Friday, April 9, 2010

The Gibroney Hunter VS The Hutch: Wikileaks

The Hutch: While I LOVE wikileaks and everything they stand for, this whole thing is absurd. I've been following it on reddit since they first started leaking leaks about the leak and leaking leaks about the leaks about the leak and then they go and call the thing "COLLATERAL MURDER" and if you actually watch the video, the soliders are, for the most part, in... See More the clear and acted accordingly.

I think the real story is that the military lied about what happened when they should have just released the initial report. The journalists weren't wearing anything to indicate that they were journalists and they were standing aorund with dudes holding AKs and RPGs which you can clearly see in the video. Whether or not is was the right military decision in hindsight is obvious. But if I were in that helicopter, I might have shot after I saw some dude point a goddam cylinder at me from around a corner.

So why did the military cover it up in the first place? And why does Wikileaks think this video is worse than anything we've already seen from this war?

The Gibroney Hunter: You may possibly be the most woefully misguided individual I've ever encountered. No, John, shooting a man to death while he's bleeding out and crawling and unarmed is not "acting accordingly," not even for the "most part." Neither is shooting the van of journalists and children who desperately try to save the guys life as he crawls through the streets. Your barbaric defense of the pointless murder of these innocent people is testament to just how desensitized you've become, along with many of your fellow lemmings.

The murderer in the helicopter even ADMITS they're not "acting accordingly" (which is a ridiculous statement [but not surprising, coming froma McLiberal] since the entire invasion is illegitimate, therefore NONE of our military's actions in Iraq can be considered "acting accordingly") when he says "c'mon, buddy, all you gotta do is pick up a weapon."

He says this because the rules of war are that you do not shoot a mortally wounded unarmed man when he is crawling away like a dog, desperately trying to escape. And you don't shoot anyone attempting to aid the wounded, unless they are also involved in hostile actions. ... See More

At what point in this video do you see people holding RPGs? I don't see any weapons, either, but that's a ridiculous statement because finding someone holding a weapon in a middle eastern country is like finding someone wearing a phillies hat in south jersey. Not very hard to do. But where's the RPG you're speaking of, John? Did you see it yourself, or are you just parroting that from the mainstream media, who've been lying about the video, while NOT showing it to their audience.

The mainstream media, who's withering teat you suckle from daily, can propagandize you daily about Iran and why we need to bomb them, or Iraq back in '03, and you gobble it down like a happy piglet. But when independent media use similar techniques to hype a story, you cry fowl. Do I enjoy the 'business side' of releasing another U.S military sponsored snuff film? No. But you're simply doing what so many other goons in the mainstream media have done, which is to ignore the illegal mass murder they just witnessed, and focus on the PRESENTATION of the video of the murders. Because in our sick culture, image is everything. Lowlives within the mainstream media are more upset at wikilieaks for showing us, than at the criminal actions of their military.

I have no doubt that you would fire the shot from that helicopter, John. Which, quite frankly, is why I'm perplexed at your incessant attempts to portray yourself as a liberal. You do remember that your hero Obama told us he was AGAINST this war, do you not? You are aware that you sound exactly like a Bush supporter 3 years ago in your defense of OBVIOUS murder, are you not?

And really, your own words serve as a much clearer portrayal of your flabbergasting hypocrisy than anything else. Is this where you saw yourself a year and a half ago, when pulling the lever for Obama? STILL insanely defending acts of aggression against civilians and children in a war that no one believes in, not even most of the 18 year olds being tricked into fighting it?

Supporting Obama = Supporting the Iraq war. Up = Down. Ignorance = strength. Killing children = Patriotism.

Show me the RPG. Find it in the video and give me the minute count, so i can check it. There is no RPG. There are no weapons. You're either lying or simply repeating what the MSM told you. This isn't acting accordingly. This is shooting a group of people to death because you're bored. And your defense of it is nothing short of despicable.

The Hutch:

Watch the video again. You can see weapons.

The man on the ground bleeding out is also reportedly on top of an RPG. Can't see anything in the video, but it's _possible_ the gunners did see something.... See More

Look, we shouldn't have been there in the first place. If this video is an indictment of anything, it's how the whole thing is a giant clusterfuck and how war causes the death of innocent people trying to defend their land. I want out of there immediately. But let's stick to known facts. There are COUNTLESS to choose from happening every day. This video? This video is a macguffin. It's a distraction. Right or wrong, it's defendable because we DON'T know what's truly in that video and no matter how loud or ranty or insulting you get, Lou, you still don't know exactly what happened in that video.

And I gotta say, Lou, your outright refusal to even lend a second though to the possibility that you might be wrong, even when you know relatively fuck all about the things you speak about... it's kind of infuriating. Take it down a notch, man. You don't know as much as you think you know.

Furthermore, don't act like my stance on this horrible war is any more contemptible than your own. Neither of us are out on the streets demanding it's end, so neither of us has a right to throw stones.

The Gibroney Hunter:
Actually, dude, when you defend the obvious murder of unarmed civilians (i did watch the video again. There is no RPG. Only camera equipment not being handled in any way that could be confused as setting up an RPG, and i see no other weapons, but even if they were holding rifles, that is not in itself a reason to attack with heavy artillery from a gunship) i feel the need to take it up a notch or two.

You continually mistake me pointing out how explicitly wrong you are about certain things as being unwilling to "lend a second thought." But when all you're bringing to the table is the diversionary technique of shooting the messenger (wikileaks) and some ridiculous recitation of the outright lie that the man bleeding to death and crawling is "also reportedly ontop of an RPG", it shouldn't be a surprise when I speak confidently, since in this case, every bit of the evidence is in my favor. The whole friggin world knows what this was: Murder. Only the most deluded here at home are brainwashed enough to argue otherwise. You can rationalize the murder. You can not blame the troops for the murder. Shit, dude, you can even be GLAD about the murders, as some hateful people have expressed through website comments. But one thing you cannot do, at least according to the laws of reality and sanity, is claim that what we witnessed was not murder. It was. There's simply no way around that one.

Statements like that make me feel the need to ask if you actually did watch this video, as the "man bleeding out" is Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, and he is clearly not hiding an RPG while dying. This is made abundantly clear by the sheer distance he is seen crawling. In this disgusting video he is seen crawling down a good portion of the street. It is abundantly clear that there is nothing but the road beneath him, not like he would have had the strength to hide a ROCKET LAUNCHER in his condition anyway. Also, what is it that you're suggesting? That a Reuters journalist had a side gig as a rocket shooting al qaeda terrorist? Get real.... See More

And I'm sorry, but defending shooting at vans full of children attempting to rescue unarmed wounded men IS more contemptible than not defending shooting at vans full of children attempting to rescue unarmed wounded men.

What happened is clear. These kids were bored and the spotting of some machinery, any machinery (in this case camera equipment) being operated was enough of an excuse for them to kill some people for entertainment's sake.

But let's take seriously for a moment the ridiculous claim that these soldiers could have mistaken this camera for an RPG and felt so threatened by a man holding a rifle loosely in one hand, in no way intending to use it, and actually behaving exactly as one would while providing light security for a journalist. Why did they murder the unarmed journalist? Why did they shoot the minivan that was clearly there to try to rescue the man, and made no attempt to perform hostile actions against U.S forces? Why did they refuse to take the two severely wounded CHILDREN to a U.S military hospital? Remember all the propaganda during the beginning of this war, about how our good ole boys treat all wounded the same, and actually fight for the lives of their enemies just as hard? Right.

When the ground troops arrived (the ones who actually have to SEE what they've done, not just play the real-life-video game) they say "you shot kids" and want to evac them to a military hospital. The boys back in the gunship say no, and explain that "well, they shouldn't have brought their kids into a combat zone then"

The kids had actually been rescued from an earlier violent incident by the journalists. That's why they were in the van.

If me presenting arguments and backing them up with facts is so infuriating for you, I don't know what to tell you. Being unbiased does not mean ignoring obvious fact. During vietnam, our mainstream media, for the longest time, repeated the government-fed lie that various massacres never actually happened, even though all of the independent evidence available suggested otherwise. This is what passes for journalistic objectivity in our culture. Making sure the Establishment's perspective is highlighted and emphasized, no matter how much it clashes with the undeniable reality.

No comments:

Post a Comment