just read the second paragraph which has the heading, "Fundraising drive."
I watched the video and agree with your post Prax. The wikileaks version is clearly an attempt to harm the US military and they did slant it terribly.
As for the emotion involved and the callouslness.... as a Desert Storm vet, I appreciate both you and Twisp pointing out the emotional difficulty one faces in combat situations.
You dont know. Callouses build up to protect a person against pain.
I can imagine.
And what was the crew of the Apache supposed to say? "Oops! Hit one!"
"Ow! That's gonna leave a mark..."
In spite of the coarse language they actually sounded professional throughout.
Location: just north of the celtics red sox and patriots go baby!
Posts: 730
Re: What Wikileaks failed to show
thanks for the info on wiki, i too watched it, i had no problem with it. its called collateral damage, dont bring the kids to a war ! good job boys ! ps they were hiding behind "reporters" and children , instead of their wives skirts.
Linear Mode
