US Military Launches YouTube Channel 348
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."
Isn't that the definition of.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't that called "propaganda"?
Typical work network rules (Score:2, Interesting)
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 the hacker sites have been the sites with the info I need for work, but the guy two cubes down has a VPN to his home up most of the time, or I just wait until I go home and look stuff up there.
blatant censorship (Score:4, Interesting)
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and for quite some time the base network has blocked access to the following (though some of the blocks have since been rescinded):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
Is that classified? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Isn't that the definition of.... (Score:2, Interesting)
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 murdered thousands upon thousands of people during his life, all of the channels besides Fox News made it seem like we conquered them, like we were raping their women, like we were killing innocent people on purpose.
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.
Points of view (Score:3, Interesting)
Heres a cute comic that neatly summarizes what I mean: http://xkcd.com/c106.html [xkcd.com]
What the Anti-War/Anti-Troops Crowd wants... (Score:0, Interesting)
What the anti-war and anti-troops (two distinct, sometimes linked groups with separate agendas) don't want is a source of public information that they cannot control or spin for their own purposes.
Aside from the obvious example of Fox News, all other TV news outlets have a consistent negative slant on the efforts in Iraq.
It scares the Hell out of the George Sorros backed loons that there might actually be an information source they cannot control.
War Crimes Clips (Score:2, Interesting)
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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFVnqUJWsiU [youtube.com]
Re:See All of you! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:See All of you! (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I am sympathetic to the idea. Not every soldier that goes to Iraq raps a few women and then guns down some kids. Hell, the entire 'surge' is based around the idea of sacrificing more Americans to save more Iraqis. Right now US soldiers are setting practically undefended in outposts all over Baghdad instead of turtling up in their bases and air striking anything that looks threatening. The point of the shift in strategy was basically to put Americans more in the line of fire and restrain the force they can use so that fewer civilians die. They are focusing on civilian protection instead of force protection.
I don't think people fully realize what this means. We KNOW that more soldiers will die as we expose them in an effort to defend the civilian population. I am sympathetic that the army is a tad irritated at being called baby killers while everyone ignores the fact that they are paying in American blood to reduce civilian casualties inflicted by both collateral damage and intentional terrorist/sectarian attacks.
Now, it can certainly be argued that this is a complete waste of American lives. It can certainly be argued that we would be better off to saying we are sorry for kicking over their iron fisted dictator that kept them you line, write out a big check, and tell them good luck on not committing genocide against each other. That said, give the army some credit. They are being told to pay in their own blood to achieve some political objective. If they want to show that they do more then gun down civilians, let them. God forbid anything other then tragedy be reported from Iraq.
Department of Government Duplication Department (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The war at home. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Is that classified? (Score:2, Interesting)
The situation is different in Afghanistan and people are not as hostile as I hear it is in Iraq; although the situation has gotten a little more aggressive over there in the last few months especially in the Northeastern section.
While were on videos here is a nice one in Iraq of a cute little Kurdish Iraq girl; well she was cute until the Muslims got to her.
http://www.filecabi.net/video/horrific-stone.html [filecabi.net]
We would see this all the time though when the husband would literally beat the wife into a bloody mess or a punching blow right to her head stunning her not to talk to us; yeah that shit is intense over there and the least of my worries is a couple of soldiers telling some foreigners to say thing they don't understand.
More actual Iraq videos and not ones from Afghanistan; not propaganda but actual soldier shot footage
http://www.filecabi.net/video/executegen.html [filecabi.net]
http://www.filecabi.net/video/getting_rocked-fixe
http://www.filecabi.net/video/Hunt_For_Insurgents
Re:The truth (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Isn't that the definition of.... (Score:2, Interesting)
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: if it ain't
At least the military knows what they're talking about, without which objectivity is impossible. Lacking knowledge, the media cannot be objective, and can do nothing but reprint their favorite propaganda from the 20th century.
The media broadcasts more propaganda than the American military is capable of producing. In the military, it would take three sheets of paperwork for every sheet of propaganda. The media is under no such obligation to document their "work," they can just make shit up when they feel like it and down to the presses it goes.
The American military is more objective than the media, and less propagandist.
Re:War Crimes Clips (Score:5, Interesting)
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_soldi
"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.
Re:See All of you! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The war at home. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:What the Anti-War/Anti-Troops Crowd wants... (Score:1, Interesting)
1. Spray'n'pray
2. Abu Ghraib (do you really believe it has stopped only because cameras were prohibited?)
3. Death count of civilians
4. Nobody forces them to go there.
5. They are occupying force
And no, I'm not right wing nor religious.
Re:What the Anti-War/Anti-Troops Crowd wants... (Score:1, Interesting)
> People understand not to blame the troops anymore. It's a really easy way to attack someone to say they are anti troops but it just isn't ever the case any more.
And still our troops are exploited on a daily basis for political gain. Whether it be a bold politician, such as John Mccain, advocating support for the surge in the midst of chaos, a weak politician, such as Nancy Pelosi, undermining this administration's foreign policy by talking to our enemies (the president of Syria), or the infamous al Qaeda propaganda machine. Our troops are being politicized left and right!
> The only people who are anti troops are the right wing nuts that want the troops to die because of their crazy religious beliefs
*sigh* I rest my case.
Re:What the Anti-War/Anti-Troops Crowd wants... (Score:3, Interesting)
And it's no surprise that DOD will be uniformly blocking access to these sites, for several years it has been specifically forbidden by the regs to us DOD computers for personal use. By most accounts, Myspace, YouTube, and the like are all for personal use. In fact many bases already block these sites on their networks. And it isn't censorship either. The government is paying for that bandwidth for official use only. We can't have our networks go down because too many people are trying to read their personal e-mail or post videos online, for the military this is our job, this is what we do every day.
There are plenty of sources of information that the military can't spin. If we want to we can post on Myspace or YouTube from our personal machines. If you're in the desert then you can visit those sites from the computers in the MWR center (Morale, Welfare, Recreation Center) or from the internet cafe if the base has one.