Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government United States Politics

US Military Launches YouTube Channel 348

Posted by Zonk
from the you-can't-stop-the-signal dept.
Jenga717 writes "The US military has launched its own channel on YouTube, in efforts to shift the media's focus of Iraq from a negative to a more positive light, and to 'counter the messages of anti-American sites.' From the article: 'The footage is not picked specifically to show the military in a good light ... and is only edited for reasons of time or content too graphic to be shown on YouTube ... And while all the clips currently posted have been shot by the military's combat cameramen, soldiers and marines have been invited to submit their own clips.' The question is, where are they supposed to submit them? Starting 'on or about 14 May 2007', the Department of Defense will block troop access to Myspace, Youtube, MTV, and more sites, due to a 'growing concern for our unclassified DoD Internet, known as the NIPRNET'." More commentary below.
The troops will be unable to access these sites from any computer on the DoD network, yet are still able to access them from their home computers — which they can't use on the DoD network. So why the censorship? The DoD cites security reasons, but the Commander of Global Network Operations (DoD's Joint Task Force)"has noted a significant increase in the use of DoD network resources tied up by individuals visiting certain recreational Internet sites." The PDF released by the DoD reminds troops that this "benefits not only you, your fellow Servicemembers, and Civilian employees, but preserves our vital networks for conducting official DoD business in peace and war." Sounds like quite a sticky situation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Military Launches YouTube Channel

Comments Filter:
  • Interesting (Score:2, Informative)

    by andy666 (666062)
    They have done other things like this with other media formats - like Soldier Radio in the 50's.
  • by iknownuttin (1099999) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @02:32PM (#19105761)
    "The US military has launched its own channel on YouTube, in efforts to shift the media's focus of Iraq from a negative to a more positive light, and to 'counter the messages of anti-American sites.'

    Isn't that called "propaganda"?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Only if your a terrorist.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      No. It's called responding to the propaganda that has been done by the media for the past 4 years.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 13, 2007 @02:47PM (#19105885)
        "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
        "Mission Accomplished"
        "Let Freedom Reign!"

        Who is spouting unfounded propoganda, again?
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          This is exactly what I mean. Nobody really has a CLUE what is going on right now in Iraq because the media is doing a horrible job depicting what's happening. Negativity sells, and they know that - especially when it comes to America and Bush and republicans.

          If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing - that we were being driven out of the country. Then when the military LIBERATED Iraq from an evil dictator who had mur
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            It seems pretty clear to me that there's a civil war going on Iraq at the moment. Are you honestly trying to dispute that? I don't mean this on the level of whether you consider it a "civil war", but are you disputing the fact that there's a bloody conflict going on in Iraq at the moment that claims civilian lives nearly every day?

            Also, your second paragraph is either an emotional appeal or a non-sequitur. It's perfectly possible to remove an evil dictator from power while also raping, looting and pillaging
          • Dunno about that, you must have weird television channels where you come from.
          • Nobody really has a CLUE what is going on right now in Iraq because the media is doing a horrible job depicting what's happening.

            OK, if you are privy to this secret inside scoop that nobody else knows about, maybe you could share with us exactly what about the current situation you find so wonderful.

          • by Fex303 (557896)

            If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing...[snip]

            Can you explain precisely how we're winning? We've blown hundreds of billions of dollars, sent thousands of young people away to die, and increased the momentum behind Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist groups.

            The Iraqi people have gone from a horrible dictatorship to civil war and chaos, and around 65,000 of them have been killed in the process. (Twenty times more

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jbengt (874751)
            "If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing"

            Uh . . . I did watch any channel other than Fox during the first part of the war, and I was never put under the impression that we were losing any battles, let alone the war.

            But I saw members of the UN inspection team state that they didn't think Sadaam had wepaons of mass destruction. I was presented with ex-generals commenting that we weren't going in with enough troops to ke
          • by Schemat1c (464768)

            Then when the military LIBERATED Iraq from an evil dictator who had murdered thousands upon thousands of people during his life,
            Wow, with a statement like that I see the propaganda is working just as planned.

            So, does the murders he committed justify the thousands upon thousands [iraqbodycount.net] of people we killed to 'LIBERATE' them?
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by 0xdeadbeef (28836)
            I'm sorry, I know that everyone here at slashdot disagrees with me, but luckily I have some karma built up, so I can say something like this.

            You boot-licking Republican cocksucker, you think you have karma to burn? I piss on Steve Jobs in Apple threads, that's some fucking karma!

            Ok, seriously, what's with the whiny persecution complex, and where the in Allah's name are you getting your information? People had to turn to BBC and al-fucking-Jazeera to get some real news on the invasion, because all the Americ
          • by coaxial (28297) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @04:14PM (#19106565) Homepage
            I'm sorry, but this is just blatent revisionism. The entire media fell in line with the Bush administration during the lead up to war. (The New York Times most notably.) During the invasion of they unquestioningly followed the official line. Anyone that challenged the official line was either thrown off the air (Phil Donahue most notably) or simply ignored. The media was played (The white house spreads the disinformation that Iraq has aluminium tubes to create a centrafuge, and then quotes that same story as support for what they're saying). Everyone got they're war on. The media thouugh, "I've got connections! I can get a Pulitzer! Explosions equal ratings!" The White House said, "My God! Our 9 year wet dream of invading Iraq has finaly come true!"

            Of course the invasion worked. No one ever doubted that. The media never questioned the official line right up until Abu Ghraib. Then they said, "What the hell?" just like anyone reasonable person would. Then they decided to report that for all the talk of "supporting the troops," the solidiers didn't have enough armor. It's just that now the official line has diveged so much from reality, you can't ignore it. Do you honestly believe Tony Snow believes himself when he compares Baghdad to when Washington DC was the "murder capital?"

            It's convient to say that no one know what's going on, but that's simply isn't true. There's a civil war on, and the situation in Iraq has steadily gotten worse. Hell, Cheney is over there in May 9th and says, "Violence is down fairly dramatically," And then an explosion rocks the very building. This week the State Department said that everyone going outside the buildings in the green zone needs to wear body armor. This is bad. 30 bodies a day are being found. That's the work of militia death squads. Four years ago, we didn't have those problems. The Iraqi Ministry of Education reports [alertnet.org] that only 30% of school aged children attend class, because they're parents fear for their safety. That's down from 75% last year. There's been a steady exodus [guardian.co.uk] of highly educated professionals from that country. We're talking doctors, teachers, people needed to maintain a cohesive society. McCain visits Baghdad and says, "Look I can walk though a market, and the generals don't need armor." He had 100 guards, armor, and attack helicopters with him, to walk through a market that mostly closed becaused no one wanted their picture taken with the Americans. The Army issued a statment saying that McCain was "mistaken" when he said Prateaus would go about Baghdad without armor. McCain didn't even belive himself.

            This situation in Iraq is is bad. It is very very bad.

            It's very convienent and comforting to believe that Fox is telling the truth, and everyone else is lying, but that simply isn't true. Even if you ignore the fact that Fox News has gone lockstep with the Republican party since its inception; you have the entire world media on one side, and then you have Fox News. Who you going to believe? Well obviously Fox, since everyone hates America, including a majority of Americans.

            Fox News demostably has lousy coverage. Numerious media studies have show that people that primarily get their information from Fox News are grossly misinformed. But I'm sure that's just because reality has a well known liberal bias.
          • by NMerriam (15122)

            If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing - that we were being driven out of the country...all of the channels besides Fox News...like we were raping their women, like we were killing innocent people on purpose.

            Um, what? I don't know of any channels that gave this impression. I think maybe you need to step outside of the "no-spin zone" and back to reality, where the Iraqi Information Minister was the laughingstock of t

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by bdjacobson (1094909)
            How the hell can someone justify modding the parent flamebait? If you disagree with what he says, then post your own freaking reply, don't be a coward and simply mod him down. If you don't like how our modding system works, go to digg. There's a reason we don't have a "-1, Wrong" option. There are other [slashdot.org] opinions [slashdot.org] that think we're doing fine in Iraq. I suspect most of the people doing this (modding flamebait for little reason) are against the war in Iraq but haven't talked to anyone that has actually been th
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dutchmaan (442553)
        Maybe no one defined the word propoganda to you when you were younger, but in general, propoganda is used to alter the perception of the public for a specific purpose, while reporting is stating what is going on in the world in as objective a manner as possible. (arguments of corporate sponsorship influencing media aside)

        Now I'm not saying bias doesn't exist in the various media outlets, but of the two entities (media and military) which has a history of, and a purpose for, propoganda?

        Saying that the milita
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by toddhisattva (127032)

          Saying that the military is being objective and the media is the propoganda.. that seems to go a bit beyond objectivity.

          It is about seriousness, which fosters honesty.

          Soldiers are serious.

          Media are a joke.

          Really -- think about the reportage of technical stories. Can you read a newspaper story about IBM's Cell without cringing at the gross oversimplifications and outright distortions? Reporters are morons, and worse, they lie. Doubt me? Get interviewed!

          I have a simple rule about reports from the fronts:

      • by Hemogoblin (982564) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @02:53PM (#19105923)
        Propaganda: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

        I have tagged the article as such.
    • Its entertainment! War is the best game out there!

      And if you get blown up by an IED, just hit replay and you're good to go.

    • The best thing about propaganda is that once you realize what they want you to think, you can begin to debate and think about the opposite.
    • by ChePibe (882378) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @03:47PM (#19106353)
      Propaganda is a funny word with a million connotations. Sure, this could be called propaganda, as could much of the reporting coming out of Iraq from various outlets.

      Wars are hard to cover, and the mish-mash conflict/counter-insurgency that is Iraq is no exception. The problems are similar to those of any other big, contentious political conflict, such as elections, only now people are shooting each other, a reporter's access is often limited to a certain area and frequently only to one side, and the emotions run about 100 times stronger.

      I like the use of the word "propaganda" in Spanish better, as a word used to describe any advertisement as well as its perhaps less savory meanings. Propaganda tries to influence people, yes, but it can play a role in informing people. A car ad, for example, informs me about say the gas mileage of a car and attempts to convince me to buy the car at the same time. The information regarding gas mileage is accurate and factual, but it is not simply handed to me straight - it's done in a persuasive manner.

      News "reporting" has become more of the same, as the 24 hour networks seem to have a system where supposedly unbiased reports - and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're all biased - are viewed, and then commentary from a pundit whose main qualification is having an opinion is solicited, and this commentary runs just as long if not longer than the report itself. I for one am tired of hearing Jack Cafferty, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs (I particularly dislike Dobbs, but that's another post), Hannity and Colmes blabber on.

      The problems are not simply ones of bias - it's a lack of depth, and this problem exists on the supply and demand sides as well. American news outlets have consistently cut back on international news for well over a decade now, and other than a few select cities worldwide most simply don't have correspondents overseas. The results of this problem could easily be seen in the recent Israeli-Lebanese (well, whoever exactly the other party was - it was pretty nebulous) conflict last summer. The major wire services, news outlets, etc. simply didn't have many reporters in Beirut to keep track of things. They flew out their usual talking heads and depended on the information of local stringers, who often have their own agendas and biases built in. A textbook example of this would be the Adnan Hajj photography controversy [wikipedia.org] - a local stringer who doctored photos and used misleading captions to get his point across.

      Keeping reporters overseas is expensive, and combat embeds - the safest method of transportation for journalists in Iraq - isn't exactly cheap, either. If you notice, television coverage in the U.S. is often interspersed with clips of combat and other footage from the Iraq conflict recorded during the invasion over four years ago. Or from the latest 12 - 24 hour embed a reporter did with a unit, which is hardly sufficient time to get to know things. Troops also hate these short embeds, something I say from personal experience not as a soldier but from long discussions I had with a French friend talking about his military experience in Afghanistan as a unit commander. Reporters often kept his group from getting the job done. After putting up with a few embeds, he told all those who followed that if fighting occurred they were on their own - and he sure hoped they brought weapons and ammunition.

      But there's another reason for this lack of depth of coverage: Americans don't really care about what's going on in the world. Fewer than 20% of Americans have a passport at any given time, and I'd wager that 4 years into a massive troop deployment in Iraq more than 50% of the public still couldn't find the place on a map or identify its capital city. Americans tend to have strong moral feelings about war in general, good and bad, but few and far between are those actually informed. This apathy combined with the extremely
    • by bogjobber (880402)
      Yes, of course it's propaganda. Any large-scale attempt to change people's beliefs or ideas is propaganda. Obviously they're trying to get people to like the military more, but I'll wait and see if it's the good type of propaganda (giving solid evidence from their point of view) or negative (using fallacies and inaccurate evidence). As long as it's fair and factual there is no problem with information coming from a biased source.
  • I understand that being deployed military is quite a bit different from working in an office, but there are many, many sites I can't get to from my desk at work that I can get to at home. If I try to go to somewhere the network gods say I shouldn't, I get a big Websense error message instead.

    Gaming sites? Filtered. Hacking sites? Filtered. Gambling and porn as well (I assume, haven't tried those.) Recently, they've figured out how to filter the google cache of pages sometimes, too.

    Unfortunately, sometimes t
    • by ryanov (193048)
      There are a lot of differences here... working for the military is NOT like working in an office. Also, your office is not controlling your internet access while you're "off duty" at the office. I mean, I know the military is also not like being back in a civilian area and that internet access might be limited, but... c'mon, haven't these guys suffered enough without having their YouTube access fucked with?
    • At least some of the people who are using the DoD network are unable to go home to check the blocked sites. Iraq and Afghanistan are half a world away from America. And at least some soldiers actually live on military bases: even their home computer would use the DoD network.
      If people in Iraq or Afghanistan open internet cafes that don't censor YouTube, and are able to keep them open, then we'll be closer to earning that "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner.
  • blatant censorship (Score:4, Interesting)

    by evwah (954864) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @02:35PM (#19105795)
    the whole bit about footage too graphic for you tube... well by its very nature that is what puts the military in a bad light. sounds like propaganda to me.

    on another note... I'm in the air force, and for quite some time the base network has blocked access to the following (though some of the blocks have since been rescinded):
    1.e-bay
    2.something awful
    3.any flash content
    4.any URL with the word "game" in it
    5.any URL with the word "forum" in it
    6.countless other harmless sites that don't come to mind right now
    • by El Torico (732160) *
      Yes, this is propaganda, and everyone can recognize it, but that doesn't necessary mean that it is false. A definition of propaganda is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." (as provided by Dictionary.com). We need to take a critical look at the content and determine if it is true or false; not just dismiss the entire channel.

      As to network access, I'm surprised that Internet access is so prevalent in military offices
  • dont watch it then (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wizardforce (1005805) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @02:37PM (#19105811) Journal
    just because the military puts up its own youtube channel doesnt mean you HAVE TO watch it. the right to speak/broadcast doesnt mean anyone will listen. keep that in mind
    • by dangitman (862676)

      just because the military puts up its own youtube channel doesnt mean you HAVE TO watch it

      Yes. That hardly needs to be pointed out. So, what's your point?

  • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @02:39PM (#19105827)
    ... until it has sleeping cats falling off TV's, narcoleptic dogs and drunk people doing the Macarena.
  • Is that classified? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by John Vai (150587) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @02:40PM (#19105839)
    Here is a nice video from the good american army educating the Iraqi population?
    Is that the kind of classified information we should not allow the marines to post?
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c4_1176720508&p=1 [liveleak.com]

    John Vai
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Chris Daniel (807289)
      Apparently, those are Afghan children, not Iraqi children.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by sponga (739683)
      That was in Afghanistan and not Iraq before you get too many 'interesting' mod points for false info even though it says 'Life as a Grunt in Afghanistan'; besides it doesn't rain there like in the video and they have nowhere near the good weed/hash that Afghanistan has. I was over in Afghanistan and brought back an ounce of Afghan Hash after getting injured; one of the little Afghan kids tried to extort charges from me for more money and said if I didn't pay more he would go tell my Sarge.

      The situation is d
    • by dominion (3153)

      The funniest part about this video is when he brags about how he swears at the kids and calls them names in English, and because they can't speak the language, they don't know what he's saying.

      And the whole time I'm thinking, "You jackass, you think they're not doing the same goddamn thing to you in Pashtun?"
  • by OriginalArlen (726444) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @02:47PM (#19105881)

    The footage is not picked specifically to show the military in a good light ...

    Oh really? So what is the criteria then? number of shots on target? cost to the taxpayer of munitions expended? rounds discharged per second?

    Entertainment value?

    I mean, c'mon, that's just such a silly statement. What other reason can the military ever have for releasing any media at all beyond terse official communiques?

    • by mochan_s (536939) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @03:01PM (#19105981)

      What other reason can the military ever have for releasing any media at all beyond terse official communiques?
      I would think the purpose is obvious.

      To recruit.

      I've seen TV ads where an FPS turns into the US Army video - albeit a little "Saving Private Ryan" hue to it all - and then a "sarge" shouting about the real challenge.

      The people who watch videos on youtube are the target recruiting age demographic.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pjt33 (739471)
        If the purpose is to recruit, how can they not pick clips which show the military in a good light?
    • You know things like:

      - accidently shooting your friend in the back

      - blowing up children by mistake

      - shooting at reporters as they wave the white flag of war... ect

    • How is this a troll, speaking of editorial decisions? He's not trying to insult anyone, or get them to flame. The socratic method is not a crime.
  • by im just cannonfodder (1089055) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @02:58PM (#19105965) Homepage
    well better post some true history on what the usa and uk are up to then so i'd better link these vids on mp3's to the site!

    Rory Bremner gives a hilarious and historical look at the history of conflict in Iraq.

    1 Between Iraq and a Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by43joQLYj8 [youtube.com]
    2 Beyond Iraq and a Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JCLwhwTmM [youtube.com]
    3 Beneath Iraq And A Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipa8DuKyN6I [youtube.com]

    Robert Newmans History of Oil:

    1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Ecd6361Ls [youtube.com]
    2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZefONsT1E8 [youtube.com]
    3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ0RX3vz-Og [youtube.com]
    4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLxxybJWVRI [youtube.com]
    5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsknJvrfSYA [youtube.com]


    WE ARE NOT IN IRAQ FOR OIL !!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWiLshk6fSU [youtube.com]


    an interesting lecture by Michael Ruppert: part on starts after brief music:The Truth and Lies of 9-11 A lecture by former LAPD narcotics officer, Michael Ruppert, held at Portland State University in November 2001. He explains how September 11th is connected with oil, gas, heroin, money laundering and the US stockmarket

    1: http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug95-hour1mix. mp3 [dvlabs.com]

    2: http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug95-hour2mix. mp3 [dvlabs.com]
  • This is completely pointless. I already support the troops. By and large, they are just doing what they have been told to do. I also have no doubt that Abu Ghraib and others all began at the top of the chain of command and worked their way downward, providing plausible deniability to the people who were actually responsible for it all.

    The only way that this is about the troops at all is in the sense that they are even there in the first place. This is about the U.S. invading a sovereign nation on false p
    • "The only way that this is about the troops at all is in the sense that they are even there in the first place. This is about the U.S. invading a sovereign nation on false pretences. It is about our soldiers dying not for our safety, to keep the country free, or to liberate an oppressed people, but simply for oil interests."

      And have you ever considered how oil is crucial to your standard of living? Have you ever considered that if america did not invade iraq to protect oil interests that it would mean givi
  • War Crimes Clips (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MrSteveSD (801820)
    I don't suppose they will be posting these:

    The famous "Awe Dude" air-strike on a crowd of civilians. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQUK5rA4DaI [youtube.com]

    Or this apparent murder of civilians driving by in their cars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnyjH5wusqs [youtube.com]

    Or the Apache killing these unarmed men in a farmers field, working on a tractor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmZRyNd6ru8 [youtube.com]

    Or executing a wounded Iraqi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W41srr6CQU [youtube.com]

    Blowing up Mosque's doesn't look so good either. http: [youtube.com]
    • Re:War Crimes Clips (Score:5, Informative)

      by chuckymonkey (1059244) <charles.d.burton@NoSPaM.gmail.com> on Sunday May 13, 2007 @04:03PM (#19106463) Journal
      Here, let me help you out a little. I happen to know the guys from the apache farmer video. Think about it for a second, it's night....late at night. How many people do you know work on farm equipment in the dark late at night? Also when we went out there after all of this you know what we found? Oh, wow missiles and rockets, the only reason that they didn't shoot at the Apache is that they didn't know where it was. When you can't tell the enemy from the guys that aren't the enemy bad shit happens. No, it's not right but it happens, just because you didn't hear about it in other wars doesn't mean that it doesn't happen either. Oh, and blowing up a Mosque we only do when there is good reason (think bombs) to do so. You're going to believe what you're going to believe no matter what someone tells you, but everything you see on Youtube and the TV isn't necessarily what the person showing it to you tells you it is. Also before you go waving around the Geneva convention about shit you may want to read it, I remember reading somewhere that if the enemy doesn't follow it you don't have to either and I do remember some videos of people having their head sawed off among other things. I feel for the Iraqis, as did most of my compatriots in Iraq but it's not our fault if shit happens... we cannot I repeat cannot tell the difference between the enemy from the innocents so some innocents do get caught in the crossfire. How about you blame the suits who put us there in the first place? I sure as hell didn't want to go and most people in the military are not the bloodthirsty sick fucks you seem to think we are. That's why I got out of the military, I saw way too much and couldn't stand the thought of my little girl never knowing who her daddy was. Nor could I stand to see another little girl dead in the street because some asshole decided to start shooting and grabber her to use as a shield. That made me equal parts angry and sick, I actually vomited when it was over and sometimes I have nightmare because of it. Oh, but you don't see those videos do you?! You also don't see the videos of the guys walking into a crowd of schoolchildren and then setting off a bomb hoping to get one or two soldiers do you? No, because you want to fervently to believe that the soldiers in the service are bloodthirsty animals to soothe your conscience for some strange reason. So you sir can fuck off and maybe try to get your facts straight.
    • Re:War Crimes Clips (Score:5, Interesting)

      by couchslug (175151) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @05:49PM (#19107077)
      "Or the Apache killing these unarmed men in a farmers field, working on a tractor."

      I notice you selected the SNIPPED version. Here's a link to the full version.
      Watch old boy play "hide the SA7", using his buddies and their equipment as cover. Note the whole interaction between the people, including the initial conversation by the car and the rapid ditching of the weapon in the field. I contemptuously defy anyone to link these behaviors to tractor repair. I work on ag equipment and tractors, and there is nothing among my parts stash or tool collection that is the size and shape of a handheld SAM tube. That is no grain drill section (note the dangling end cap when he runs), PTO shaft, or similar.

      http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001763.html [murdoconline.net]

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wdJo-eoLxI [youtube.com] (search 'helicopter kills" and compare versions)

      "Or executing a wounded Iraqi"

      How would/do/have YOU act/acted when you suspect(ed) an enemy fighter may be "playing possum"?

      http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/U.S._Navy_finds_soldie r_shot_wounded_Iraqi_at_Fallujah_in_self_defense [wikinews.org]

      "A known tactic of anti-Iraqi forces (AIF) is to feign injury or death, and the marine could reasonably claim they were still a threat."

      "Blowing up Mosque's doesn't look so good either."

      Nor does using them for military purposes, which removes their protected status under the GC.

      "Or this apparent murder of civilians driving by in their cars."

      All we have is a "stovepiped" view from a cam, with no overall context as to what actions were taking place nearby. Note the cameraman, "Doc" comments that no unarmed people were harmed, and he would probably have been in a position to view the cleanup. Those vehicles could have done a driveby or similar off-camera, but we don't know either way.

      "The famous "Awe Dude" air-strike on a crowd of civilians."

      Post-strike assertions go both ways, but the ground controller called it in during the ground battle.
      What did he see that we didn't?
      All we see from the video is a group of people moving purposefully in one general direction.

      Ideology-based conjecture is not proof.

      • Mod parent up (Score:4, Informative)

        by Solandri (704621) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @07:03PM (#19107461)
        The full version of the "helicopter kill" video was shown on ABC Nightly News. Watching it, it's pretty obvious the guys who were killed were looking around, trying to make sure they weren't being watched, and trying to minimize the time they were actually in possession of what looks a lot like a SAM launcher tube. It's very ironic that a version of the video edited to make the military look bad should show up in a discussion criticizing the military of propaganda.
  • So why the censorship? The DoD cites security reasons, but the Commander of Global Network Operations (DoD's Joint Task Force)"has noted a significant increase in the use of DoD network resources tied up by individuals visiting certain recreational Internet sites." The PDF released by the DoD reminds troops that this "benefits not only you, your fellow Servicemembers, and Civilian employees, but preserves our vital networks for conducting official DoD business in peace and war." Sounds like quite a sticky situation."

    Why the hell doesn't the world's largest military have the bandwidth to support our troops watching YouTube? We have missiles that cost millions each but we can't afford some Internet bandwidth? WTF?

    • by NMerriam (15122)

      Why the hell doesn't the world's largest military have the bandwidth to support our troops watching YouTube? We have missiles that cost millions each but we can't afford some Internet bandwidth? WTF?

      Because much of their field infrastructure, for obvious reasons of portability, is wireless and satellite based. It takes a little longer to launch new satellites to get more bandwidth than it does to upgrade your DSL service. Yeah, in bases they have decent bandwidth, but the same problems that any other comp

  • The war at home. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ushering05401 (1086795) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @03:27PM (#19106173) Journal
    No one is even pretending that American mass media is for the dissemination of unbiased facts anymore. Read the article, read the slashdot summary... all of it contains biased wording.

    I accept that this may be modded offtopic. It just pisses me off that everyone is pushing their agendas via a medium that has such potential to empower.

    The media climate has reached a point where even if I were to put together a youtube series depicting the life of veterans after returning to the states, chronicling both their triumphs and their tragedies, the series would be politicized by all the f*cking pundits and bloggers and politicians to where very few people could view it without preconcieved notions about my own personal opinions about war, politics, and the state of our democracy.

    Anyone else out there feel like you can't even trust what you see with your own eyes anymore? Do any other Americans out there feel like it is damn near impossible to speak directly to your fellow countrymen without having your words filtered through the opinions of the talking heads that fill their t.v. screens and babble out of their radios?

    Regards.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dangitman (862676)

      It just pisses me off that everyone is pushing their agendas via a medium that has such potential to empower.

      You're pissed off that people are using a medium with potential to empower, to empower themselves? Hmmmm. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

      • Um... your comment does not make a whole lot of sense. The point of a democracy is to allow the populace access to information from which they make decisions that will guide their governmental institutions.

        There is no democracy without access to unbiased information. The practice of manipulating information is anti-democracy and anti-America. My point is that information manipulation is now the status-quo.

        Americans are not supposed to agree or disagree with governmental agendas, but to set the agendas.

        Re
    • by geek (5680)
      Take some literary theory classes and you will quickly begin to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to seperate writers from bias. In the few rare occasions that you can (stereo instructions for example) the READER will still add their own bias to their interpretation of it.

      The media is doing exactly what it always has done. Provided facts laced with opinions. This has been going on since the dawn of time. Our jobs as readers are to parse that information as best we can. Reading it is a active, not
      • You make an excellent point, but there is a difference that has developed over the past hundred years or so.

        Information is no longer garnered from sources that you can evaluate through direct personal experience with the source. There is no prior period in history where individuals recieved their immediate information via sources that they could not use direct personal experience to evaluate, or to hold accountable for erroneous actions motivated by the receipt of erroneous information.

        If I choose to belie
  • by davmoo (63521) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @03:39PM (#19106287)
    Is there really some reason they needed this when they already have DVIDS [dvidshub.net]?
  • if they can only access the internets to actually upload stuff *at home* then anything they upload will be 6 to 15 months out of date. Firstly, this means that it's unlikely that anything that would compromise current operations would get out and secondly, it means that as Iraq descends further into chaos, the youtube clips will be showing an Iraq 6 to 15 months earlier when it wasn't quite so bad.
  • by CaroKann (795685) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @03:57PM (#19106435)
    According to the article, the channel is named "Multi-National Force-Iraq", but a search on YouTube does not turn up anything.
    The article states it is the 16th most subscribed channel on YouTube, but I don't see it anywhere in the top subscribed channel list.

    Did the military or YouTube remove it?

"Pascal is Pascal is Pascal is dog meat." -- M. Devine and P. Larson, Computer Science 340

Working...