Originally Posted by
Madinq
I'd just like to start by stating my opinion on how unnecessary that Orwell quote at the beginning of the video is. Nineteen Eighty-Four is an elucidating book, don't get me wrong, but it does not apply to the content in this case. Yes, I'm sure you may be thinking right now of a reply where you are able to link the totalitarian regime of Big Brother to the encryption of military intelligence such as this, but if you are, please be reminded of how important encryption of such recorded data is in any war scenario. Whether this footage should have seen the light of day sooner than it did is another question, and one which I shall not attempt to answer, but the fact that it was initially kept hidden seems to be a non-issue with this held in mind.
That leads me nicely into my perspective role as devil's advocate. I'd like to keep this reply short to encourage discussion, so let me simply just throw a few questions out there:
Where did the intelligence of there being an RPG wielded by these "targets" emerge from? Is this video cut in a way to make it seem that there was no preliminary, legitimate warnings of a threat? I'd like to be able to see more of this footage: there is obviously, certainly more.
What were these people doing where they were? This is obviously an area of some particular concern for the military, as it seems well covered by personal. Of course, journalists (I believe two of the "targets" were Reuters employees [which raises another question, actually: who are the others?]) need access to dangerous places; but the front line, itself? Certainly not.
Lastly, how do we know this audio is genuine? What is said during the clip is incriminating in the highest degree, that is undoubtable. To return to encryption: audio and video would certainly be encrypted separately, and perhaps even stored in different files. There is evidence for this in the delay between the two, here, although that can be explained by many other means. I'll just ask: how was Wikileaks able to access both files, if this is indeed the case, and again: how can we possibly know the audio has not been staged?
I understand that many of these questions may have already been answered, considering the date of this news, but I believe these questions are still valid in a theoretical context. I would also like to state that any views expressed are not necessarily my own, unless stated otherwise, but rather the voice of potential curiosity translated through a personal medium.