Johanna Faust, a mixed race Jew, prefers to publish pseudonymously. She is committed: first, to preventing war, ecological disaster, and nuclear apocalypse; last to not only fighting for personal privacy & the freedom of information, but, by representing herself as a soldier in that fight, to exhorting others to do the same. She is a poet, always. All these efforts find representation here: "ah, Mephistophelis" is so named after the last line of Christopher Marlowe's Dr. Faustus, whose heretical success flouted the censor for a time.

Collateral Murder (by all of us if we do nothing)>


as if such acts could be justified. Had that really been an AK-47... that's a debate that will soon be populating comments and forums across the web. It was not, however, an AK-47. It was a camera. It was a fucking camera.

Justification hinges on the presence or absence of weapons. Doesn't it, dear reader? The issue has been called into question by Fox news; the matter needs to be double-checked, but is disquieting. Superb lying if untrue. Thanks to a kind soul (see comments) who served to bring this to my attention.

Updates as necessary.

& if you want tobypass the signin for Youtube here

UPDATE: Were there weapons?
UPDATE: Iraqi witnesses interviewed the next day.


  1. i was fooled by this. i am extremely disappointed by the way wikileaks portrayed this subject, as i am with the headline of this page.

    the men first fired on in the video had weapons. two of them (this has been admitted by by the editor AFTER it was released).

    so in context, these soldiers fired on a group of men congregating together in a known warzone (there was ground fighting barely a mile from where this was going on), 2 of whom had cameras (as they were reuters journalists), and two of whom had weapons (AK and RPG). this info can be found on the net, as the US actually carried out their own investigation (at the request of reuters) closer the when it happened.

    wikileaks mention nothing of these men having weapons, and instead portray it as an unprovoked attack. the attack was wrong and shouldn't have happened, but it was a mistake, not an act of evil.

    the one part that still retains any merit, is the part where the van was attacked, as the two men were merely helping an injured friend/co worker (combatant in the US' eyes) and attacking them was a direct violation of the 1st geneva convention, article 3. attacking an already injured and, believed to be, combatant.

    is actually as bad (worse in my opinion) as any distorted western media headline i have ever seen. the journalists were not 'murdered', they were killed and not in cold blood as the men, while not combatants, were armed in a warzone (as i mentioned before, this has been admitted by the wikileaks editor). the kids were not targeted. you put that in there simply to catch attention but it is worse than a fabrication of the truth, it is a lie. the children were in a van, unseen by the soldiers. you should apply for a job with the times or something because the sensationalism involved in your headline is astounding.

    one that i will give you, is that this was, in retrospect and on the face of it, unjustified that is, until you actually dig a bit.

    i'm extremely disappointed by wikileaks. extremely disappointed.

  2. this is the second time i have posted this. refute my claims if you want, just don't delete them once again.

  3. Explosive Monochrome [News Poem, April 8, 2010]
    “We had a guy shooting... and now he's behind the building.”
    “Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the brad. Uh, 'bout there... one o'clock. Haven't seen anything since then.”
    “Just fuck it. Once you get on 'em just open 'em up.”

    With monochrome eyeballs the whirlybird watches
    And likewise we're fixed on the ignorant target;
    And both of us think of the black and white movies—
    Those cellulose nitrates, those obsolete pictures
    Of characters featuring colorless faces,
    Of subjects long dead and the lingering stigma
    Of monochrome colors in digitized footage:
    The murder it plays out like X-Box Three Sixty.

  4. expandmymind:

    i did not delete your comments. just a few minutes ago i changed formatting - to optimize my latest posts - but otherwise, nothing. when were they deleted? i want to know.

    can you give me sources for your claim that they had weapons? i find no credible ones other than the statements made in the video, credible to those who authorized the shooting who could not verify the observation.

    Reuters journalists carrying AK-47s, much less RPGs, makes little sense; rational people working in a war zone walking with weapons so casually with a helicopter overhead, absolutely none.

    i look forward to your response, an it be civil.

  5. first of all, just to get it out of the way (and i'm sorry i jumped on you about it but i had just myself realised that wikileaks kept the info of the 2 men with guns out of their initial 'leak' - very pertinent info and was extremely pissed off by them), if you look below at the 'recent comments', you can see clearly that i had to post twice. apologies for jumping to conclusions in the manner in which i did but i'm sure you understand where i was coming from.

    here is what you asked for.

    'Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons." '

    there was also a full investigation carried out at the request of reuters. you can find a link to it from here,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike_controversy#References

    the report states that an RPG and an AK were found afterwards.

    and journalists carrying guns does make little sense until you look at it in context. journalists in iraq, especially at that time, were being killed all the time. it makes sense that they would have an armed escort in a known warzone.

    but the part of the video with the van is definitely a breach of the geneva convention and the rules of engagement.

    here is an interesting analysis, but keep in mind that when this discussion took place, the information regarding the weapons of the first group was not known (they still refer the the first men as 'unarmed' and as having 'cameras' and not weapons)

    hope i was helpful.

  6. sorry, i forgot to leave a link for the last item i mentioned, i forgot to include it.

  7. expandmymind79:

    thank you: i am looking into it : if true i am most surprised and like you disappointed. i posted the article here, though i have to admit its got a strike against it, being Fox.

  8. and did i mention? oh yes i did - but thanks again, even if it turns out somehow to have been misleading.