Dawran survived but two of his children were killed
...means what exactly? Without context all that video does is provide valuable propaganda and publicity for a wanabee Taliban warlord or someone who ewants his deeds to to be recgnised so that he might sit at the grown-iups table. I (humbly) submit that there is nothing in that video that isn't already known by Allied forces in theatre. Imagine joe blogs sitting at home watching that, his interpretation is going to differ vastly to that of yours. His interpretative blanks will be filled in with whatever existing narratives he prefers. A Lefty, for instance will interpret the film completely differently to, say, an Amazonian tribeman. Or, indeed, for that matter a young muslim (much betetr to show them the aftermath, then again, wouldn't do much good, just inflame their already monumental inferiority/rage/envy complex).

Now replace Dawran with...Himmler, now what do you feel.

Sigfreid Krakauar (sp?) was an early film critic and theorist who advocated the kind of "realism" this film purports to exhibit (i.e., that the camera would strip away human interpretive bias based upon physciology or neruologicial pre-propraggimg/culture) and which was effectively blown out of the water by just about every one else (my favourite was always Christain Metz).. That later word is important. The work is like an exhibit, it provides the semblance of versimmilitude but we forget the subjective decisions that go into its production (i.e., editing). For insatcne, what's up with the geezer staring into the camera with his kohl lined eyes looking like some kind of reject form an 80's electro band? (@ 14.58 approx).