The Wounded Boy In The Wikileaks Video

War is hell. Civilians get killed in wars.

Most of us have seen the Wikileaked footage of US military firing on unarmed civilians. The crew laughs and one says "look at those dead bastards."

Then, unarmed Iraqis in a van arrive, attempting to tend to the wounded, presumably to transport them to medical care. They are fired upon and one is killed by soldiers in a helicopter. Two children are seriously wounded.

One American indicates that it's the Iraqis fault for "bringing kids into a battle." The other replies, "that's right."

The man killed was the father of the two children. The boy was, in particular, severely wounded, but has survived.

Their mother has, not surprisingly, indicated no financial recompensation for the loss of her husband and the children's father.

Perhaps it's irrelevant, but this child, if he is to survive, considering his locale, will undoubtedly see this footage someday. And he will grow up, like boys all over the world often do, without a father.

Philosophically, would you condemn this boy were he to emerge, in fifteen years or so, as a terrorist?

Is it this child's responsibility to now rise above his circumstances and understand that no one meant him or his father harm, personally? And to manage any anger he may have in a constructive way?

Would it matter whether he was apprehended in a terrorist training camp versus if he was solidly identified as a hands-on perpetrator of a 9/11-type of event with mass casualties?

How would an average American (or Brit, Aussie, Moroccan, whatever) be expected to react in a similar situation to this boy's? Or is this already the case - we (in this case, Americans) were the boy when 9/11 happened?

reply to post by Hadrian


If I were that little boy in that situation, then I would probably find it hard not to be filled with anger. I don't think intentions matter; whether or not they personally meant him harm, his father is still dead.

What about you? You forgot to give your viewpoint...

On CNN Backstory today was a story about US special forces that gate crashed a party for a newborn child and shot it up killing amongst others 2 pregnant women not, only do these ridiculous actions engender hatred for generations but I see serious blowback in the US,the gang banger psychos in the helicopter and this mission in Afghanistan are heading back to American communities with a 'natural born killers' mindset,bad juju all round.

He could also grow up and use the experience to promote peace. Some people have better "stuff" inside than others. Revenge is a powerful desire though.

"Come on! Let us shoot!"

Seems fairly blood-thirsty and care-free to me.

I guess now we know why they recruit 16 year-olds.

Although, to my surprise, I did note a certain degree of remorse in the voice that rogered the transport change.

Again, another teenager learns the meaning of the phrase, "Hind-sight is 20/20."

Let's hope they learned a few lessons before they come home, as I know a huge gamut of them have.

When that boy grows up and decides to fight, I doubt he would consider himself a"terrorist", more a freedom fighter.

No, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest of he decides to avenge. On the other hand, maybe he'll decide to live a peaceful life to help end the cycle of violence.

I agree, it depends on the original spirit of the person. In this gender and circumstance, i am running about 65% in favor of the boy becoming a hater.

reply to post by anglodemonicmatrix


That's a good point. The boy in the video is one problem; the slightly olders boys shooting at him are another and different kind of problem ... perhaps with the potential for equally devastating results.

Originally posted by staple
He could also grow up and use the experience to promote peace. Some people have better "stuff" inside than others. Revenge is a powerful desire though.

He could grow up and promote peace. But is it likely? And could he be blamed if he didn't?

Some peole have better "stuff" inside of them, yes, but does it seem, in any possible way, rational that this boy (and countless others in similar situations to his) already has this on his plate and to avoid the violent ends of war, being a "suicide bomber," engaging in terrorist activity, killing others, he must rise above it all? That doesn't seem like an appropriate expectation for a child like this, does it?

But war yields collateral damage.