You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

36 Still Images - WikiLeaks Iraq Video (Dial-Up Warning and UPDATE from Wikileaks [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 10:41 PM
Original message
36 Still Images - WikiLeaks Iraq Video (Dial-Up Warning and UPDATE from Wikileaks
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Mon Apr-05-10 11:32 PM by Hissyspit
This post changes the video into still images, captions and text intact. Thus it is about the power of the images. Christopher Hedges, writing on the "pictures of war you aren't supposed to see," says that most filmic and photographic images of war, removing the fear, stench, noise and stress of combat, serve an "artful war narrative," ultimately functioning as "war porn." Where do these new images fit within that viewpoint? In the words of Julian Asstrange, a co-founder of WikiLeaks, the video shows "how modern aerial warfare is done... It shows the debasement and the moral corruption of soldiers as a result of war. It seems like they are playing video games with people's lives."

Upon seeing the video this afternoon, former Editor and Publisher editor Greg Mitchell commented that the "U.S. crew in Wikileaks video of Iraq killings reminds me of my son and friends around TV playing Xbox shooter game."

Today we find that CNN didn't much like the images, presenting a virtual worthless excerpt cleansing the worst of the violence: Reuters went with three stills here:

Drone attacks continue to present day in the Afghanistan and Pakistan theatre, resulting in civilian casualties: What of those images will see the light of day?

The Pentagon's original narrative from 2007 does not stand up very well against the new visual imagery evidence, we find on a day that they had to correct themselves on another narrative, that one concerning civilian deaths in Afghanistan. The Iraq narrative from the military from The New York Times at the time:

"The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.

'There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,' said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad."

(A timeline of possible attempts to cover up the details of the 2007 incidence can be found here: )

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, Afghanistan vet, said earlier today on whether the Rules of Engagement were followed:

"Let me be clear... based on what I've seen only, and I'm making it on what I've seen: No, they were not. First rule is 'You may engage persons who commit hostile acts or show hostile intent by minimum force necessary.' Minimum force is the key here. If you see eight armed men, the first thing I would think as an intelligence officer: 'How can we take these guys and capture them?' We don't want to kill people arbitrarily. We want the intell take.

Now, most importantly, when you see that van show up to take away the wounded: 'Do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds.' So the wound part of that, I find a bit disturbing by the fact that you have people down, clearly down; you have people on the way here..."

Would he have been able to come to that conclusion, a very serious conclusion regarding the incident, had he not had the images, images you weren't supposed to see? The video has now entered the narrative of what the United States has done and is doing with our massive technologically advanced force to the population of other countries.

With their captioning and context, Wikileaks has attempted to control the narrative as the images enter into our visual war-culture. Nabil Nour El Deen, brother of one of the Reuters photographers, has told Al Jazeera English the footage clearly shows a crime committed by the US military. One thing is sure, these images and their release, in their own way, are unprecedented.

I have manipulated the video narrative myself, contrasting at the end, the photo of the children visible in the passenger seats of the with the photo of the van being ripped apart and thrown off the ground. "Right through the windshield." "Ha, ha."

UPDATE FROM WIKILEAKS: New background phot info on Iraq massacre Leak: AND

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC