By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - "Afhgan War Logs" Leaked - US Covered Up Killing Of Thousands Of Civillians

STEKSTAV on 26 July 2010

A-BOMB... or A-TEAM, which ever you prefer. But someone or something has to end the madness! MADNESS I TELL YE!!



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 26 July 2010
STEKSTAV said:

A-BOMB... or A-TEAM, which ever you prefer. But someone or something has to end the madness! MADNESS I TELL YE!!


What about A-ROD? Would that do?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Kamal on 26 July 2010
oldschoolfool said:
megaman79 said:
oldschoolfool said:

I disagree. There are some things that the public should just not know. RIDICULOUS, especially when it is concerning the deaths of thousands of people.  I don't want to know everything,if it could hurt cause american lives Not proven, and regardless WE have a right to know even if it is a risk to soldiers lives, Julian said it himself, they have EVERY RIGHT to be angry about the deaths of innocent civilians. 

Wikileaks is not the goverment and it does'nt run the war. Why is the founder of wikileaks even holding a press conference,who the hell does he think he is. I think he's performing a Journalists duty, to inform us of the facts when noone else will. I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree with you.


comments included


We don't have the right to know if it risk national security and risk American lives,to say other wise is just selfish and wrong. I agree that collertal damage is unfortunate and it sucks,but it's an unavoidable part of war. I'll go back to the terrorist blowing up civilans with IED's and killing soilder's. How about we get angry about that. Let's not make the solider's that are risking there lives everyday for our national securtiy out to be the bad guys here.

What about the methods they use to "extract" information, or the inhuman way that got treated within inprisionment, with some falsely being their do you think it would of been right just to keep that information buried?



"Life is but a gentle death. Fate is but a sickness that results in extinction and in the midst of all the uncertainty, lies resolve."

leatherhat on 26 July 2010


ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

MARCUSDJACKSON on 26 July 2010

more like tried to cover it up sence we know about it.

besides this isn't news. you ever heard of casualties of war? wrong place wrong time? well maybe not the last one, but unfortunate enough these things happen in war.



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

Around the Network
O-D-C on 26 July 2010

WikiLeaks strikes again



zarx on 26 July 2010
oldschoolfool said:
megaman79 said:
oldschoolfool said:


We don't have the right to know if it risk national security and risk American lives,to say other wise is just selfish and wrong. I agree that collertal damage is unfortunate and it sucks,but it's an unavoidable part of war. I'll go back to the terrorist blowing up civilans with IED's and killing soilder's. How about we get angry about that. Let's not make the solider's that are risking there lives everyday for our national securtiy out to be the bad guys here.


so you don't believe in a free and open democracy? The freedom of knowledge/the press is a fundamental part of a true democracy, because without knowing all the facts how can people be expected to choose who leads us? If what these people are doing is risking lives if people know about it then IMO they shouldn't be doing it. They have a choice and they must be held accountable for their actions.

If you believe  we shouldn't have the right to know what is being done in the name of the people then you don't believe in a free and open democracy which is what the US is supposedly fighting for Afghanistan to have.

as for IEDs and human shields they are both terrible things and the people responsible should be held accountable but that in no way justifies covering up terrible acts by "the other side" and I would just like to add I do not condone violence of any kind.

@MARCUSDJACKSON yes I have but does that make it right? does it make it OK to cover it up? Yes all wars have civilian casualties but that doesn't mean that when it happens we should pretend it didn't, war is a terrible thing and I believe it should be a measure of absolute last resort and every step possible should be made to reduce casualties, especially when your "enemy" grows stronger every time an innocent is killed and the only way to win the war with violence is genocide.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

NKAJ on 26 July 2010
shio said:

In 2008, a AC-130 "Spectre" gunship carried out a ground attack on the village of Azizabad in Herat Province. The target was a Taliban commander. The report at the time said that no civilians had died. It only refers to 30 insurgents killed in action.

In fact, according to a UN report, 90 civilians died - 60 of them children as well as 15 women.

Meanwhile in September 2006, troops taking part in Operation Medusa moved into a large area around Panjwayi, west of Kandahar, and a known Taliban stronghold.

A Nato report found that 31 civilians had died - 20 of them from the same extended family following an airstrike. The leaked documents record 181 civilian deaths.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/secret files wikileaks exposes aposunseen afghan warapos/3723387

Wikileaks shows the truth once again.

Yes it has shown the truth that there is such thing as collateral damage.The US ,in general ,actually tries to prevent any civilian casualties,after all,how are they going to win the "hearts and minds" of the population ? The Taliban on the other hand,openly use civilians as hostages and don't show any regret in killing innocents.No doubt you wont see that side of the story because all you are interested in is trying to show how "evil" the US is.



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

shio on 26 July 2010
NKAJ said:
shio said:

In 2008, a AC-130 "Spectre" gunship carried out a ground attack on the village of Azizabad in Herat Province. The target was a Taliban commander. The report at the time said that no civilians had died. It only refers to 30 insurgents killed in action.

In fact, according to a UN report, 90 civilians died - 60 of them children as well as 15 women.

Meanwhile in September 2006, troops taking part in Operation Medusa moved into a large area around Panjwayi, west of Kandahar, and a known Taliban stronghold.

A Nato report found that 31 civilians had died - 20 of them from the same extended family following an airstrike. The leaked documents record 181 civilian deaths.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/secret files wikileaks exposes aposunseen afghan warapos/3723387

Wikileaks shows the truth once again.

Yes it has shown the truth that there is such thing as collateral damage.The US ,in general ,actually tries to prevent any civilian casualties,after all,how are they going to win the "hearts and minds" of the population ? The Taliban on the other hand,openly use civilians as hostages and don't show any regret in killing innocents.No doubt you wont see that side of the story because all you are interested in is trying to show how "evil" the US is.

How about the fact that US is killing thousands of civillians and then cover up their deaths?

And the US probably isn't even going to win the war. They're losing it to the taliban.



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Rpruett on 26 July 2010
NJ5 said:
oldschoolfool said:
NJ5 said:
oldschoolfool said:
NJ5 said:
oldschoolfool said:
NJ5 said:

Makes you wonder why anyone wanted this war in the first place... Afghanistan doesn't have oil, the population is made up of a ton of different tribes that don't probably don't want to be united for or against anything, and the number of terrorists only increases when innocents are getting killed after NATO sticks its military dick in places that don't want it.

The only ones profiting out of this is the military-industrial complex. I guess that answers my question.


Nobody wanted this war,it was the terrorist that wanted this war. The U.S. did'nt start anything. Not every war is as sinister as you would believe.

 

If the terrorists wanted it, why did "we" give them the satisfaction?


So when terrorists attack your home soil,your supposed to sit back and do nothing. I'm talking about 9/11. I'd rather have the American military fight on there home turf,then have another 9/11. It's better to take the fight to them,rather then set back and do nothing.

 

What's "their home turf"? There are probably terrorists planning attacks against the US living in the US right now.

Do you still believe that killing innocent civilians and constantly disrespecting other nations' sovereignty with acts like these is the path to eliminate terrorism? Do you not see how it makes terrorists stronger rather than weaker?

Colleteral damage is a part of war. It's unavoidable. It's unfourtnate,but that's just the way it is. What about the terrorists blowing up civilians with IED's on a daily basis and using them as human sheilds. Nobody seem's to talk about that. So were just suppose to sit back and do nothing,because it makes terrorist stronger. You know how many wars we would have lost,if we thought that way. The terrorist would even be stronger if we did nothing at all.


You can't win a war against an invisible enemy which can easily disappear. It's hard to call it a war in the first place, as a war needs a defined enemy.

A war without a clear objective always fails. As the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan makes it clear. It's like whack-a-mole, you kill one terrorist and two more jump up somewhere else. What's more, you're encouraging people to hate you and become terrorists.

Are you that narrow minded to not see the broad picture?  It's not the enemy as much as the means and ways for terrorists to obtain the necessary tools to cause legitimate destruction.  This means cutting the government approved, planned, supported funding of money towards the terrorists.  This means cutting off an ample supply of infrastructure that the terrorists have built up.     That is how you defeat terrorism or atleast smolder it.

The clear objective is to do exactly what I stated above.  That objective has not been a failure.   You are looking at a very primitive, old fashioned definition of War.  This is not the Revolutionary War.  We don't lineup and go at it man vs man.  

It's unfortunate that innocent casualties occur. Then again, the United States takes plenty of pre-cautions on avoiding these types of things.  The problem is, without directly risking United States citizens lives they can't always be 100% certain of avoiding all civilian casualties.  This has always been a case with War and probably always will.