We wouldn't ever have heard of this soldier if it weren't for the WikiLeaks video - and if they hadn't sensationalized it, nobody would ever have seen the video.
They did exactly what they were supposed to do: get the raw info out there, so that we can now all go through digesting it and picking it apart. This was the whole point in the first place.
Registering a domain name called collateralmurder.com with the lede "WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people" is not releasing "raw info".
They released the video, didn't they? That's the raw info (assuming they haven't doctored it).
It is true, however, that they stamped it with their own interpretation, which is that the slaying of a dozen people was indiscriminate.
This is contradicted by the soldier in the OP who feels that some of the slaying was discriminate.
However, WikiLeaks and the soldier both agree that the man in the van was collaterally murdered - and while the children survived, it wasn't for want of murderous intent. So, the domain name is certainly justified.
The video itself is not even raw - opens with a George Orwell quote, spliced in commentary, a slideshow of the children of the victims, edited, arrows pointing at "cameras", etc.
It's painfully obvious that Wikileaks "leaked" a video with a carefully constructed point of view.
The released TWO videos simultaenously. One was a unedited 50 minute long RAW video. The other one with the introduction was edited and shorter. The "biased" edited version does not include the additional missile strike against a building that killed a family of 4.
I have mixed feelings about this viewpoint. It's like taking VC money before you're ready. The world may benefit from your "idea", but your lousy execution is hurting your cause.
They did exactly what they were supposed to do: get the raw info out there, so that we can now all go through digesting it and picking it apart. This was the whole point in the first place.