shoring up Afghan war support in europe

as a result of a leaked video i looked into the wikileaks website once again. (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/cia-afghanistan.pdf)

i read a couple more and the publicity is about a helicopter attack on iraqi civilians and reuters journalists. the radio communications tell there are armed persons, but i actually didnt really see any. even if some were armed, that was really it, most weren't.

the video is revealing because it shows the deliberate killing of the journalists, or at least that is the impression i am stuck with. it is also revealing in that it shows you can get killed for picking up dead and wounded. the killing of the journalists is not explicit altho the pleasure in killing is.

all in all i would say the pictures are not to damaging for the usia forces. it might be easy (i am not sure of that) to make a point about the rules of engagement, they were with a group, a few of them were carrying something (camera's) its rather similar to some of the machismo youtube helicopter films i saw a year ago, when i was looking what of that kind of material could be found.

so you could say it is the kind of views you'd expect.

typical is that there is no mention of the cameras, that are pretty visible, but there is of guns, that i havent positively confirmed. also typical is it appears the journalists are specifically targetted, and killed. its not a nice thing to look at, and i dont feel like going over it and the radiomessages 10 times in the hopes of digging up an indication that they consciously target journalists. a peculiar detail is that the helicopters actions and presence don't seem to induce a reaction in the people moving about on the street. unsuspecting is the word, for the aftermath the same goes, the helicopter being there doesnt stop people from trying to pick up the wounded.
wich gets them shot. so it should have stopped them. how i interprete it is that the activity they were undertaking wasnt expected to invite fire, the recuers that appear aware of the journalists status before they are getting shot form no exception in this hard to understand show of naivety.

it makes me think the group of man was actually doing something they expected to turn into no harm, well perhaps one should wonder if that is weird, it might just have been they were accompanying the journalists to an interview, and i assume you can walk even through baghdad without being shot from the skies usually.

so its a bit of a puzzle but i expect it not to greatly support reuters or anyone in making claims about undue violence, no matter that it is just what the camera registered.

now for getting to the subject of how to influence european opinions, i must tell i first read the 'confidential' informations on the icelandic politicians. except for that the cia wants them to start a homedefence (or something) militia, that is not a very revaling document. if anything it is the focus with general anti-violent attitudes that is telling. it is almost as if they don't matter what people do as long they support usian wars and military violence. funny is the detail how one advisor covered for the usian 'diplomatical' effort to keep things out of the public icelandic domain.
good to know that kind of attitudes can be expected from european politicians and are more the rule then the exception..

so on with the topic.

my first remark is i am not absolutely the report is genuine, it's a bit to easy on the topic or sth.
a bit to much out to pose certainty's that need not be imposed on the official classified agents to have acces to them.

furthermore i'd guess its a genuine ofshoot of a more explicit report and intended if not for wikileaks, for some european readers, like perhaps eg. merkel, and sarkozy.

what i learned from the report is obama apparently can be made to say anything the cia wants to "shore up support" for war in afghanistan. at least it treats his statements as a token.
it is somewhat typical that such happens in a context of woman liberation (in afghanistan) wich is supposed to make an impression on the french but, surprisingly, not on the germans. perhaps because they tend to watch television with less sexual preference's , or otherways because they assume that for some reason (some information or way of looking into the matter) the germans can't be 'turned' that way.

so what it has in mind for the germans is national pride.
in making a comment about that i can end my treating of the matter, the germans will be turned by positively contrasting them with nations (the dutch) that make no such nato effort.

so thats next to expect, a whiny uncle sam that is ranting about the dutch in an effort to acces more german and french soldiers. of that indeed we have seen a shortlived example when usia started saying the dutch are an actually very discriminating (against muslims) society.

we do have the rightwingers supported by the media, but on the whole in the streets the atmosphere is still relaxed. that is not to say incidents dont happen, or the anti constitutional attitudes of the dutch parlementarians are not to blame for that, just that explicit discrimination is less a trait of 70-80 percent of the dutch underclass then it ever was.

the discrimination we witness is caused through the anticonstitutional attitudes of parliament and for the rest typical rightwingers tapping in to their cruelty, prejudice and latent xenophobia as it exists evrywhere.

nevertheless i think usia was right in so far the atmosphere has been significantly worsened through the rulingclass efforts (of selfenrichment). their most serious followers generally belong to the category hopeless, and did even in nazism not find a job outside deathsquads etc.

then again, usia is just the same, where we sink boats with refugees they dehydrate them in mexican deserts, wich is also deadly.