miércoles, 15 de diciembre de 2010


Last night I watched WikiRebels: a documentary and that clarified me a couple things I had in mind before I could make my statement about this controversial topic. I'm sceptic about what media shows to us all, anyhow I don't believe they misinform us on purpose, but there's nothing they can do instead. In any case, they're mere intermediary.

At this point, I have to say I don't agree with the point of view of WikiLeaks. I do know that truth has to prevail always, but this has been a flag to put on the same spot many different things they shouldn't be there. For instance: Collateral Murder, the video that shows how did the Reuters' journalists die on Iraq shot by US Army.

-First: some people of the group are holding AK-47. If you are in the Iraq war (even if you're journalist) you have to smart up and think that going with an armed group down those streets could be (at least) dangerous. Check the short video again by 3:35.

-Second: they (the journalists and the people who setted them free) shot something or someone in a certain moment. Check the video at 4:15. This is giving more reasons to army to open fire.

-Third: when that guy survives and he is crawling, soldiers don't shoot him, they're just expecting if he is taking a weapon or something that would make him dangerous for the troops. That's when the van shows up, and the shooter is always requesting permission to engage (well, at this point a guy's voice appears and he really wants to shoot, but he doesn't show up anymore and they eventually did the right thing and waited for the permission to engage).

-Fourth: the journalists made the decision of driving a van through those dangerous streets with two kids inside.

-Fifth: the video editor zooms in on minute 16, but the shooter couldn't zoom in more than it is. And when the video zooms in there are two white circles that don't seem like children at all. Maybe just two white packages at the most.

After all, we can get this straight: If you're journalist and you're walking down those streets at war with a white flag in your hand and you get shot, that would be insane. But you are actually going with a group of armed iraqis with AK-47 and RPG's, and if it's not risky enough, you bring children to battlefield. In this case, I think US Army did right. And we're all obviating the fact that being a soldier and have to kill people is not as easy as in a videogame. They will live all their lives eaten up with that. Julian Assange said about this: "
Why do it? Well, there are two reasons. One: Because it's fun to kill people. If you've been in that environment, removed from all the effects of killing people for a long time. It's a videogame, like in high school. The other is they brag after a kill streak. About how many people they killed, and go back to base, and go 'Hey, I killed thirteen today'". All mixed up with some Adagio for the Strings.

Anyhow, I'm not excusing US army from all its behaviour. They've screwed it up many times, specially with all that cases of torture. But they cannot do whatever they want cause there are rules, and Collateral Murder shows they have to get permission before shooting and they're always following orders.
There are many people supporting what Assange is doing right now, but they do it blindly, though. First and foremost, because Julian doesn't agree with what he used to, or that's what Daniel Domscheit-Berg (previously known under the pseudonym Daniel Schmitt and effective number two in WikiLeaks) said about Julian: "If you preach transparency to everyone else, you have to be transparent yourself. You have to fulfill the same standards that you expect from others. And I think that's where we've not been heading into the same direction philosophically anymore" after quitting the project as several others as well. Just like Herbert Snorrason: "Eventually this ended with Julian and me arguing about basicaly his dictatorial behaviour which ended in Julian saying to me that if i had a problem with him, I could just piss off, I quote".

I'm not saying he's a bad man, but just not the pure angel some think he is, and like any of us has his own interests. About the rape charges against him, I think he's not guilty, simply because that was all a mess and they have to stop him whatever the cost, besides the women who accuse him haven't talked proper yet and seems all the allegations are a long way from being settled.

Anyhow, I won't download that torrent that would reveal something big in case Julian disappears. We're all knowing what's inside if it turns out he dies, just cause Internet is still free. Still.

4 comentarios:

Patri Tezanos dijo...

1. Ahora mismo veo rayas. Por favor, fondo blanco!

2. Riesgoso fue para los periodistas, pero estoy segura de que los soldados se saltaron bastante parte del procedimiento protocolario que termina en el disparo.

3. Lo volvieron un juego. Sólo había que escuchar a un militar diciendo algo así como "por favor, déjame dispararles"

Gelita dijo...

Es solo una de las voces que se oye, y como si dice "daleatucuerpoalegríamacarena", él tiene que esperar a que le den el permiso para disparar.

Yo veo lo mismo que ven ellos si no te hubieran dicho que eran periodistas. Porque claro, ves las imágenes con los cartelitos y ves: "cámara" "niños". Y es como claaaaaaaaaro, si se ve perfectamente!

Patri Tezanos dijo...

Sé que no se identifican, pero te vuelvo a decir lo del procedimiento. Y me da igual que sea 1 o 50 las voces, pero se divertían.

Gelita dijo...

Menos el pirado ese que habla un momento, yo no veo que nadie se divierta, pero lo que usted diga...