WikiLeaks chief says secret documents reveal ‘truth’ in war

[JohnOfSheffield]

Considering that these documents mostly concern the US military, I fail to see the connection.

And, while I believe that the state has a right to certain secrets, what has been perpetrated in Iraq (if this documents are indeed genuine) is an abomination. War isn't an excuse to abuse, rape, and torture people.

They concern a NATO military operation in which Australia are a part, Operation Falconer is mentioned which was one of about ten very substantial military operations.

The state can go fuck itself for all i care, military information should be released at the discretion of military intelligence and the civilian government don't even know half of what is in those papers anyway.

Soldiers commiting crimes will be punished accordingly, by the military, and the punishments will be harder than if they were civilians. I'd even be ok with a civilian court trial if you believe they should be handled with the silky gloves of civilian law but for fucks sakes do it quietly, you are not going to be any better off knowing about it and it may become a problem for the mission at hand.

I won't expect you to understand it though, i really don't and it's not because i think you're stupid either, you are just not military.

 

[Nebor]

Considering that these documents mostly concern the US military, I fail to see the connection.

And, while I believe that the state has a right to certain secrets, what has been perpetrated in Iraq (if this documents are indeed genuine) is an abomination. War isn't an excuse to abuse, rape, and torture people.

Uh, Australia was part of the coalition of the willing. They had soldiers in Iraq from 2003-2009. The Australians are examining the Wikileaks documents to see what impact it may have on their own national security. When you leak REL-A classified materials, it impacts more than just one country.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

A 3-fold increase in casualty numbers is hiding the truth.

Which is a nice way of saying the government is lying.

These lies keep popular support for the war or rather apathy for the war high.

We have been in Afghanistan longer than Vietnam, Iraq is soon to approach that pinnacle as well.

yes im ok with what wikileaks is doing. the government lied to start these wars and is lying about what is going on. im surprised there isnt more outrage over the huge amount of money being spent as well, esp given the state of affairs here at home.

i see these army people criticizing wikileaks for endangering soldiers and informants but wheres the outrage over how many people these wars have killed?

 

[Thump553]

Apparently the same soldier was the source for both leaks. something is seriously screwed up with our military's security system for one low-level soldier to have access to so much secret information from two different theaters of war, let alone be able to copy it.

 

[BeauJangles]

edit never mind

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

yes im ok with what wikileaks is doing. the government lied to start these wars and is lying about what is going on. im surprised there isnt more outrage over the huge amount of money being spent as well, esp given the state of affairs here at home

If they were examining the intelligence collected before the Iraq war then i'd be more than happy, that is not the case.

The Afghanistan war was justified on already released intelligence.

What is going on is that we are in the later stages of an occupation with very few real combat units actually performing as combat units these days, the withdrawal has already started.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You fail to understand the distinction between a state secret and a cover-up. The fact that (again, only if these documents are true) the US has been torturing and abusing prisoners is not a state secret, it is a cover-up. It goes against everything that the military, ostensibly, fights to preserve. You don't find it incredibly disturbing that US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan believe they are fighting for freedom and the American Way of Life while their compatriots are trouncing all over those ideals?

As for punishment, fine. If the military punished those individuals responsible for these alleged incidents, then let's see it. Now that we know they happened, let's see if anyone was held accountable. I doubt it.

It's nice that you can tout your own service record, but I don't particularly care. Your alleged service doesn't somehow render you more capable of making judgments about wikileaks, its founder, or their actions over the last several months. Sorry.

No, you fail to understand the distinction between what has been published and what is known to be true.

Some of these are initial reports on Iraqi handling on prisoners that were handed over, some are reports on abuse of prisoners in by coalition troops, that this is in reports means that it's known of and the people who committed those crimes are already in the military justice system.

I didn't tout my own service record either, i'm not Australian and me saying that you are not military is hardly "touting my own service record".

As i said, you don't get how this works and i've tried to explain it to you, if you still don't get it, that is not my fucking problem.

 

[halik]

^^^ thats some scary Orwellian crap right there.



huh?

Seriously, just put your tax money in the pile here so we can spend it on some country you'll never see. Move along now.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

If they were examining the intelligence collected before the Iraq war then i'd be more than happy, that is not the case.

The Afghanistan war was justified on already released intelligence.

What is going on is that we are in the later stages of an occupation with very few real combat units actually performing as combat units these days, the withdrawal has already started.

what do you mean it was justified? we knew bin laden was there but how does that justify starting a war and taking out an entire country and getting far more people killed than were killed on 9/11. now even the u.s. admits bin laden isnt in afghanistan, so why are we still there? we originally went to get bin laden but were occupying for entirely different reasons. it didnt make sense to start a war with an entire country just to get one person who isnt even a citizen of that country.

 

[halik]

what do you mean it was justified? we knew bin laden was there but how does that justify starting a war and taking out an entire country and getting far more people killed than were killed on 9/11. now even the u.s. admits bin laden isnt in afghanistan, so why are we still there? we originally went to get bin laden but were occupying for entirely different reasons. it didnt make sense to start a war with an entire country just to get one person who isnt even a citizen of that country.

Well Afghanistan was structurally aiding and abetting al Quaeda, so you can make an argument that topping that regime was justified.

Iraq, on the other hand, just shows that on average people are fucking retarded. CIA evidence of weapons of mass destruction is from the same playbook as pentagon pictures of Iraqi tanks by the saudi borders 10 years prior. Same bullshit decade later and no remebers enough to see thru it.

 

[BeauJangles]

...

Just edit out your reply, considering it's not worth discussing... hence me taking that whole thing down.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

what do you mean it was justified? we knew bin laden was there but how does that justify starting a war and taking out an entire country and getting far more people killed than were killed on 9/11. now even the u.s. admits bin laden isnt in afghanistan, so why are we still there? we originally went to get bin laden but were occupying for entirely different reasons. it didnt make sense to start a war with an entire country just to get one person who isnt even a citizen of that country.

This is the last part of this exchange, i'm going to educate you now so pay attention.

It was justified because the group (not only Bin Laden) was in the area of the Taliban, negotiations were started and they refused to hand him over or even remove themselves from the area so we could send troops to the location.

The negotiations stranded and the only possible way to get to him was to go get him ourselves.

The ENTIRE WORLD was on board, even nations like Denmark, Spain, Sweden were on board with this, such an attack needs to have consequences.

That's how the war in Afghanistan started.

I've written before, on numerous occasions why we failed to get Bin Ladin or defeat the Taliban, you are a bright little boy, i'm sure you can search for those posts so i don't have to repeat myself. Suffice to say, if not for the made up war in Iraq, Afghanistan would be in a VERY different situation right now.

The occupation right now is mostly to supply security for our own workers on ground, this includes everything from construction to medical aid to teachers, for the time being it's neccessary or "neccessary" to say we tried when we leave it and the Taliban tears it down, kills the people and take over once again.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Just edit out your reply, considering it's not worth discussing... hence me taking that whole thing down.

I didn't say anything i didn't mean so no, i won't take it down.

 

[BeauJangles]

I didn't say anything i didn't mean so no, i won't take it down.

I just asked you to remove my quote, I don't give a crap about what you said.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I just asked you to remove my quote, I don't give a crap about what you said.

Why? Did you say something you regret?

Either way, forget it, it's there and it'll stand as is.