Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 152

Thread: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

  1. #101
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Either way, those deaths would have not occurred if we didn't invade.
    So, as usual, it's our fault that the insurgents killed all those people? We drove them to it?

    They really showed us. Huh?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #102
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    My house is a good thing, attacking a country that wasn't a threat is bad. Major fail.
    Was removing Saddam from power a good thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #103
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    The documents are in the public domain, and Assange is not a U.S. national so the U.S. has no business trying to detain him in foreign lands. If you don't want documents getting out then you maintain security. The **** up here was with the U.S. military and no one else.

    If 1/1,000th of what the government keeps secret ever got out, there would be a revolution tomorrow. Our governments think they are above the law and that they can use our money to do whatever they want. The truth always becomes known, sooner or later.
    Hence the reason he should be assinated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #104
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    So is the U.S. government going to go and shut down any news agency that posts details?

    Too bad. Suck it up. The truth is out.
    No, but the United States government has the authority to arrest any journalist that illegally releases classified material.

    Too bad. Suck it up. Reality sucks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #105
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    This is what has been reported by various news agencies reviewing the Wikileaks documents.
    So it should be easy for you to find quotes that prove that.

    If you see someone getting beat up in alley you are not technically required to help, but that doesn't mean there is nothing you can do to help. Also, covering up the misdeeds of other is definitely facilitating them.
    This analogy makes no sense. If someone is getting assaulted in an alley, you have the legal authority to call for the police or to intervene. If a French police officer punches a French prisoner, the US military cannot rappel down zip lines and take the police officer away to jail. Once Iraq regained its sovereignty, the US did not have the authority to arrest or prosecute people accused of breaking Iraqi law within areas under Iraqi control.

    I just said. This is all stuff coming from the Wikileaks data.
    I know that it happened between 2004 and 2009, but I'm asking you when within that period these particular incidents took place. It's critical to know that because the US's authority varied between 2004 and 2009. If these things happened in 2004 in an area controlled by the US, then we have more responsibility. If they happened in 2009 in an area controlled by the Iraqis, then we have no responsibility.

    So was Rosa Parks, that does not mean the arrest has no political motivation.
    I'm pretty sure this arrest was less of a "political" thing and more of a "you cant ****ing leak hundreds of thousands of classified military documents you goddamn traitorous piece of ****" thing.

    I am arguing against the notion that "people in authority" should have sole discretion over what people should or should not know.
    If "people in authority" should not have sole discretion about what to classify, then by default, random people without authority must have discretion to publish things that the "people in authority" want classified. In practice, such a system would mean that there is no such thing as classified information. That's what you're arguing for.

    Not the wounded journalist, who never carried a weapon, nor the man who came upon the scene as he was taking his children to school and tried to save the life of said journalist. They were fired on despite having no weapon and despite the fact it was only a man trying to evacuate a wounded person. It does not matter whether it involves a civilian or a medical professional, firing on people for only tending to the wounded is a war crime.
    I have four quick questions for you. True or False:

    1) The unarmed journalists were in an active war zone in the company of insurgents armed with AK47s and RPGs.

    2) The US troops were legally justified in opening fire on such a group.

    3) It is legally justifiable to fire on insurgents who are trying to help other insurgents off the battlefield.

    4) Throughout this incident, the troops in question believed that the group that they fired at was composed of insurgents and that the van that was evacuating the insurgents was being driven by insurgents.

    This should help us nail down where we're disagreeing.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #106
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    So it should be easy for you to find quotes that prove that.
    You're here posting on this issue and how the leak is a horrible crime that should be severely punished. Are you seriously telling me that you never bothered to read the reports on what was leaked?

    This analogy makes no sense. If someone is getting assaulted in an alley, you have the legal authority to call for the police or to intervene. If a French police officer punches a French prisoner, the US military cannot rappel down zip lines and take the police officer away to jail. Once Iraq regained its sovereignty, the US did not have the authority to arrest or prosecute people accused of breaking Iraqi law within areas under Iraqi control.
    They would not need to arrest them. Maybe provide the evidence acquired in an investigation to a domestic body that might impartially pursue charges, or just released the results of the investigation and change policies concerning the release of detainees. Never mind there is the old-fashioned use of political pressure. You are acting like we were completely powerless and it just isn't the case.

    I know that it happened between 2004 and 2009, but I'm asking you when within that period these particular incidents took place. It's critical to know that because the US's authority varied between 2004 and 2009. If these things happened in 2004 in an area controlled by the US, then we have more responsibility. If they happened in 2009 in an area controlled by the Iraqis, then we have no responsibility.
    All the sources I saw mention them happening over several years.

    I'm pretty sure this arrest was less of a "political" thing and more of a "you cant ****ing leak hundreds of thousands of classified military documents you goddamn traitorous piece of ****" thing.
    At the time he had only leaked the video. Also, calling him a traitor is rather absurd. He was looking to make this information publicly available out of concern about the abuses being concealed by the government. That makes him a whistleblower. Obviously some people have a hard time distinguishing between the two.

    If "people in authority" should not have sole discretion about what to classify, then by default, random people without authority must have discretion to publish things that the "people in authority" want classified. In practice, such a system would mean that there is no such thing as classified information. That's what you're arguing for.
    Were the government secretly arresting and executing political dissidents would you expect the people in authority to let that information out freely? It would take someone outside of authority to expose the abuse. You cannot look at this in terms of absolutes. Weapons blueprints are not something that should be leaked, but information indicating research into illegal weapons or illegal weapons experimentation is something that should be leaked.

    1) The unarmed journalists were in an active war zone in the company of insurgents armed with AK47s and RPGs.
    I do not know if that is true. Just because some Iraqi has a gun does not mean that person is an insurgent. Also, if you watch the video they do not appear to be in the company of them at all. The armed individuals were across the street as I recall.

    2) The US troops were legally justified in opening fire on such a group.
    I do not think there is any indication that these individuals showed hostile intent. Granted, one mistook a camera for an RPG under circumstances that would be considered threatening. Like I said, I am not taking much issue with the initial attack, tragic though it maybe. It was the part after that I take issue with.

    3) It is legally justifiable to fire on insurgents who are trying to help other insurgents off the battlefield.
    If "trying to help off" means "evacuating the wounded" then hell no.

    4) Throughout this incident, the troops in question believed that the group that they fired at was composed of insurgents and that the van that was evacuating the insurgents was being driven by insurgents.
    Whoever they thought they were, there are no visible weapons and only someone attempting to evacuated a wounded person. Soldiers do not have legal cover to fire on people providing help to the wounded in any country. Had an insurgent shot a person in cold blood simply for attempting to evacuate a wounded soldier I do not think you would be so defensive of them. You may very well cite it as an example of how the insurgents are decrepit people who don't abide by the laws of war.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  7. #107
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    You're here posting on this issue and how the leak is a horrible crime that should be severely punished. Are you seriously telling me that you never bothered to read the reports on what was leaked?
    I've read all about this and I haven't seen anything saying what you're claiming. I'm asking for a link to the story talking about how we arrested the people we're talking about and turned them over to the Iraqis so that they could be tortured. I don't think you'll be able to find such a link because I don't think that's what happened.


    They would not need to arrest them. Maybe provide the evidence acquired in an investigation to a domestic body that might impartially pursue charges, or just released the results of the investigation and change policies concerning the release of detainees. Never mind there is the old-fashioned use of political pressure. You are acting like we were completely powerless and it just isn't the case.
    Again, you're operating under the assumption that

    1) Our information was solid,
    2) The Iraqi authorities didn't already know,
    3) It had something to do with our detainee release policies, and
    4) We had the authority to do something.

    All the sources I saw mention them happening over several years.
    If we're going to discuss the propriety of US actions in particular instances, then that's not very useful, is it?

    At the time he had only leaked the video.
    Yes, which is illegal.

    Also, calling him a traitor is rather absurd. He was looking to make this information publicly available out of concern about the abuses being concealed by the government. That makes him a whistleblower. Obviously some people have a hard time distinguishing between the two.
    Obviously, because that's not what a whistleblower is. A whistleblower is someone who reports suspected malfeasance to the appropriate entity designed to hear those things. Stealing classified documents and leaking them to the public does not make someone a whistleblower, it makes them a criminal. Under your odd definition, someone who leaked information to the Soviets because he believed that the US government was evil wouldn't be a traitor or a spy, they'd be a whistleblower.

    Were the government secretly arresting and executing political dissidents would you expect the people in authority to let that information out freely? It would take someone outside of authority to expose the abuse. You cannot look at this in terms of absolutes. Weapons blueprints are not something that should be leaked, but information indicating research into illegal weapons or illegal weapons experimentation is something that should be leaked.
    Again, you're missing my point. You are arguing for a system that would, in practice, mean that there was no such thing as classification. Whether or not a weapon is legal or illegal or dangerous is, for many, a matter of opinion. Under your system, someone could just leak weapons plans because he was opposed to war and didn't want to see people killed. That is an entirely unworkable and unrealistic idea.

    I do not know if that is true. Just because some Iraqi has a gun does not mean that person is an insurgent. Also, if you watch the video they do not appear to be in the company of them at all. The armed individuals were across the street as I recall.
    I notice that you deliberately ignore the presence of the RPGs. Why is that?

    And no, they were absolutely with them. They were traveling as a group down the street.




    I do not think there is any indication that these individuals showed hostile intent. Granted, one mistook a camera for an RPG under circumstances that would be considered threatening.
    ...

    ...

    This was a group of insurgents carrying AK47s and RPGs in an active war zone just a few blocks from where US troops had reported being fired upon. How can you say with a straight face that there is "no indication that these individuals showed hostile intent"?

    If "trying to help off" means "evacuating the wounded" then hell no.
    Well, this is where your personal beliefs and the law come into conflict. It's perfectly legal to fire on combatants while they are trying to escape from a battlefield, wounded or not.

    Whoever they thought they were, there are no visible weapons and only someone attempting to evacuated a wounded person. Soldiers do not have legal cover to fire on people providing help to the wounded in any country.
    Yes, they do.

    Had an insurgent shot a person in cold blood simply for attempting to evacuate a wounded soldier I do not think you would be so defensive of them. You may very well cite it as an example of how the insurgents are decrepit people who don't abide by the laws of war.
    Not really. If it's permitted by the laws of war, I don't see how I could really object.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    03-31-11 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,331

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    I have no clue if what this clearly sick individual is about to leak is true or not, but it is obvious it puts our troops and those of our allies in danger and is not helpful in any way.

    I would like to hear that this person has been placed in prison or better yet just disappeared and if asked the Pentagon had no comment.

    I believe there is a provision in Patriot Act II that allows for for people who are a danger to to held without charge virtually for ever and no one even gets to know where they are.

    I normally oppose this whole idea but in this case I can make an exception.

    When it is discovered who gave him the papers that person should face the death penalty.

    Yes it's harsh and I don't give a damn, who thinks so.
    You know when his site started to come out with accurate sources. I knew what was going to happen. Our government is different. They do not assasinate unless necessary what they do is they make the source uncredible. And surely enough they worked their magic that the guy was some pedophile and sexual deviant. It always works around the world to call someone a pedophile that makes people believe they are. If they are pedophiles then what is on their site cannot be true or taken seriously. At least it works with Americans. All what you have to do is call someone a pedophile and boom. All credibility is lost regardless if the allegations are true or not.

  9. #109
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray_Fox_86 View Post
    You know when his site started to come out with accurate sources. I knew what was going to happen. Our government is different. They do not assasinate unless necessary what they do is they make the source uncredible. And surely enough they worked their magic that the guy was some pedophile and sexual deviant. It always works around the world to call someone a pedophile that makes people believe they are. If they are pedophiles then what is on their site cannot be true or taken seriously. At least it works with Americans. All what you have to do is call someone a pedophile and boom. All credibility is lost regardless if the allegations are true or not.
    What exactly are you talking about? First, everyone involved was an adult. There's nothing about pedophilia. Second, Assange was accused of sexual assault by two adult women who he knew, including his former spokeswoman. Unless you're claiming that the US somehow infiltrated his circle of friends and convinced these girls to file sexual assault charges, I'm not sure what the point of this rant is.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    03-31-11 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,331

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    What exactly are you talking about? First, everyone involved was an adult. There's nothing about pedophilia. Second, Assange was accused of sexual assault by two adult women who he knew, including his former spokeswoman. Unless you're claiming that the US somehow infiltrated his circle of friends and convinced these girls to file sexual assault charges, I'm not sure what the point of this rant is.
    My ranting is that the US does not kill. They discredit. The only reason they would kill. Is if some scientist admits to experimenting with some sort of trixie virus. That can severely change the world. That is something the government would kill someone for. Now since I said that becareful of the men who wear sunglasses in movie theaters.....

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •