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

shio said:
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.

Why publicize errors in an already controversial war?  That seems like a good way to lose support for what is intended to be a 'Good' cause?   I don't think they would cover it up forever just until they finished their work.

And give me a break.  The US beat the Taliban within 24 hours of landing on their soil.   American soldiers lose their lives on a daily basis over there just so a lot of innocent civilians don't die. 



Around the Network
Rpruett said:
shio said:
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.

Why publicize errors in an already controversial war?  That seems like a good way to lose support for what is intended to be a 'Good' cause?   I don't think they would cover it up forever just until they finished their work.

And give me a break.  The US beat the Taliban within 24 hours of landing on their soil.   American soldiers lose their lives on a daily basis over there just so a lot of innocent civilians don't die. 

And yet the US soldiers are killing more civillians than anyone else.



shio said:
Rpruett said:
shio said:
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.

Why publicize errors in an already controversial war?  That seems like a good way to lose support for what is intended to be a 'Good' cause?   I don't think they would cover it up forever just until they finished their work.

And give me a break.  The US beat the Taliban within 24 hours of landing on their soil.   American soldiers lose their lives on a daily basis over there just so a lot of innocent civilians don't die. 

And yet the US soldiers are killing more civillians than anyone else.

The US is the strongest military force in the world, ofcourse more people will die when facing them.  Especially, when terrorists use their own countrymen as shields.   There are more non-terrorists than terrorists in these nations. 

Maybe if the civilians were a little more eager to rid the terrorists, they would be out of harms way.



Rpruett said:
shio said:
Rpruett said:
shio said:
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.

Why publicize errors in an already controversial war?  That seems like a good way to lose support for what is intended to be a 'Good' cause?   I don't think they would cover it up forever just until they finished their work.

And give me a break.  The US beat the Taliban within 24 hours of landing on their soil.   American soldiers lose their lives on a daily basis over there just so a lot of innocent civilians don't die. 

And yet the US soldiers are killing more civillians than anyone else.

The US is the strongest military force in the world, ofcourse more people will die when facing them.  Especially, when terrorists use their own countrymen as shields.   There are more non-terrorists than terrorists in these nations. 

Maybe if the civilians were a little more eager to rid the terrorists, they would be out of harms way.

To the afghans, US soldiers are as much terrorists as the taliban. I don't blame them for thinking that, considering the thousands killed by US soldiers.



Is this really news I thougheverybody new thousands of civilians have died in both of Americas wars. Oh wait the US hardly ever reports on stuff that makes us look bad. Thank you Nato for putting a more realistic perspective on wars impact on all people.



Around the Network

here is the part i don't get when talkin about afghanistan and 9/11.

The list of terrorist that were given for 9/11 were all from saudi arabia and not from Iraq or Afghanistan.what does afghanistan have to do with 9/11?Based on that lsit why didn't us attack saudi arabia??oh i know why ;)

 

I watched a documentry called truth about 9/11 and after that i m not even sure "terrorists" were responsible for 9/11 to be honest.

Whatever ,,,,,politics is too dirty and twisted for me (or you guys for that matter ) to give a proper and fair opinoin.



 

 

 

Sorry double post



 

 

 

shio said:
Rpruett said:
shio said:
Rpruett said:
shio said:
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.

Why publicize errors in an already controversial war?  That seems like a good way to lose support for what is intended to be a 'Good' cause?   I don't think they would cover it up forever just until they finished their work.

And give me a break.  The US beat the Taliban within 24 hours of landing on their soil.   American soldiers lose their lives on a daily basis over there just so a lot of innocent civilians don't die. 

And yet the US soldiers are killing more civillians than anyone else.

The US is the strongest military force in the world, ofcourse more people will die when facing them.  Especially, when terrorists use their own countrymen as shields.   There are more non-terrorists than terrorists in these nations. 

Maybe if the civilians were a little more eager to rid the terrorists, they would be out of harms way.

To the afghans, US soldiers are as much terrorists as the taliban. I don't blame them for thinking that, considering the thousands killed by US soldiers.

To terrorist apologists, the US soliders are as much terrorists as the Taliban. To the millions who lived under an oppressive rule, the US soldiers are angels from above.  Innocent casualties happen.  (Even terrorist apologists understand this, they've watched plenty of self inflicted damages themselves).  



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.


Yeah well man the next time you look at your little brother, sister, nephew, niece or even your own child. Have a think about how the hell you would feel if soldiers started bombing your neighbourhoods killing them and everyone you know. Thats the most ignorant thing I ever heard, with your patriotic BS. There is too many unexplained things about what happened on 9/11 that I don't believe anything the media has been feeding us.

When terrorists attack your home soil?????? What like when america attacked Iraq. All 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. SAUDI ARABIA NOT IRAQ, Yet where does America invade? IRAQ and you want to talk BS like "lets take the fight to them". Shit even Bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian

Then America wants to talk about, they were trying to help those people in Iraq cause of human rights and shit. Well shit, all terrorists were Saudis and Saudi Arabia has Shari laws where people are getting beheaded and amputated but America doesn't attack them. Oh yeah thats right because they have a good relationship with Saudi. Its all BS and 



Rpruett said:
shio said:
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.

Why publicize errors in an already controversial war?  That seems like a good way to lose support for what is intended to be a 'Good' cause?   I don't think they would cover it up forever just until they finished their work.

And give me a break.  The US beat the Taliban within 24 hours of landing on their soil.   American soldiers lose their lives on a daily basis over there just so a lot of innocent civilians don't die. 

the fact the the Taliban is still fighting proves that they were not defeated, there government destroyed yes and the first battle won, but the US will never win the war in Afghanistan in the foreseeable future with anything short of genocide. Every civilian killed that leaves behind a relative potentially creates another resistance fighter. 



@TheVoxelman on twitter

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