
Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day - mawhidby
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/
======
TallGuyShort
If it was possible to give a standing ovation to someone via Hacker News, I
would. This is perhaps the most sincere, mature, well-thought out commentary
I've ever read on anything to do with the Iraq war. Spoken like a true
soldier.

edit: to clarify what I mean, I grew up shortly after there was a civil war in
my country - and as such I really appreciate soldiers who, having fought on
soil that was not their own, are able to recognize the tragedy that occurs on
both sides, regardless of politics.

~~~
stse
I think it came across quite clearly in the video that the guys on the ground
were a lot more attached to the situation. You could here it in their voices.
An important part of this story that sadly won't get much attention is how
badly the soldiers are treated. The sergeant could potentially have saved this
guy a lot of trouble by letting him see a "mental health person".

~~~
jacquesm
Key point is that it wasn't the guys on the ground but some chopper jockey
that caused the bigger part of the carnage.

------
roboneal
The commentary of this soldier, and possibly others, would have provided some
context to this incident. He supports the initial engagement, but criticizes
the secondary attack on the van and a later firing of a Hellfire missile into
a building.

A context the Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" campaign was sorely lacking.

~~~
pg
Yes; I lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks after that. It seemed as if they'd
branched out into the propaganda business. I wonder what made them change
direction after so long.

~~~
andreyf
This was brought up on The Colbert Report's interview of Julian Assange [1].
His response was that they where provided the video under the condition that
they'd try to maximize its political impact to the best of their ability. I
don't think their strategy was the best way to fullfil that goal (precisely
because of the blatant political slant), but that's their stated motivation.

1\. [http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-
videos/27071...](http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-
videos/270712/april-12-2010/julian-assange)

~~~
stse
The thing is that it worked. I never seen any Wikileaks story get so much
attention in the news or "virally" on the Internet. Here in Sweden it was a
top story on all the major newspapers websites and on the evening news, but
put into context. The second part with the hellfire missile, where they didn't
provide much commentary, in comparison got a lot less attention. More people
than usual do seem to have watched the full material and read the related
reports etc. to get the full story.

I never really got upset about Wikileaks providing commentary, because I never
had the illusion that they were going to be impartial. Don't be lazy, apply
some critical thinking, listen to different sources. Leaks are in their nature
untrustworthy. Even intelligence agencies with all their highly educated
analysts get things wrong.

Finally if you stop supporting Wikileaks because you don't like that they
provide commentary, editorialize, make propaganda or whatever your view are of
it. I don't really think you get what their doing or what's at stake.

~~~
jey
It's unfortunate/scary that propagandizing is more effective than the "truth".

I guess the _truly_ unfortunate part is that people don't think critically by
default. Encouraging critical thought seems like a far better/realistic goal
than expecting content producers to act in a way that maximizes total
"societal good", but that's [depressingly] still a completely far-fetched
idea.

------
F_J_H
My wife and I had a baby girl 5 weeks ago; I never imagined I could feel as
much love for someone or something as I feel for her. I easily would give my
life for her.

Having just experience my daughter’s birth, the soldier’s description in this
article of the young girl in the shot up van and the sound of her cry cut me
to the core. I can’t imagine what he is going through and the torment he must
feel when that memory flashes through his mind.

The journalists will write, the commentators will comment, and the analysts
will analyze. There are so many angles to consider, this point and that point.
I realize that. But in the end, all I can think to do is to simply grieve for
this situation and for the many others just like it that I am sure exist. I am
also profoundly thankful that I was born where I was, and live where I do.
Peace is truly priceless.

~~~
david927
Were you born in America? Because America did this. They went to Iraq and did
this.

 _all I can think to do is to simply grieve for this situation_

No, you can ask that America leaves Iraq. If it was your daughter, you
wouldn't just say, "I guess all I can do is grieve". Right? Look at her. I
have a daughter too. You can do a fuck lot more than that.

Let's get the US out of Iraq and back home. NOW.

~~~
F_J_H
I'm Canadian actually. More power to you bud. You are preaching to the choir.

------
rdl
I was in Iraq when this happened. It is a fairly representative incident --
the only remarkable thing is that Reuters people were involved. There have
been plenty of within-rules shootings which led to the deaths of civilians,
but there were also plenty of situations where the rules hindered successful
operations or even self-defense. It's a balancing act, and it's war, so it's
choosing among least-bad options, with imperfect information.

It's fair to criticize the Rules of Engagement as being overly hostile to
civilians, and counter to the goal of winning and leaving. In Afghanistan, GEN
McChrystal actually stopped a lot of effective tactics (night raids,
airstikes, etc.) because they were counter to the strategy of winning the war
by winning the populace. In Iraq, there were periods of intense kinetic
violence (such as going into Baquba, Sadr city, Fallujah) combined with
periods of reconstruction and trying to win the populace.

I actually knew Julian Assange from running a remailer long before wikileaks,
and he seemed like a pretty decent guy. I'm not sure what happened. I'm
betting he/they felt marginalized and were trying to use this to raise their
own profile. I support the general idea of transparency through third parties
publishing information, but I can't support wikileaks.

~~~
jacquesm
The thing you have to wonder about though is if this would have gotten nearly
as much airplay as it did if it weren't for those reuters people there.

------
krschultz
Here is a solid collection of reactions to the video from military blogs. They
were a bit after the actual WikiLeaks video hit HN so I never posted the link
here, but it might be interesting to those looking for the insightful view of
people with relevant knowledge and experience.

[http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/reaction-on-
milita...](http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/reaction-on-military-
blogs-to-the-wikileaks-video/)

------
ck2
The innocent people who were killed will never get to talk to the media or
their family and friends. Imagine if a foreign military had been flying around
your city with high powered weapons looking for insurgents among civilians and
were making deadly assumptions and saying things like they did in that video

If this video had not come to light, we'd keep thinking that war was cut and
dry. Why are people attacking Wikileaks when the guilty had months to put
together a calm, cooling anti-story for the media in hindsight?

Things like this video probably happened dozens if not hundreds of times over
there, so you want to find an excuse for this one? What about all the others?

~~~
kscaldef
> If this video had not come to light, we'd keep thinking that war was cut and
> dry

I'm not sure why you say that. I didn't think "war was cut and dry" prior to
this video being released. Did you?

~~~
ck2
There seems to be no shortage of people rationalizing this behavior and
relieved to have an explanation, implying it could be condoned.

Just like the all too common abuse of power by police, the end never justifies
the means and can never be condoned. Those with power have a much higher
responsibility, not less with justifications like "that's just how war is".

~~~
delluminatus
I don't think anyone is condoning this behavior (certainly not the soldier in
the interview). However, I should mention that police abusing power is a
little different, since they aren't in a WAR ZONE, having been shot at minutes
before. Whether or not the soldiers erred (and they did) is not the question
here. The question is, why did WikiLeaks present it in the way they did?

People are attacking WikiLeaks because they feel betrayed by the organization.
I know I do. What was supposed to be an impartial mediator of classified data
turned out to be a sensationalist mediator of classified data presented with a
spin that would make Fox News proud.

In closing: Wikileaks exposed us to civilian murder. This would normally by
fine. However, they also distorted the facts and the context of the event to
support a sensationalist publicity routine. That is the problem here.

------
sunchild
"There’s no easy way to kill somebody. You don’t just take somebody’s life and
then go on about your business for the rest of the day. That stays with you.
And cracking jokes is a way of pushing that stuff down. That’s why so many
soldiers come back home and they’re no longer in the situations where they
have other things to think about or other people to joke about what happened …
and they explode."

I think a lot of people who jumped to conclusions about this video should take
these words to heart.

~~~
jacquesm
That's somewhat contrary to the voice over from the guy flying the chopper.

~~~
confuzatron
I'm afraid you've got it the wrong way round. The detached non-emotional tone
adopted in the recording doesn't contradict the assertion that fighters may
adopt a detached attitude during conflict as a way of pushing down emotions.

~~~
jacquesm
He's not detached and non-emotional, to me he sounds eager to kill, definitely
not without emotion.

~~~
confuzatron
I guess we project our prejudices into how we interpret the vid. Their job is
to kill enemy combatants. Do you expect them to say "oh dear, we hit the
people we were aiming at, how terrible". Of course not. To me the judgements
on who and what to hit were verging on the 'trigger happy', but sorry, I
didn't see or hear evil bloodthirsty yanqui imperialists.

------
adame944
A key line:

"I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up
on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there. … You just don’t walk
around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight. …"

~~~
plinkplonk
I thought this was the key line

"And where the soldier said [in the video], “Well, you shouldn’t take your
kids to battle.” Well in all actuality, we brought the battle to your kids.
There’s no front lines here. This is urban combat and we’re taking the war to
children and women and innocents."

and "I don’t think that [the] big picture is whether or not [the Iraqis who
were killed] had weapons. I think that the bigger picture is what are we doing
there? We’ve been there for so long now and it seems like nothing is being
accomplished whatsoever, except for we’re making more people hate us."

I admire this guy. He seems to take responsibility vs ducking it or explaining
it away.

~~~
netcan
I disagree.

This is about the specifics of what happened here. It's about whether or not
Americans in Iraq are living up to a high enough standard of ethical warfare
in their day-to-day.

These conversations _decay_ into "big picture" when people get tired. It's not
the point though. The point of rules of war, engagement or otherwise is
_'while there is war..'_

------
ErrantX
You know what I find most depressing? That Gizmodo got 20 Million page views
in a day for their iPhone 4G scoop. I somehow doubt this will get as much
coverage.

Shame.

------
brlewis
Psychologically, it's very difficult to question a war you're fighting.
Believing it's worthwhile is a coping mechanism. If this fellow can be strong
enough to question it, what excuse do the rest of us have?

Quote: I think that the bigger picture is what are we doing there? We’ve been
there for so long now and it seems like nothing is being accomplished
whatsoever, except for we’re making more people hate us.

------
dpatru
I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument that the video was released
without context that would justify the American military action. If the
American military had wanted context, they should have released the video
themselves with additional context. Instead, the American military suppressed
the video. They should not complain that the video is now being released
without context.

Americans are in Iraq as foreign occupiers. Americans invaded under false
pretenses a country that had not attacked them first. The burden of proof is
on the Americans, not Wikileaks, to justify American killing of Iraqi
innocents.

~~~
Maktab
Aside from the larger issue being debated here, I think you're guilty of
operating under an outdated assumption. The US forces in Iraq have not been
'foreign occupiers' for quite some time. They are there at the will of the
democratically elected Iraqi government in a deployment sanctioned by the UN
Security Council. It should be possible to acknowledge this fact even while
disagreeing with the presence of US forces in Iraq.

Nor do I believe the US military had an obligation to release the video,
although they did have an obligation to conduct a serious and thorough
investigation and make the results and key aspects of it public. I think it's
clear this didn't happen, but it did not justify Wikileaks's heavily edited
and flawed version of the video.

~~~
jacquesm
> They are there at the will of the democratically elected Iraqi government in
> a deployment sanctioned by the UN Security Council.

Please. The alternative is a total power vacuum, you can't really say that
they're there because the locals invited them in.

~~~
Maktab
I just pointed out that calling them 'foreign occupiers' is not accurate.
Although as a practical matter it's difficult for the Iraqis to boot the US
out because of the power vacuum that would result, that does not change the
fact that under the current legal situation the US forces _are_ there at the
behest of the Iraqi government and that they would have to leave if requested
to do so.

For what it's worth I did not claim that the locals invited them in. That
one's a straw man.

------
david927
Weapons of Mass Destruction were never found. That was the causus belli. That
was the reason for the invasion, and they don't exist.

Someone, anyone, tell me why the U.S. is still there and under what legal
basis. Anyone. I dare you.

The problem is that you can't. And so now we're talking about kids with glass
in their eyes and bullets in their bodies, and soldiers with psychological
scars that won't heal. Yet not a single person can give a valid, legal reason
for it all. Yet no one will take two minutes to email their representative and
say, "Stop it."

~~~
Maktab
Technically, WMDs was only one of a number of casus belli stated officially by
the US prior to the war, which included Iraq's non-compliance with the terms
of the 1991 ceasefire, its continued hampering of UNMOVIC weapons inspection
teams, its repression of its civilian population, its attempted assassination
of a former US president, its continued firing on US aircraft enforcing the
no-fly zone and its harbouring of international terrorists. I don't believe
the US and UK should have launched that war in the first place and I
personally thought the rationale was a little shaky, but the historical record
does show that it wasn't only about WMDs.

The legal basis for the continued US presence is well-established and widely
known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to dare anybody to explain
it to you. Subsequent to the invasion, the presence of US and other coalition
forces in Iraq was legitimised by, in turn, UNSC Resolution 1483 (2003), 1546
(2004), 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006), IIRC. The last action taken by the UNSC
with regards to multinational forces in Iraq was to extend the mandate
authorising their presence till December 2008. Thereafter, the continued
presence of US forces in Iraq has been legally authorised by the US-Iraq
Status of Forces Agreement, which calls for US forces to leave the country by
December 31, 2011. Whatever the moral case for a continued US presence in Iraq
may be, the legal basis is sound.

Something else that's worth noting is that the Wikileaks video dates from
2007, during the height of combat operations surrounding the surge. At the
time those sorts of engagements were a daily occurrence. This is no longer the
case; these days the remaining US forces in Iraq are involved in relatively
few direct combat operations and the overall level of violence in the country
has dropped to a level where a slow US withdrawal is now possible without
causing a security vacuum. From a US perspective Iraq is now a solved problem
and the war is just about over. I must give credit to General Petraeus and his
sane and unorthodox counter-insurgency strategy for that, for what it's worth.

So the stuff shown in the Wikileaks footage seldom happens in Iraq anymore. I
would suggest that your time is better spent not impotently demanding that US
forces leave _now_ based on your reaction to a three year old video, but
rather applying pressure on your representatives to ensure the planned
withdrawal from Iraq happens on time and that US combat operations in that
country end as scheduled on 31 August. I see no reason why it won't though,
and in my opinion Afghanistan is a far more pressing concern on which to focus
at the moment.

~~~
david927
It was the allegations of WMDs gave the impetus for action. Most wars can't be
started by frustrating fly-over issues.

 _The legal basis for the continued US presence is well-established and widely
known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to dare anybody to explain
it to you._

 _UNSC Resolution 1483 (2003), 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006), IIRC_

You're confused. None of these authorized the occupation of Iraq. Each of
these was adopoted after the invasion took place as safeguards on the
occupation. None of these makes the occupation in any way a legal act. It has
_never_ been sanctioned by the Security Council; there are no, and have never
been, UN troops in Iraq.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself directly called the
invasion "illegal". His word.

The illegal basis for the US invasion is well-established and widely known, so
I'm surprised you feel confident enough to talk as if you know otherwise.

~~~
Maktab
Let me quote your original post:

 _> Someone, anyone, tell me why the U.S. is still there and under what legal
basis. Anyone. I dare you._

I quite clearly explained 'why the US is still there and under what legal
basis'. Despite what you think, those resolutions did in fact make first the
occupation and then the continued non-sovereign presence legal and represented
the UNSC's explicit sanction for the coalition's presence in Iraq. Between
2003 and 2008 US and other coalition forces in Iraq operated under a UNSC
mandate (read up on MNF I), so it's irrelevant that there were no blue hats in
the country.

Whether the original invasion was illegal or not, Kofi Annan's word does not
make it officially so. Like all UN Secretary-Generals, Annan was just an
administrator whose opinion carried no legal weight. All binding declarations
in terms of international law can only be made within the UN's participatory
bodies, like the Security Council, or by the International Court of Justice.

I'm not willing to get into an argument about the legality of the initial
invasion because that's not the point you raised in your original post and
it's not relevant to the discussion being had about the legal status of US
forces in the country right now. The current presence, as I pointed out, is
without any shadow of a doubt entirely legal and has been since UNSC 1483.
Times have changed, the issues are different and rehashing the arguments of
2003 won't get us anywhere.

~~~
david927
I have never heard it parsed that way, Maktab. Interesting.

So you're admitting that the invasion was illegal under international law, but
that the continued occupation is legal. How does that work, exactly? You can
illegally break into a house, but legally not have to leave?

It's my impression that while UNSCR 1483 legitimized the governing aspect of
US/UK forces, it was essentially a "you broke it, now fix it" resolution that
didn't offer any specific language that makes the occupation legal.

 _rehashing the arguments of 2003_

The people of Iraq are rehashing those arguments every day their country is
occupied illegally. Iraq, at current oil prices, would be one of the richest
countries in the world. They'll never see any of that. Those people in the van
(in the Wikileaks video) who were killed and mangled, including the kids, are
rehashing 2003. There's no statute of limitations on the suffering there;
there's no reason we should forget about it if they can't.

~~~
Maktab
The legality of the initial invasion is an open question, without any clearly-
defined and universally-accepted answer. Without an unambiguous resolution by
the UNSC or ruling by the ICJ, a debate on that topic would fill many pages
and might still be no closer to a definitive answer. I definitely don't think
it's possible to state outright that it was either legal or illegal.

In any case it's not relevant to the question of whether the _current status_
of US forces in Iraq is legal. That was determined by UNSCR 1483 in
conjunction with UNSCR 1511 (sorry, I forgot to mention 1511 and 1790, chalk
it up to imperfect memory and a lack of time to research all this again), with
the latter resolution explicitly authorising the presence of the Multi-
National Force in Iraq as a mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This
mandate was renewed annually until 31 December 2008, when it was replaced by
the US-Iraqi SOFA, a treaty between the two countries which established a new
baseline legal framework under which US forces are legally permitted to remain
in the country.

So there is no occupation in Iraq, let alone an illegal one. If you continue
to believe that US forces are occupying Iraq illegally your conclusions and
understanding of the situation are going to be flawed and useless. It goes
without saying though that accepting the legal basis for the US presence there
is not the same thing as condoning it. Though I feel I should point out that
I'm not trying to create a justification for the war here, I'm just trying to
clarify some of the facts around the conflict. That US troops are in Iraq
legally is a fact, it has no morality of its own. It should be enough to
disagree with the US's presence without having to wrongly claim that it's
illegal.

But for what it's worth, it actually is possible to illegally break into a
house and have the legal right to resist eviction, with a number of countries
having so-called 'squatters' rights' legislation that protects the rights of
people to remain on a property, though usually only for a defined period of
time and under certain conditions, even if they occupied it unlawfully in the
first place.

As for your last bit, it's an emotional argument which still has no bearing on
the specific point you raised earlier. I happen to think Iraq is better off
right now than it was either under Saddam's regime or at the height of the
war, with their economy improving at an impressive rate, but I'm not sure the
bloodshed they went through to get here was worth it.

~~~
david927
_The legality of the initial invasion is an open question, without any
clearly-defined and universally-accepted answer._

You might want to read this:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-
vi...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-violated-
interational-law-dutch-inquiry-finds)

One last time: while the UN Security Council resolutions from UNSCR 1483 on,
that you list, do not ipso facto make the occupation legal. There is not
specific language declaring it to be legal, and absent that language, you
cannot imply it to exist.

(By the way, as I understand it, squatters rights only are possible when you
don't break the law to enter.)

I also think that Iraq is better off now, but that's an obtuse point. From the
mid-1980s to September 2003, the inflation adjusted price of a barrel of crude
oil on NYMEX was generally under $25/barrel. Now oil hovers over $80 and will
certainly only go up. Iraq is floating on the last ocean -- the last untapped
large reserves. And how many people died for the US to take control of that?
Iraq's infrastructure is better now, but does that even make sense to point
out?

This is my last post. It was interesting talking to you, Maktab, and I wish
you all the best.

~~~
Maktab
This, too, will be my last post. It has been interesting and there are no hard
feelings from my side either.

 _> You might want to read this:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-
vi...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-vi..). _

While very persuasive (and an interesting read btw) that report still does not
have the definitive weight of a UNSC resolution or UCJ ruling. And as I've
said all along, the question of the legality of the original invasion is
separate and irrelevant to the legality of the continued US presence in Iraq.
I've been trying to avoid getting sucked into a discussion about the initial
invasion only because I don't believe it's relevant to this specific
discussion. That's all.

 _One last time: while the UN Security Council resolutions from UNSCR 1483 on,
that you list, do not ipso facto make the occupation legal. There is not
specific language declaring it to be legal, and absent that language, you
cannot imply it to exist._

This is just it though, those resolutions (especially UNSCR 1511) are
unambiguous and specific in making the presence of US-led coalition forces in
Iraq legal. Your incorrect analysis of their content suggests that you don't
have much experience in reading and interpreting UNSC resolutions and other
instruments of international law. That's ok, but it might be worth scheduling
a chat with an international law professor at a university near you if you
want a deeper understanding.

 _(By the way, as I understand it, squatters rights only are possible when you
don't break the law to enter.)_

Not true, I mentioned that bit specifically because some countries have laws
which enforce squatters' rights even when the initial occupation was unlawful.
It makes sense though, as just because an initial action may be illegal it
does not automatically render every subsequent action illegal.

 _I also think that Iraq is better off now, but that's an obtuse point._

I agree that it's pretty obtuse. I only mentioned it because you said that the
people of Iraq will never see any of Iraq's wealth. I found that a curious
statement. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

In summary, I responded to your original post only because of one claim you
made, which is that US forces are in Iraq illegally right now. The fact
remains that even if you reject my assertion that the UNSC resolutions
explicitly legalised the presence of US forces in Iraq under a Chapter VII
mandate it still does not justify your claim that US forces are illegally
occupying Iraq, because the US-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement created an
entirely new and separate legal framework under which US troops remain in the
country. As a treaty between two sovereign governments, the SOFA supersedes
anything that came before it and is unaffected by remaining questions about
the legality of the initial invasion. It just makes no sense to refer to the
current presence of US forces in Iraq as an 'illegal occupation' in 2010.

------
mawhidby
For reference, the Wikileaks video can be found at:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik>

The HN thread on the original video can be found at:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1241879>

------
pauljonas
[http://www.truthout.org/soldiers-wikileaks-company-
apologize...](http://www.truthout.org/soldiers-wikileaks-company-apologize-
violence58714)

>We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was
shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have
created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we
have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday
occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried
out in this region.

>We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we
tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name
of "god and country". The soldier in the video said that your husband
shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our
responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your
family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us.

>More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our
name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not
forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we
can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we
were taught to deny.

>Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has
also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally
troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long
overdue that we say that the values of our nation's leaders no longer
represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its
reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance
pales in comparison to our common humanity.

------
parasctr
The war was based on lies. If it takes lies to stop it so be it.

------
techiferous
[EDIT: The following comment is off-topic; therefore I wish I hadn't posted
it. I didn't delete it, though, so that you could make sense of the comment
responses to it. My apologies for being off-topic.]

I'm about to express an unpopular opinion, so I'm expecting lots of downvotes,
but at least I believe that what I'm expressing is rational and from the
heart.

Regarding this whole WikiLeaks incident, I felt bad for both the Iraqi
casualties and the soldiers. If the soldiers had full knowledge that they were
firing on a family that was simply trying to help the wounded, you know that
they wouldn't have fired. They fired because they _assumed_ there were
insurgents in the van. They made a mistake.

What really bothers me is that so many people get outraged over the soldiers'
mistake, but so many people gladly eat factory-farmed meat. Animals in factory
farms are subject to a very painful existence before their lives are cut
short. Yet most people don't care. It's hard for me to stomach the criticism
that the soldiers get knowing that many of the people who criticize these
soldiers will then go eat a burger, fully and willfully participating in a
system that creates unnecessary suffering and carnage to innocent beings.

In other words, our priorities as a society are out of whack. If we really
cared about violence, there is something that _each_ of us can do _right away_
: go vegetarian. It's easier to criticize the violence of soldiers than take
action ourselves to live a less violent life.

Let the downvoting begin. :/

~~~
alexgartrell
I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but you really cannot expect us to
hold the lives of children in Iraq anywhere near that of Cattle. It's hardly
hypocrisy to eat a burger after calling out the soldiers, as people and
animals really are, according to almost every person as well as almost every
religion/philosophy, on completely different planes of existence.

I support the troops who did this, but I don't think people who don't and who
eat non-organic meats are hypocrites for it.

~~~
sunchild
"...according to almost every person as well as almost every
religion/philosophy, on completely different planes of existence..."

This whole thread is OT, but this statement is extremely dubious. You have no
basis for evaluating another being's "plane of existence" — whatever that is.
That's like saying that non-English-speakers' lives are worth less because you
can't understand what they're saying.

