Ah, but , why should war crimes not be classified?
What if there are other cases before this leading to the misinformation to the helicopter, and
- it not only led to the lack of timely information to be able to avoid the collateral damage, without posing greater risk,
although, under rules of engagement, this war crime is more than perfectly justified,
since, they are doing their job.
A little misinformation goes a long way, and , any interference in that line of information,
or, interference against those working in this field , would lead to more of this.
For instance, if they tried to cover up attacks against an inventory system inside the helicopter, or, of some other information systems specialist.
Once they bring the matter to courts, and, they deliberately refuse to hear the matter to lead to other damage, and , possibly false indictment for life, it increase the level of warfare required to be able to protect the other security of the other systems even before this happens.
If there are riots, this may also change the rules of engagement in case of armed conflicts against security.
It seems most of the intelligence sensitive info are parts used to balance other system interaction.
Of course, if it interferes against someone’s way to protect their work, and register how that interference occurs, so as to improve the security, then, it may be better to be studied.
Not all intelligence is published to everyone. Some intelligence have no use to be published to everyone, as they have no use for it.
Other intelligence can help them, although some intelligence may be designed to hinder them, and make them feel bad, when they try to find redress to wrongs done to them, in some form of psychological warfare, such as if their freedom of expression is wrongfully interfered against.
Not all freedom of expression is wrongfully interfered against.
Some interference of freedom of expression can be good depending on, if it will not lead everyone into riots from discrimination and abuse.
Let’s say I have a business where damage occurs, and that damage would not have occurred if I didn’t have a business there.
Although it would have saved me the damage to not have the business there due to unrest or other damage, and would have been more secure for me,
there may be other causes which damage to it may be better, in case that they would use the damage to give more funding, or, try to use to create networks while marginalizing others and so on.
If so, then, it should be integrated in the business for solving the problem, not the other way around. -Like, the party who got damaged from discrimination, give to those they marginalized instead.
It just creates more discrimination and attempts to support it and justify it.
It’s the same if they tried to create marginalization and attempt to interfere against communication about it, as a mean to marginalize.
Same vicious cycle, and, the target may be coerced into it, as coercion of variable, by using the target as variable, while they are trying to cover other fraud and association with their associate to do so.
That also goes for military.
If the funds for the army are not from good source, it can lead to losing the war, as in Irak, when they had funding problems.
Not only did they fund to attack the US, but, also , invested in intelligence for sabotage and assassination, and unconventional warfare.
That’s why, when this happens, military lawyers have to clear the matter before they hire the personnel, or, use the program, because , it can lead to misinformation.
And it’s not that it doesn’t happen from the civilian systems.
The civilian systems are also mislead, which is also part of the reason why it happens.
From that news, they represent collateral damage as murder.
It does happen a lot more than that in case of war, there are more collateral damage.
That it why it’s better not to be in a war zone.
It’s like saying, it’s the job of military personnel to kill so and so, in such and such conditions, in rules of engagement for war, but, when and if they do, they are not doing their job to kill, which they are paid for, to solve the problem of the war, and get peace, they are not doing their job, and it should be an illegal killing, or , illegal if done without control, or , by accident , because other by-stander were there, in the collateral field of damage.
Also, how is that not murdering the integrity of the military personnel flying the combat chopper in the war zone, risking his life for security ? Protection of a Nation, and protection of allies, if not in self-defense, and/or if not in self-defense.?
If I was there, taking photos for Reuters, and got killed, they wouldn’t have taken photos of it and classified it, I would have been dead on site, in the war zone, if not without authorization to be there in the first place, which would aggravate the matter even more, since it would potentially interfere against the success of the military personnel mission and cost of effective .
If I did talk about it, it may have been worthy of court martial for violating a non-disclosure agreement.
Some secrets for an advantage or another are not built by informing everyone for free.
Some of those secrets are kept secrets so that they can be used as secrets, and, when the secret is violated, or, disclosed, those facts come into effect related to the previous costs to keep that info or fact secret from who it is intended to be secret from.
It’s like going on a hunt and informing the prey how to protect themselves against your chess move.
The 8-bit arcade font, deconstructed
512,570 views • Apr 6, 2020
512K views - 2 months ago
Vox
8.27M subscribers
CC
we better dont post anything like this, ISD is watching
