Yeah because torture and cold blooded murder is awesome!

http://collateralmurder.com/

Pretty graphic--an Apache vs. a man is a pretty brutal confrontation. Taken out of context it's easy to assume that it was a cold-blooded murder, but I'm not sure I'd have made different calls if I were circling above that courtyard. Those cameras looked like they might have been weapons.

It's not clear in the video, but if that group had been designated as terrorists, it does not matter how hostile they seem, they're legitimate targets. The problem being, of course, that they may have been mis-identified.

Also, I think that the Apache pilots assumed they were operating under a time constraint, and that they'd lose the opportunity to strike if they had to appeal to a high level for approval to engage. If it is indeed a time issue, the approval authority to strike is at a lower level, making the strike much more likely to occur.

What are we supposed to do? Play world police with sovereign nations?

When it comes to genocide, yes! The US is a signatory to the UN Convention on Genocide. It's leading article 1 reads: The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
The US and all other signatories to this convention are obligated to act prevent acts of genocide.

What about the innocents the US has murdered in cold blood during the war in Iraq?

I thought we were talking about Afghanistan. Though for argument sake, removing Saddam has still saved more lives than the incompetently mismanaged occupation has cost.

Should that be considered an expected casualty during some elusive quest for peace?
You think war can be fought without spilling innocent blood? The question is what costs more innocent lives, American 'peace' with Saddam while he remains in power, or American war to remove him. The benefit of hindsight already answered that question before the invasion began.

You have the power of hindsight that allows you the self-assured ability to judge historic military scrimmages that lead to the winner's version of 'peace'.
I declared the inaction in Rwanda to be intolerable, no hindsight was needed for that observation. All external powers saw the genocide coming, and had their troops on the ground removing their citizens from the country within hours of the violence breaking out, and had their troops and civilians safely away never to return immediately after. The UN force on the ground knew the genocide was happening too, they used that knowledge to withdraw all but 400 peace keepers from the region as well. The blood on Clinton's hands for failing to stop the genocide has NOTHING to do with hindsight and everything to do with the decision to mind his own business and choosing 'peace' over war.

@NetRunner, it's not that Obama just inherited the war; it's that he's not ending it and, worse, extending it. I don't care if he says he has a plan to end the war, because that's all talk. Reagan talked about smaller government, but he his actions proved otherwise. Lincoln spoke favorably of the Constitution, but his actions illustrated a disregard for constitutional rights.

I don't know how many people or states would get behind a peace movement. Maybe very little. Maybe a lot. I have no basis for an accurate assessment, just speculation. I don't like to speculate.

@bcglorf, there are travesties all over the world. What are we supposed to do? Play world police with sovereign nations? What about the innocents the US has murdered in cold blood during the war in Iraq? Should that be considered an expected casualty during some elusive quest for peace? Come on.

You have the power of hindsight that allows you the self-assured ability to judge historic military scrimmages that lead to the winner's version of 'peace'. But I'd like to see people like you use your powers of perception to look into the future and tell me how some of those are going to turn out: Afghanistan, Iraq... Iran? Will peace be the verdict? Do tell.

>> ^westy:

Regardless of u stance on animal crulty its ironic that the people r trying to get the dogs to fight and the dogs just want to sniff eachothers bums and hump.
if annything it gose in the face of dog fighting.
allso this video in no way indorses dog fighting.

It's not ironic that the dogs have to be taught to fight each other, that's just the way it works. These animals would not otherwise attack each other so viciously, as the likelihood of getting themselves injured or killed is too high. That's why animals develop various non-violent methods of resolving disputes (baring teeth, growling, raising hackles, etc.).

The main reason that this video is not amusing in the least is that the flip side of this coin is gruesome, inhumane and abhorrent. If these animals cannot be taught to fight viciously until one of them is dead or they are physically separated by their handlers, they will be killed. A fighting dog that doesn't fight isn't worth shit to a person who fights dogs. So while someone felt it would be fun to put clever musical touches on this particular video, I would challenge them to do the same to the video of these dogs being drowned, electrocuted, strangled, shot, hacked with a machete or all of the above.

This video absolutely endorses dog fighting, as it tries frame this phase of a fighting dog's life as amusing or cute, when in fact it is anything but. If these dogs do not "overcome" their natural urges to inspect each other and integrate in a peaceful social hierarchy, they will be killed by their handlers in cold blood.

The humor that is being attempted by the video's creator is not lost on me, but I cannot ignore the greater context of dog fighting simply because of some silly music.

I am a regular lurker here on VideoSift, and this is the first time I cursed the fact that I am not a bronze star user, as this is the first video I felt like down-voting.

I don't know, after the build up and shooting then the camera pans around.... and it's Tom Hanks! In my head I heard one of those record scratching YOINK sounds. I can't get a cold blooded gangster vibe from him.

It's possible that that at least some of those boxes on the Predator screen are part of the hack, as some of those guys may have had the Cold Blood perk on which would make them not have those boxes normally. No way to tell though with this vid. I've of course heard of these things before but I've never actually seen one from this side of the screen. I have of course run into a few of these morons though. Always wondered what it looked like though. Personally I could *kind of* see why one would want the wall hack part, since even with a wall hack, against a decent team your still going to get your ass handed to you, but the aimbot is just pure dumb. Whats the point of even playing at that point? The wall hack makes it to easy and the aimbot takes it even x10 farther. OR you could go the route of some I've seen and even just use a Rank Hack to make yourself instant Prestige x10 lvl 70 and tada! you win? I have no idea.

I read In Cold Blood a long while ago. You read it for awhile and think like it's just someone reporting the facts, but for some unapparent reason you don't stop reading. It takes a bit, but you soon realize that Capote is a genius. It all gets your attention, every simple aspect. It's unreal how the smallest asides gain your full attention.

^rougy
Have you never heard of "Breakfast at Tiffany's"?
He also wrote another bestseller after "In Cold Blood" based on the same Nonfiction Novel concept called "Music for Chameleons"

I don't know what you're getting at with this crap about "in April in the morning". I would put him up there with Samuel Clemens.

Total turn on.

Great find (even for a wall-eye).



The truth is, that was his one and only novel.

He was a great writer, but regarding In Cold Blood he had access to material that surpassed fiction.

A profound work. But that was the only novel he ever wrote.

(not that I wouldn't chew an arm off to do the same)

Yes. Truman Capote was a pretty good writer. I guess.

Perhaps in April...in the morning....

I always try to remind police supporters that the more people have to worry about the police the less safe the police themselves are. Here in Chicago people arm themselves because they are afraid of the police. How does that make police officers more safe? By not turning each other in and by following corrupt orders or enforcing unconstitutional laws they are making their own lives much more dangerous. Also millions of dollars each year go to paying lawsuits against the police here. It boggles my mind that the ones who should be setting an example for abiding by the law are the ones who can get away with murder the easiest. Firemen lead more dangerous lives and yet there are volunteer firefighters in every city. So what excuse do we have for not being more strict with the police. If they were held to a higher standard than the regular populace they would end up being safer since people wouldn't be so afraid of them. The innocent would be safer. More of the right kind of person would aspire to be a police officer. Instead they can shoot someone and not get into any kind of trouble. Even if it was cold-blooded murder they would probably get away with a suspension unless there was a huge amount of evidence that the rest of his buddies couldn't make disappear. Meanwhile if I accidentally kill someone I would go to prison. Absolutely backwards if you want to be in less danger working as a cop or as an innocent civilian.

>> ^dingens:
>> ^Avokineok:
Anyone know from which series this is? I'm guessing "Life in Cold Blood", but I'm not sure.

It's from a new BBC series called "Life": http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lbpcy

Hmmm, I just watched the first (and only so far) episode of Life and didn't see this clip. Must be a preview of a later episode.
Apparently it took four years to make this documentary series, 10 50min episodes, no wonder they can find these amazing shots.

>> ^Avokineok:
Anyone know from which series this is? I'm guessing "Life in Cold Blood", but I'm not sure.


It's from a new BBC series called "Life": http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lbpcy

>> ^Avokineok:
I'm always thinking about the great camera work, how do they do it?
Surely they didn't go and look for this gecko in the rain forest and be in luck that these few raindrops were falling perfectly when they had their slowmo cams ready?
As always, great vid from mr. Attenborough!

Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. To create one of the documentaries, BBC wildlife teams can spend months in places just to get a few good shots. That's why their documentaries are always so top notch.

Anyone know from which series this is? I'm guessing "Life in Cold Blood", but I'm not sure.

Wasted and wounded, it ain't what the moon did
I've got what I paid for now
see ya tomorrow, hey Frank, can I borrow
a couple of bucks from you, to go
Waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda, you'll go waltzing
Matilda with me

I'm an innocent victim of a blinded alley
and I'm tired of all these soldiers here
no one speaks English, and everything's broken
and my Stacys are soaking wet
to go waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda, you'll go waltzing Matilda with me

now the dogs are barking
and the taxi cab's parking
a lot they can do for me
I begged you to stab me
you tore my shirt open
and I'm down on my knees tonight
Old Bushmill's I staggered, you buried the dagger in
your silhouette window light to go
waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda, you'll go waltzing
Matilda with me

now I lost my Saint Christopher now that I've kissed her and the one-armed bandit knows, and the maverick Chinamen, and the cold-blooded signs
and the girls down by the strip-tease shows go
waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda, you'll go waltzing Matilda with me

no, I don't want your sympathy, the fugitives say that the streets aren't for dreaming now
manslaughter dragnets and the ghosts that sell memories
they want a piece of the action anyhow go
waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda, you'll go waltzing Matilda with me

and you can ask any sailor, and the keys from the jailor
and the old men in wheelchairs know
that Matilda's the defendant, she killed about a hundred
and she follows wherever you may go
waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda, you'll go waltzing
Matilda with me

and it's a battered old suitcase to a hotel someplace
and a wound that will never heal
no prima donna, the perfume is on
an old shirt that is stained with blood and whiskey
and goodnight to the street sweepers
the night watchman flame keepers
and goodnight to Matilda too