Semantics" is pretty important when talking what connotes murder. But, stepping back, your response is a bit non-sequitur. What do you mean legal?

Under Chapter VII, the U.N. doesn't "approve" wars or invasions. They "restore international peace and security." Are the US and all the other countries involved not sovereign? In the scope of the U.N., even more sovereign than most?

So, was the invasion legal in the U.S.? The Iraq Resolution passed congress.

Coalition forces (not just the U.S.) have killed civilians. All actors in the conflict have. That doesn't make it right.

Arguing legality is a bit over the top. The rationales for the beginning of the conflict (WMD, etc.) have been invalidated. But, that doesn't change the reality at hand.

Stick to the moral argument.

All important points to raise.

But.

Not an awful lot to do with that specific video; which is our whole point about pushing the agenda. It was twisted from an important video about the killing of civilians into a statement about the legitimacy of the war.

That is exactly what Fox or one of the other big networks do to stories ;)

So you were totally undisturbed by the video because the rules of war were followed? I though the point of the video was to shed light on what that actually means.

In this case something which looks a lot like a fairly hasty series of actions that led up to a callous killing, even though it was within the rules of engagement.

Things like the idea of the "rules of war" exist to help the public believe that war is proper, hygenic and rule-driven... not a bunch of scared-shitless adrenaline charged youth on what is essentially an unchecked rampage.

The title "collateral murder" was intended to focus the viewer's attention on the appropriateness of the killings and thus of the war.

> So you were totally undisturbed by the video because the rules of war were followed?

God no! never said that.

I found it disturbing as well, even though I couldn't really find it in my heart to blame the guys who shot the journalists.

I think the point of the leak was to show the public a side of war that we don't typically see so that we might realize that war is actually quite an ugly, morally shaky undertaking.