Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 152

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

  1. #141
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    Maybe the iraqis shouldve stopped killin each other as this is where the majority of the deaths would be.
    so, if the USA were to be invaded by another country's attempt to overturn our government by force, we could expect you to refuse to defend your nation from such invasion, since that might involve the killing of those Americans who were in league with the invading force
    not a very patriotic position ... but your point is made, that would certainly be safer
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  2. #142
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

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

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    so, if the USA were to be invaded by another country's attempt to overturn our government by force, we could expect you to refuse to defend your nation from such invasion, since that might involve the killing of those Americans who were in league with the invading force
    not a very patriotic position ... but your point is made, that would certainly be safer




    The post lacks any intellectual content and is nothing more than a cowardly attack by a resident partisan hack. Sorry bubba but if you want to run your mouth at me man up and take it to the basement.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #143
    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
    It is not my fault you can't keep track of what you were asking me. I only ever sought to prove what I said and took your demands for proof as being directed towards what I said.

    Yes, I proved the claim I made.

    I already showed it thank you very much.
    No, you didn't, but I can see I'm not going to get anything out of you.

    This is not something that requires information or expertise. Considering protection of human rights more important than other things merely reflects on one's values. It does not surprise me that our government does not put as much value on the rights of foreigners, that has generally always been the case save for where it lines up with geopolitical interests.
    And like I said, I trust them far more than I do you.

    Pretty much everyone meaning the media and past whistleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg.

    He was and is a whistleblower. You are demanding he be treated like a traitor.
    He broke the law and I'm demanding that he be prosecuted. You can call him whatever you want, but he'll he sitting in a cell as you do it.

    The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 in use in the UK provides protection for all means of disclosure concerning illegal activities. Initially there had been an exemption for intelligence and military, but that apparently has been repealed.
    And if you'd read that act, you'd see that it primarily protects disclosure to ones superiors or the government, not to the media. There are very limited situations where it can be disclosed outside of there, and even then only if other stringent conditions are met. Moreover, the act doesn't apply at all if the person commits a crime in making the disclosure. Leaking classified military information = a crime.

    It is not a matter of seeing what I want to see. The only time I spotted weapons was with two guys standing on a street corner who did not go to where the journalists that ultimately got fired on were. The Jawa report has an obvious slant and often makes outlandish claims. Many of the things they claim are simply wrong.
    Like I said, you see what you want to see.

    It was only a live battlefield because the helicopter opened fire. When it was not firing on them it was not a "live battlefield" so that argument is invalid.
    ...

    That's your argument? Seriously?

    Both protocols that the U.S. has ratified provide protection for the wounded and sick be they civilians or members of armed forces. It explicitly provides protections to citizens who spontaneously collect the wounded. The key here being "spontaneous" as that implies they simply come upon a wounded person and evacuate them suggesting a person may not be aware of an individual's status. Regardless of how you look at it, firing on a vehicle simply because an unarmed civilian is evacuating a wounded person who is also unarmed constitutes a war crime under the Conventions that the U.S. itself has ratified.
    No, it really, really doesn't. As I explained earlier, you're badly misreading the GCs.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #144
    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
    He broke the law and I'm demanding that he be prosecuted. You can call him whatever you want, but he'll he sitting in a cell as you do it.
    Does this mean you recognize I was using a popular and accepted definition as opposed to something made up?

    And if you'd read that act, you'd see that it primarily protects disclosure to ones superiors or the government, not to the media. There are very limited situations where it can be disclosed outside of there, and even then only if other stringent conditions are met. Moreover, the act doesn't apply at all if the person commits a crime in making the disclosure. Leaking classified military information = a crime.
    It explicitly allows disclosure to any group. As far as what you said about committing a crime, that would really be a matter of interpretation. However, if the British government also covers its ass that does not really change the point. Whistleblowers are generally defined by what they disclose and why, not whether the governments consider them whistleblowers. Since governments are often a target of such a person, that definition would essentially embrace a fascist approach to internal dissent.

    Like I said, you see what you want to see.
    Well then, point out the alleged weapons more clearly because I am trying hard to see them and they just aren't there.

    That's your argument? Seriously?
    How is that not a legitimate argument? The civilian came upon the scene and there was no active fire. He had no reason to know what happened or why so excusing it by calling this a "live battlefield" seems like reaching.

    No, it really, really doesn't. As I explained earlier, you're badly misreading the GCs.
    Are you saying it does not afford protections to civilians? I assure you it does. As the civilian was not engaging in any military activity as defined by the Convention there is no justification for firing on him.
    Last edited by Demon of Light; 10-24-10 at 08:48 PM.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  5. #145
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,309

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Laila View Post
    Did I not say they are just as bad as US/UK Armed forces killing civilians? There is no difference between who is doing the killing and I am well aware that Muslims kill Muslims much more than Non Muslims do.
    yet, we never hear you complain about that.

    But Iraq would never have fell into civil war if the West did not invade it, to deny that our actions led to deaths even indirectly is lying.
    Well, saying that the US invasion caused the civil war is quite dishonest. It's not like they were all honkey-dory with each other, before we invaded. Only that they were all too worried about what Saddam was going to do next, to worry about killing each other.

    "The war effort" has been undermined for years, the majority of British never supported it from the beginning and I hope one of the side effects of this leak is UK soldiers pulling out and investigation into both UK and US over our actions if proven to be all true.
    I do not care if we win Iraq. We should never have been there to begin there and I see nothing to be gained but more leaked reports about death, torture, rape and cover ups by our soldiers or someone else.
    Yep, the Lefties have been preaching defeatest rhetoric, from day one.

    I hope he leaks some more reports and I hope UK files are included. I have learned alot of interesting things that have been hidden. Like how UK forces managed to "lose" a most wanted Al Qaeda commander due to what I can only describe as incompetence.
    Why? What do you expect to accomplish? this is good propaganda for your side?
    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.

  6. #146
    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
    It explicitly allows disclosure to any group.
    ...under very limited circumstances and only after other requirements are met. Like I said.

    As far as what you said about committing a crime, that would really be a matter of interpretation.
    Whether stealing classified documents is a crime is "a matter of interpretation"? Interesting.

    However, if the British government also covers its ass that does not really change the point. Whistleblowers are generally defined by what they disclose and why, not whether the governments consider them whistleblowers. Since governments are often a target of such a person, that definition would essentially embrace a fascist approach to internal dissent.
    I don't really give a **** how you define whistleblowers, as the US whistleblowing law doesn't cover this guy. He's going to jail.

    Well then, point out the alleged weapons more clearly because I am trying hard to see them and they just aren't there.
    ...

    Like I said, it's not worth wasting my time when I've already shown you the pictures and reports. Spin whatever conspiracy theories you want, but I'm done entertaining them.


    How is that not a legitimate argument? The civilian came upon the scene and there was no active fire. He had no reason to know what happened or why so excusing it by calling this a "live battlefield" seems like reaching.
    Because it doesn't make any sense? Whether or not something is considered part of the battlefield is not defined by whether some random guy thinks that it's part of a battlefield.

    Moreover, even if we pretended like this argument made sense, are you seriously arguing that just a couple blocks from where US troops and tanks were rolling by, this guy pulled up and saw 9 dead/wounded dudes with AK47s and RPGs and didn't think "hey, this might be involved with some sort of military action"?

    Moreover, even if we pretend like he didn't think that, are you seriously arguing that the troops in the helicopter didn't believe he was involved in the action, as evidenced by their actual words?

    Are you saying it does not afford protections to civilians? I assure you it does. As the civilian was not engaging in any military activity as defined by the Convention there is no justification for firing on him.
    I've explained this to you over and over and over and over. The GCs apply in particular scenarios and outlaw particular actions. They 1) Do not apply in this particular scenario for the several aforementioned reasons and 2) do not apply where the troops reasonably believed that the individual was not a civilian. If you refuse to see what's put in front of you, there's nothing I can do about that.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #147
    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
    ...under very limited circumstances and only after other requirements are met. Like I said.
    They are not under "very limited circumstances" at all. Basically if the whistleblower believes the information to be true, is acting in good faith without a desire for personal gain, and reasonably believes disclosure through the official channels will result in actions detrimental to the whistleblower that person has protection under the law.

    Whether stealing classified documents is a crime is "a matter of interpretation"? Interesting.
    The question is whether information is "damaging" and if the information only exposes a war crime whether that release is damaging would be an open question.

    I don't really give a **** how you define whistleblowers, as the US whistleblowing law doesn't cover this guy. He's going to jail.
    You apparently "don't really give a ****" how the mainstream media or past whistleblowers define them either. The law not covering him is a result of the U.S. not wanting to protect whistleblowers in certain cases.

    Like I said, it's not worth wasting my time when I've already shown you the pictures and reports. Spin whatever conspiracy theories you want, but I'm done entertaining them.
    Perhaps we should submit the question to the floor and see if anyone else sees the weapon in the picture you posted here.

    Because it doesn't make any sense? Whether or not something is considered part of the battlefield is not defined by whether some random guy thinks that it's part of a battlefield.

    Moreover, even if we pretended like this argument made sense, are you seriously arguing that just a couple blocks from where US troops and tanks were rolling by, this guy pulled up and saw 9 dead/wounded dudes with AK47s and RPGs and didn't think "hey, this might be involved with some sort of military action"?

    Moreover, even if we pretend like he didn't think that, are you seriously arguing that the troops in the helicopter didn't believe he was involved in the action, as evidenced by their actual words?
    Honestly, I think it is pretty clear that the civilian's action are protected in any event, but let's pull back here: where do you get this idea of a "live battlefield" exemption?

    I've explained this to you over and over and over and over. The GCs apply in particular scenarios and outlaw particular actions. They 1) Do not apply in this particular scenario for the several aforementioned reasons and 2) do not apply where the troops reasonably believed that the individual was not a civilian. If you refuse to see what's put in front of you, there's nothing I can do about that.
    The individual was not armed and demonstrated no hostile intent. Whatever the soldiers thought they knew there were no weapons present with either individual and that this person was only evacuating a wounded individual. If they see any brown person in the area as an insurgent it does not give them an excuse to shoot all the brown people. They have no compelling reason to suspect the civilian evacuating the journalist was a combatant.

    Civilians are given explicit protections. If a civilian is not engaging in military activities then firing on them is prohibited. Evacuating a wounded person is not a military activity. You may use the "following categories" part to argue that the wounded in this case were free to be fired upon, a selective interpretation at best, but there is no such sanction given to firing on a civilian.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  8. #148
    Sage
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    04-28-17 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,095

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    Maybe the iraqis shouldve stopped killin each other as this is where the majority of the deaths would be.
    Maybe if UK and US didn't invade a country for no reason, destroyed it's only authority of governance and destroyed it's infrastructure we wouldn't have caused the Iraqi's to then turn to sectarian violence ...

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    yet, we never hear you complain about that.
    Absolute rubbish, I always bitch about other Muslims.

    Well, saying that the US invasion caused the civil war is quite dishonest. It's not like they were all honkey-dory with each other, before we invaded. Only that they were all too worried about what Saddam was going to do next, to worry about killing each other.
    Yeah and we removed that one thing stopping them from performing a free for all on each other. Job well done.
    Yep, the Lefties have been preaching defeatest rhetoric, from day one.
    Can't stand the 'left' were right all along.
    We had no role or business in Iraq, we shouldn't have touched it in 03 and even if Saddam was alive today. I wouldn't advocate going after him.
    Iraq was a war of choice not necessity and I for one do not care if we win or lose it.

    Why? What do you expect to accomplish? this is good propaganda for your side?
    Don't need any propaganda against the war, US and UK has been doing pretty well in destroying it's moral argument for war from the off set .... Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib tortures, stories of soldiers killing civilians. What else have we done? **** knows but I doubt it's anything good.

    And who is 'my side'? The Anti war? We pretty much won the Iraq war was BS when no WMD was discovered. No tick tick tick of a nuke/bomb coming to UK.
    Last edited by Laila; 10-24-10 at 09:36 PM.


  9. #149
    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
    They are not under "very limited circumstances" at all. Basically if the whistleblower believes the information to be true, is acting in good faith without a desire for personal gain, and reasonably believes disclosure through the official channels will result in actions detrimental to the whistleblower that person has protection under the law.
    And if he's not committing a crime in disclosing.
    And if the disclosure is judged to be altogether reasonable.

    You also gloss over the requirement that the leaker show that an attempted disclosure to his superiors would result in a detriment. In practice, requirements like this are often the toughest to overcome, and I see no indication that it would have been met here.

    The question is whether information is "damaging" and if the information only exposes a war crime whether that release is damaging would be an open question.
    This is just wrong. I don't really know how else to say it, but you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Stealing and leaking 400,000 classified military documents and diplomatic cables is a crime. That is not an "open question."

    You apparently "don't really give a ****" how the mainstream media or past whistleblowers define them either.
    No, I don't.

    The law not covering him is a result of the U.S. not wanting to protect whistleblowers in certain cases.
    What's your point? He's not a whistleblower under US law, which is the only thing that really matters to him right now.

    Perhaps we should submit the question to the floor and see if anyone else sees the weapon in the picture you posted here.
    ...

    As I explained to you above, that particular picture was offered to refute your nonsense assertion that they weren't anywhere near the group. Had you gone to the link I provided, you would have seen the other weapons.



    Here is the gov's redacted pictures of one of the AK47s and the RPG:



    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_ExhibitO.png

    Unless you want to argue that that gun is actually a fake and that the government (and the soldiers who were on the scene) are lying about the fact that the other AK47s and RPGs were found there, you're wrong. If you are arguing that, let me know so I can stop wasting my time.

    Honestly, I think it is pretty clear that the civilian's action are protected in any event, but let's pull back here: where do you get this idea of a "live battlefield" exemption?
    It's not a "live battlefield" exception, it's the fact that the particular section that you were referring to discussed what signatories were required to do after they had taken combatants into their power. There is no restriction on firing on wounded people on a battlefield. That would be exceedingly stupid.

    Moreover, you still haven't acknowledged or even discussed the fact that these things only apply to lawful combatants who satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

    The individual was not armed and demonstrated no hostile intent. Whatever the soldiers thought they knew there were no weapons present with either individual and that this person was only evacuating a wounded individual. If they see any brown person in the area as an insurgent it does not give them an excuse to shoot all the brown people. They have no compelling reason to suspect the civilian evacuating the journalist was a combatant.
    Well, there's nothing I can really do to argue against reasoning like this. You can think what you want to think.

    Civilians are given explicit protections. If a civilian is not engaging in military activities then firing on them is prohibited. Evacuating a wounded person is not a military activity.
    Incorrect.

    You may use the "following categories" part to argue that the wounded in this case were free to be fired upon, a selective interpretation at best, but there is no such sanction given to firing on a civilian.
    Incorrect.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #150
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,309

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Laila View Post
    Maybe if UK and US didn't invade a country for no reason, destroyed it's only authority of governance and destroyed it's infrastructure we wouldn't have caused the Iraqi's to then turn to sectarian violence ...
    Hell, by that logic, we should have never invaded Germany. Lots of Germans would have survived the war, if we hadn't.



    Absolute rubbish, I always bitch about other Muslims.
    yeah, right!!!!



    Yeah and we removed that one thing stopping them from performing a free for all on each other. Job well done.
    A murderous dictator? I can't believe you're actually defending Saddam!


    Can't stand the 'left' were right all along.
    We had no role or business in Iraq, we shouldn't have touched it in 03 and even if Saddam was alive today. I wouldn't advocate going after him.
    Iraq was a war of choice not necessity and I for one do not care if we win or lose it.
    Saddam would have forced our--not ya'll, but our--hand 'fore long. We would have been invading Iraq at some point. It's a good thing we did it, before Saddam's forces were strong enough to repel our attack. We saved no telling how many hundreds of thousands of lives.



    Don't need any propaganda against the war, US and UK has been doing pretty well in destroying it's moral argument for war from the off set .... Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib tortures, stories of soldiers killing civilians. What else have we done? **** knows but I doubt it's anything good.
    Why don't we see you cry-assin' about the atrocities committed by the Mulsim insurgents? Is it because they're the good guys and get a free pass?

    And who is 'my side'? The Anti war? We pretty much won the Iraq war was BS when no WMD was discovered. No tick tick tick of a nuke/bomb coming to UK.


    I recall, not long ago, you said, "'we' want the US to leave Iraq and Afghanistan. All we see from you, is basing the US and defending the terrorists. You don't defend their actions, but you sure as hell defend their motives.
    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.

Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 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
  •