I think you mean "frickin". "Frigin" isn't in the urban dictionary yet; if you feel strongly about it, add a definition.
I think you mean "frickin". "Frigin" isn't in the urban dictionary yet; if you feel strongly about it, add a definition.
Cause in case of a sheep missing, you trust the wolf on saying it was really the bear. Riiiight. ^^
The only thing I know for a fact, is that I have not experienced any of it with my own senses, and so everything I think I "know" about this subject comes from other people, probably all of which have also not experienced it with their own senses but gotten it from even more sources, and so on and so on. With everyone in all those chains having their own set of perceptive biases in their senses and brains, and their own interests. I can choose who to trust and who not. But most people just trust whatever fits their own model of reality best, disregarding that it might be wrong. And the same is true for everyone of you too.
So unless it has a noticeable effect on me personally, instead of wasting my mental resources on this, I use them for something that has a bigger effect on improving my life and keeping what I have.
How about you?
Great, so you don't even know if Mexico is a real country existing south of the US.
It's funny, but when this guy had his servers, etc., he was "cock of the walk". But when he got hit with legal troubles and the money dried up, now, all of a sudden, he's on the receiving end. I wonder what he thinks about now that his whole life has been de facto "wiki-leaked' for all the world to see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pontificating on the morality of WikiLeaks - once the info is out of the bag, you can never really put it back in. However, I am simply commenting on the irony of Mr. Assange's situation. And, assuming that all his legal troubles can be put behind him, what kind of future will he have? My point is that this guy will always be under the microscope. Will he ever be able to have a "normal" life ever again? I;m doubtful about this. John V. Karavitis
No, he probably will not have a normal life again. And you know how he could have avoided it? By releasing only documents showing wrongdoing, rather than releasing thousands of documents indiscriminately and saying "have at it!" That is irresponsibility and naivety to the extreme.
The hilarious thing is that you hate the US government and think it's completely corrupt and can do no right. But when someone airs the US government's dirty laundry, you call them an anti-American traitor.
The irony with people like you would be delicious if it weren't so frustrating to have to deal with on a regular basis.
How the hell did you gather that from what he said? He said "government should be allowed to at least have some secrets".
And as an aside, what US dirty laundry did Wikileaks air, again? Besides the gunship video, I'm not sure what US wrongdoing Wikileaks has exposed. Specifically, where are the incriminating cables? If you want to give me examples, I do check my comment history somewhat regularly for replies.
Limecat, here's a tip for you:
It's possible to have a debate without lying to support your position. If your position can't be supported without lies, maybe it's not a very good position to take?
What he says is indeed true. Even though I didn't fully agree with a couple of their more benign leaks, I was a supporter of Wikileaks up until they released the shamelessly slanted and heavily edited Collateral Murder video. If you think it was only edited for brevity and clarity, then you are not approaching this issue with any sort of objective mind. By releasing that biased video they completely lost all credibility with me as a reliable source of untainted information.
News flash: The U.S. is the only country pushing anti-Iran propaganda down their citizen's throat. The rest of the world does not see Iran as a threat, and actually perceives Israel and America a much bigger threat to the stability of that region. There will be no "multi-national" invasion.
First of all, I said nothing like that in my post, other than when I used the word "Iran" talking about something completely different. But anyway, you are wrong.
Iran is heavily involved in trafficking of ballistic missile technology and nuclear technology with North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, which ALL other nations see as an extreme proliferation risk. If you read skimmed through any of the diplomatic cables, you would see that an ENORMOUS number of them deal with proliferation issues around the world that affect international interests. Iran is also an enormous supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas and their shah-lead dictatorship is openly hostile to the Western world (rightly so since liberalization weakens their grip on power.) If you think the majority of the countries of the world have friendly relations with Iran, you are very, very mistaken. Iran is recognized as a concrete threat to the greater international community, but the cost to do anything about them is very high. The problem is, our entire global civilization revolves around oil, and nobody wants to fuck with the oil supply unless they really have to. This is the case whether you are talking about sanctions or whether you are talking about an invasion disrupting the oil flow for some years. Here's a recent article from The Economist:
France has led the way in offering European Union support, recalling its ambassador for consultations in Paris (in common with several other EU countries), and calling for a new sanction barring EU countries from buying Iranian oil. At a meeting of EU foreign ministers on Thursday there was much talk of solidarity, but no agreement on boycotting Iranian oil. Spain and Italy had grumbled at the level of diplomats in working groups that they would need more time to find alternative sources of energy. Greece, which is heavily reliant on Iranian oil because few other suppliers are willing to supply a country on the brink of bankruptcy, blocked a boycott. A report on the EUObserver news website quotes unnamed diplomats saying that some other countries were also hiding behind Greece, saying "People don't say it out loud. But there is an understanding oil sanctions would hurt the EU rather than hitting Iran where it hurts and would make oil cheaper for China."
The IAEA recently released a report concluding that Iran was actively involved in nuclear weapons research and development. Don't let the calm wording of the report fool you, this is a big deal for the IAEA to come out and say. The IAEA has often stymied US efforts in the past to get viable sanctions against Iran, because the IAEA is extremely impartial, and they never make assumptions or report findings without extremely strong evidence. They have a very long history of not kowtowing to the greater powers, such as the US.
This isn't propaganda against Iran just because these reasons may justify a later war. When you get down to it, this is a country that gives enormous support to real, actual terrorists and openly subverts attempts by the international community to contain its nuclear weapons research and conventional weapons proliferation. If you truly believe only the US cares about this, then you should asking your government WHY they aren't doing more. Thankfully, however, your world view is incorrect and the international community actually is interested in containing Iran and the huge proliferation risk they pose to the world at large.
however it is well established doctrine internationally to clear an objective of hostile action before you treat wounded enemies
What do you mean by "hostile action"? The neighbor who tried to help the executed reporter? The two kids in his car? Or the dying Reuters guy himself? There was nobody else around, so one of these has to fit your definition of "hostile action".
That part about "hostile action" more directly relates to the example I spelled out for a deliberate assault on an objective. It's just an example used for illustrating that militaries do not stop in the middle of any fighting to render aid to wounded personnel, which does directly relate to the Reuters incident.
As for hostile action that day, I believe the helicopter gunners and their chain of command felt the actions of the Reuters team constituted a threat to coalition forces operating close by, who had already been taking fire during their mission. I believe they saw a very clearly armed group walking in the general direction of US forces, and that after they made the assumption the group was potentially hostile they then misidentified a man crouching down at a corner as aiming down the sights of an RPG-7. They only had a few seconds before they no longer had a good angle to see the "RPG gunner". I think if they had more time they may have better assessed the situation, or maybe not. There's only so much you can tell from the air when you've got vulnerable ground troops already involved in conflict in an adjacent neighborhood. The fact that innocent civilians were mistakenly killed in war does not instantly make it an unlawful action, and that's what this thread has been about. It was an unfortunate incident, but it was absolutely legal in every sense of the word.
What weapons and what evidence? There were no weapons. It's established that what they later tried to make into an RPG was a camera, and it was recognizable as such.
They were armed with several AK-47s and one RPG-7, with at least one separate person holding a camera with a telephoto lens. Indeed, you'd be daft to go walking around an Iraqi neighborhood a few years ago without an armed escort. The fact that they were armed and walking around acting suspicious with US troops already taking fire nearby ended up turning this into an unfortunate situation.
OK. This makes your position clear. A Reuters reporter who is not "embedded", in a country where the US is engaged in a war, and his assistants are bad guys by definition. Now I see why you think a camera is a weapon.
That's just fucking rude. I really hope you're not haruchai who forgot to log in, because he's been reasonable this whole time. I shouldn't have wasted my time, because this last quote makes you out to be a troll, straight up.
Yes, I did read and apply it - "AT ALL TIMES, and particularly after an engagement, PARTIES to the conflict shall, WITHOUT DELAY, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled." It does NOT say that only the winning side has the right save the wounded; no-one in the van was armed, their only concern was recovering the wounded man. Are soldiers incapable of judgment?
You're free to interpret it absolutely literally as it is written. But then leads the extremes where when you injure one person during a battle one or both sides have to stop shooting until the injured person is cared for. That situation is clearly a little ridiculous, but that is how we are supposed to do things if we interpret the GC literally. Since interpreting almost any document literally and using that to make decisions is a really dumb thing to do, I prefer to instead go by the spirit of the law and the very, very firmly established international precedent that the objective first be properly cleared before casualty collection takes place. For example, in a typical assault once they've assaulted through and cleared about 50-100 meters past an objective (neutralizing all personnel regardless of whether they were already wounded or not) they will come back and search bodies and look for intelligence, and at this point any wounded or living personnel found are afforded the medical assistance they are due under Article 15. You may not like it and it certainly violates the literal wording of the GC, but the fact that essentially every military on the face of the planet operates this way makes it de facto legal on the international scene.
Long story short, in the span of just a couple minutes the helicopter fired at some bad guys, then fired at a civilian van that stopped to pick up the bodies (and presumably weapons and evidence), but later it turned out to be a group of reporters (clearly armed) and just a good samaritan Iraqi that had stopped to help them. It sucks and it's unfortunate, but it's not illegal. And I agree this video should have been released by the government when requested of them.
Having a fairly strong viewpoint doesn't mean you're right, but it might mean that you've closed off your mind to further evidence.
I think I've been very clear in each post so far that I'm always open to further evidence, but that's the key phrase... "further evidence". I'm doubtful you can bring anything new to bear on this issue but if you'll scroll up you will see I did invite you to reply with more. I'm just tired of this old topic with no new information, and still nobody has answered my diplomatic cables question. Even your response about collateral murder wasn't an answer, it just happened to be leaked by the same person.
Article 15. At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.
Whenever circumstances permit, an armistice or a suspension of fire shall be arranged, or local arrangements made, to permit the removal, exchange and transport of the wounded left on the battlefield.
Likewise, local arrangements may be concluded between Parties to the conflict for the removal or exchange of wounded and sick from a besieged or encircled area, and for the passage of medical and religious personnel and equipment on their way to that area.
I read the GC article you linked. Did you read it carefully, and apply it to the situation at hand? It says nothing about allowing an enemy to pick up their wounded in the middle of a battle. It talks about the assaulting personnel being required to search for and render aid to all wounded they find, "particularly after an engagement". Reading some parts of the GC literally in today's modern battlefield is difficult, and going by the spirit of the law inherently introduces subjectivity to its interpretation, however it is well established doctrine internationally to clear an objective of hostile action before you treat wounded enemies. In fact, as soon as US ground forces had arrived, you can clearly see them giving aid and evacuating wounded in accordance with the GC.
When you walk around in and a clearly and openly armed group in a neighborhood next to where military operations are currently being conducted, sometimes unfortunate things like this can take place. It was an unfortunate incident, but fully within the norms of internationally accepted conventions on land warfare.
Feel free to reply if you like, but I am really not interested in discussing the "collateral murder" incident. I've examined much evidence and encountered many arguments from "both sides", and I feel I have a fairly strong viewpoint on the matter. I'd much rather discuss all the crimes exposed in the diplomatic cables if you can provide examples.
Work smarter, not harder, and be careful of your speling.