More Wikileaks.Follow

I missed the "jester and gesture" thing.

Wow, really??

That's not a typo. *Thus* is a typo (should have been *this*). Saying "jester" for "gesture" is just plain-ole using the wrong damn word.

Ok, I'm not condoning any wrong doing, but I will show how you all are biased in your assumptions.

Invading a country that was of no threat to you.0000
That was a political move approved by the population during the time. "You" are just as guilty.

Killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people and their children who were of no threat to you.

Ish happens? It's war. In a perfect situation, only the "bad guys" die. We have what we call the RoE, as long as the RoE isn't violated, i.e. attacking a place of worship, school or hospital with no real threat(or some similar wording), then it is not a war crime.

Destroying their infrastructure with aerial bombing.

Ish happens? Once again, this is war. If we call in for air strike, stuff is going to explode. Tell the Iraqis to stop doing terrorism and crime and people wouldn't needlessly be killed or stuff get blown up.

Aiding and abbetting the torture and execution of the people of that country. Covering up the torture and execution.

What was shown earlier in this thread was that the US was ordered in a FRAGO not to get involved unless allies were involved. That doesn't quite meet your description at all.

Targeting civilians with the excuse of hunting down the 'leadership'

How is this even proven? Are you claiming that there is a report saying "Yea, we totally pretended to be after Mr. Muhammad Jhaid, but we were totally trying to kill innocent civilians." I find that hard to believe.

Lying to the world about it. Lying to the media about it. Lying to their own electorate about it.
What lies? When were these done? This is something I am more able to believe since people do lie and its very easy to do so.

Allowing the rape and destruction of historical sites and artifacts that are utterly irreplaceable.

Allowing? So, you mean not committing? How is this a war crime? We didn't go over there to protect their "historical sites and artifacts that are utterly irreplaceable". This is war, ish happens. If they want their artifacts preserved, don't destroy it. It's not our responsibility to defend their artifacts.

Smothering civilian and agricultural areas and contaminating the water tables of huge areas with depleted uranium ordinance.

As much sustainment operations that are done, even if that were true, you would totally be focusing on the small minority(many which are probably not intentional) as opposed to the remaining majority of good.

Destabilizing the entire region.

How so? I'm pretty sure you're just making that up. I have an Afgan military officer in my military class right now and he hasn't expressed any hatred of the US presence. What is this based off of? Are you implying that us NOT being there will help the country more? Are you implying that the local police don't want us to train them to defend their own country?

Allowing the Shia takover of the country.

Based off of what? Sources where? Are you implying that us not being there will prevent the Shia from taking over?

Allowing billions of dollars to 'go missing'.
Sources? I don't doubt that some money was probably stolen as people are greedy for it, but billions? I heard a story about a few weeks ago about some Soldiers getting busted for smuggling over money. So I know that it happens and I also know when people use to proper reporting protocols, people are punished for their wrong doings.

Causing a mass refugee crisis leaving a country bereft of skilled workers

Based on what? Once again. Are you implying that removing our presence will allow the country to fix itself?

Installing a corrupt and powerless government that has no mandate to rule.....
Read above....

It just goes on and on.

There's about 3 things in there that probably have some merit to it, twisted, but some merit nonetheless. You really lose ground by saying obviously made up stuff like "installing a corrupt and powerless government that has no mandate to rule". We don't need a military to do that, that's what money is for.

I'm not naive into thinking that war crimes don't happen, but people are blowing things out of proportion to support their biased views and their personal motives.

PROTIP: If a patrolling unit commits a horrific war crime, i.e. purposely and needlessly killing innocent civilians to complete a mission, they probably are not going to send up a report saying that. They are probably going to alter it to say something else, so you know, they don't get put in jail. So, why you're under the assumption that these people willingly made reports literally telling on themselves, is beyond me.

Well, maybe so, but I've always considered a typo to be using the right word but spelling it wrong.

Shall I shant I shall I shant I?????/


Ok. **** it. I'm being paid very well to sit here at the moment and I got nothing else to do.

Invading a country that was of no threat to you.0000
That was a political move approved by the population during the time. "You" are just as guilty.

By a population who was lied into it using all sorts of fabricated evidence and scare tactics. I wasn’t guilty of supporting it. then or ever.

Ish happens? It's war. In a perfect situation, only the "bad guys" die. We have what we call the RoE, as long as the RoE isn't violated, i.e. attacking a place of worship, school or hospital with no real threat (or some similar wording), then it is not a war crime.

Glib answer that you use to make yourself feel better about all the dead people. You shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Ish happens? Once again, this is war. If we call in for air strike, stuff is going to explode. Tell the Iraqis to stop doing terrorism and crime and people wouldn't needlessly be killed or stuff get blown up.


See above. You shouldn't be there in the first place. Iraq did not attack you. The Iraqis did not attack you. Iraqis did not do terrorism to you. You were bombing a country that you invaded for no legal reason.


What was shown earlier in this thread was that the US was ordered in a FRAGO not to get involved unless allies were involved. That doesn't quite meet your description at all.


The Iraqis tortured each other whilst on the payroll of the US and with the full knowledge of the US. Also. Abu Ghraib. Bagram. Extraordinary Rendition.

How is this even proven? Are you claiming that there is a report saying "Yea, we totally pretended to be after Mr. Muhammad Jhaid, but we were totally trying to kill innocent civilians." I find that hard to believe.

Sadaam wasn't there.

What lies? When were these done? This is something I am more able to believe since people do lie and its very easy to do so.

Rumsfeld. Rice. Powell. Bush. All lied repeatedly and provably, numerous times to the media, to the UN. To the world at large, about WMD's and the threat that Iraq posed.


Allowing? So, you mean not committing? How is this a war crime? We didn't go over there to protect their "historical sites and artefacts that are utterly irreplaceable". This is war, ish happens. If they want their artefacts preserved, don't destroy it. It's not our responsibility to defend their artefacts.

There was no post invasion plan to guard sites of unique historical importance that have significance to the whole of humanity. The amount of irreplaceable artefacts that were looted and lost during the post invasion period is perhaps one of the greatest disasters of the whole sorry episode. Plenty of guarding of other sites was done. The Iraqi ministry of Oil being one of the notable heavily guarded sites.

As much sustainment operations that are done, even if that were true, you would totally be focusing on the small minority (many which are probably not intentional) as opposed to the remaining majority of good.

Not sure what you're saying here. Its gibberish. But you might want to start here in finding out about cancer and infant mortality in post-war Iraq . PDF .

How so? I'm pretty sure you're just making that up. I have an Afghan military officer in my military class right now and he hasn't expressed any hatred of the US presence. What is this based off of? Are you implying that us NOT being there will help the country more? Are you implying that the local police don't want us to train them to defend their own country?

Nope. the ME is in a vastly worse state than it was. Iraq has no govt. Yemen is seething. Israel is hunkered down waiting for the next conflict. So is Lebanon. SA is tooling up. Iran is trying to acquire nuclear means to defend itself. Turkey has a major problem with the Kurds in the North of Iraq. etc etc etc..Protip. You’re afghan buddy is being paid to be happy. Are you planning on paying the rest of the Afghans to be happy with occupation too? It’s never worked before tho.


Based off of what? Sources where? Are you implying that us not being there will prevent the Shia from taking over?

Lol. Sadaam was a Sunni. Iraq was a secular country before you invaded and allowed the Shias, backed by Iran, to take over. /Golf clap.



Sources? I don't doubt that some money was probably stolen as people are greedy for it, but billions?


Yes. Billions.


Based on what? Once again. Are you implying that removing our presence will allow the country to fix itself?

Do you not have access to Google in the US army? Or can you just not think what to type in the search bar?


Installing a corrupt and powerless government that has no mandate to rule.....
Read above....

Read about Iraqis Government here!

That’s all the spoon feeding I'm going to do for you.

And yes. I know I am just wasting my time, but that’s fine. Like I said, I'm being paid to do so.

That's not "targeting civilians", that's targeting Saddam & Co using faulty or obsolete information. Your quote says pretty clearly that the target was "Saddam Hussein and his sons".

That is just a fantasy world that you created to make you feel better. This isn't "back and forth" saying we're wrong, this is you all just denying to accept the truth. I've asked a simple question multiple times over and no one has yet answered it. Why do you support him bypassing the proper reporting protocols and just blogging classified information? There is no logical or rational answer to that, so you attack "grammar".

The only people acting like four year olds are the people who point out grammatical mistakes on an Internet forum where the original point is not misunderstood. It's a total distraction of you not having a point.



Except I didn't say Jester for Gesture, that was the assumption made by others. I just made the wrong assumption that "jester" had an additional meaning. It was just a coincidence that "gesture" would have fit.



I do get what you're saying, that is why I said that those reports aren't "police reports", like "Billy hit Susie". These are significant acts from mission summaries sent from the units on the ground. Only a fool would purposely do something unethical and then send up a report telling on themselves. Obviously this is appearing more of a difference of opinion on what the public think is "wrong" and what the military see as an "unfortunate happening".

In any case, all of that is irrelevant to my point that this individual had no reason to blog these reports. If he wanted to "bring justice", he should have done the correct reporting procedures.




Paul, I'll respond to you later.

Alma, you just don't get it do you?

So you attack me for something everyone here seems to know but you. I was born with a Language Processing Disorder, thus I added the disclaimer in my Sig that anything I say here may make no sense unless you can read Elnese. A term for how I write and speak, given to me by a best friend who proof read my homework back in 12th grade. She is a publish poet and by 9th grade had learn on her own, at lease 3 dead languages. I've earn enough respect here that most long time readers at least try to figure out what I'm trying to say. At least I know my spelling is at the 4th grade level, grammar tests at 10th grade and in every other area I test in the top 10%. My Reading score has been in the top 1% since at least 9th grade. For fun I read about quantum physics, though I yet to master the Math needed above Pre-Calc. Artist don't normally need to understand sub atomic particles.

Now try to tell me why Elleberg should still be view as a traitor for releasing [b]The Pentagon Papers to the press when no one in the Government was willing to listen to him, after he had sent the papers to top Defense, Administration and Congressmen.[/b] You do know this was the incident, that lead the Nixon staff to start burglarizing offices don't you?

One then cabinet-member, who was involve in trying to discredit Ellsberg was our Defense Sectary Donald Rumsfeld, who would As Bushes Sec of Defense, later make so many fail decisions in Iraq that he had to leave in disgrace.

Quote:

The release of these papers was politically embarrassing to not only those involved in the Johnson and Kennedy administrations but also the incumbent Nixon administration. Nixon's Oval Office tape from June 14, 1972, shows H. R. Haldeman describing the situation to Nixon:

[then cabinet-member Donald] Rumsfeld was making this point this morning. To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing. ... It shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.[15]

John Mitchell, Nixon's Attorney General, almost immediately issued a telegram to the Times ordering that it halt publication. The Times refused, and the government brought suit against it

.

Was my ex father in law also a traitor in 1984, for talking about the fact that he was in the Gulf of Tonkin and confirm the fact that the American public and even top Government officials had been lied to about what had happen. He also told the story of how he had been the last American allowed in Libya after Gaddafi had made it very clear we weren't allowed near Libya's coast. One of our dummy bombs had wash onto the beach and fearing it was a live bomb, Gaddafi wanted a expert from our Navy to come in and disarm it.

Or is that story still classified.

What about information about My Lai, finally being reveal a year after it happen, by Ron Ridenhour who had heard about it after he had join Charlie Company, trying to get President Richard M. Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress to look into what happen and only Morris Udall was outraged enough to demand something be done.

While war is and will be always ugly with crimes committed by all sides, it doesn't mean we can just look away when it our country leaders and military that did these things. Patriots are people who are willing to act when they see something being covered up by the government or harming defenseless civilians.


We study history of wars and conflicts, so in the future we can try to avoid the same mistakes of the past. Wikileaks shows us that our Leaders have fail to learn the lessons taught time after time in our own country's history.

Duh, because everyone in the military is of absolutely unimpeachable character, silly.

If they'd been done then action would have been taken and we'd all know about it of course. come on belk this is OBVIOUS. They just hadn't gotten around to it yet.

What the f'uck.

It wasn't a question, it was a face-palmed lamenting cry of bewildered disbelief.

And I won the next one!

Like I said...don't bother.