plane: <<The production of that film was the purpose of shooting those soldiers.>>
So you're saying the insurgents would have been sitting around playing video games, smoking dope and watching hard-core DVD's, had the film-makers not knocked on their door and asked, "Hey, wanna make a movie and kill some infidels?" These guys are engaged in a life-and-death struggle in repelling an invading army from their home soil, part of which involves sniping the occupation forces, and just like the American army, they are accompanied by photographers who record their experience for news and posterity. The soldiers were legitimate targets and were just as likely to have been taken out (with or without a cameraman present) in the course of the struggle. Do you think Iraqis killed by the occupation are killed for the purpose of the six o'clock news?
<<The insurgency is makeing no attempt to take or hold territory , the attrition rate is much harder on them than us and they have no hope of matching our military in any sort of strength.>>
Sure they do. They can outlast you. They can take more of it than you can. They can take it longer than you can. But what does any of that have to do with the nature of the film?
<<But they can get a snuff film made and depend on CNN to carry it.>>
That "snuff film" is called news. The danger of getting ALL your news from the cameras of "embedded" reporters is that everything is seen through the sights on an American weapon. You get a sense of what "we" can do to them. But I think (particularly for those Americans who are so easily led into glorifying and supporting war) the "enemy" film shows pretty graphically that war is a two-way street and you see , not only what "they" can do to "you," but how easy it all is. That's not propaganda either, that is FACT. People who support war should know that fact. And see it in actual operation, because "knowing" in the abstract sense is not the same as actually seeing.
