Over 90,000 US Military Records Leaked

[pre-Vet 10]

I don't have so much respect for OMF to hang a bomb vest on a 10yo boy and tell him to hang around the bazaar where he has to pull a cord.

I do spit on that, they kill children as a resource, the coalition accendentally involves civilians in the war. thats the main difference.

Dont imagine you will ever get respect from an insurgent, they will kill you and your family in an instant when they get the chance.

.

Dont tell yourself "taliban fight for their country".. You really think its so simple? That is why they get friends from all those other countrys helping them? Thaths only the recuitment talk. Its about money, like everything is. Afghanistan is the gold mine for extremists and criminals world wide.

If they would figth for their country maybe they would have treated the local population a bit better, dont forget they slaughterd a lot of civilians before 2001 when they where the goverment. Stoning women because they got raped and killing people when they would listen to music. no trail just execution.

[Baff1 0]

Those 10 year old boy are orphans. They need the money.

It's not as simple as the Taliban using children to fight for them.

Those children aren;t "children" anymore. They are the same as adults. People who must fend for themselves in life. They will take whatever work they can get. Including placing bombs etc.

So the responsability for so many orphans in that country is mine personally. I contributed towards it financially. I cheer my troops.

So when I hear about the unjust treatment and abuse of children there, I must say it is not my first reaction to start waxing lyrically about the evils of the Taliban. It itakes two to make a war.

Can you find me factual examples and evidence of atrocities and war crimes commited by the Taliban. Of course you can. I am not attempting to portray to you that war crimes and atrocities are only commited by my own side. Like you I would prefer to think of my own soldiers as being above all that. (Although equally I understand it is not really my place to judge when they are proven not to be).

Because I wish to be able sympathise and understand when my own troops get involved in the horrors of war, I am unable not to extend the same levels of understanding to the troops of my enemies when they do it. I don't wish to do the whole double standard thing.

Once again it is counter intuative to believe that the enemies soldiers hate and abuse children. This is not natural human behaviour. While we can all find examples in all societies where this occcours, and perhaps more so in warzones, I don't think those kinds of actions define people as a race or a culture. Instead it is more likely to be dehumanisation. A propaganda process in which we seek to link our enemies with atrocities and vile behaviour so that our populations are more willing to kill them.

Obviously the Taliban will be saying the same sort of things about us.

In regards to your comments about why the Taliban fight.... the idea that Taliban soldiers do it for the money does not some how alienate them from me any more that it does when my own factions soldiers do the very same.

Why are you expecting me to apply a double standard to them? Because they are the enemy?

Bad things happen in wars. If you can't stomach it, don't start wars. When you do start one, do come crying to me when the enemy upsets you. Grow a pair.

With regards to treating their population better, it is my firm opinion that the population of Afghanistan has never in my lifetime been treated better than when the Taliban were in power. As sad a state of affairs as that is for the Afgahns.

I was chatting with some (stereotyped) American anti-muslim types in another forum and one of the chaps in his desperation to demonise the Taliban linked me over to some Afghans Womens webpage. A sort of WI styled page for Afghans.

He linked me to testimony after testimnoy of how harsh these women felt they had been treated under the Taliban. And howe much they all hated them etc.

What he failed to link me too, which they also all said......was how much better things had been for them under the Taliban. How much worse it was under the invaders.

So you can provide me perhaps with some collated statistics like Pathy does from his repuatable sources, you can slander the Taliban willful child slayers if you please, but I have read the words of the people in Afghanistan who we normally credit with being those who suffered most under Taliban rule, and they all, to a woamn, said they preferred it to ours. That our forces were a bigger danger to them than the Talibans.

And I am in no way willing to take your word against that of eye witnesses. Those who's comments displayed a greater personal insight than just singing along with their own factions propaganda tunes.

Under the Taliban a greater amount of Afghanistan new peace. And as harsh as their treatment of their subjects may have been it doesn't take much to be an improvement on war.

Listening to music? Is that really justification for killing or not killing someone?

The Taliban don't allow music so it's OK to kill them and orphan more children and miss when you are trying to kill threm and kill more children...

Sorry but if that's your idea of morality, it's really not mine.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Baff1

[-Snafu- 78]

You are quite correct I have provided no sources for you. My opinions are my own.

If you are about to post in a discussion you know nothing about, instead of making stuff up and stating it as fact, don't post.

[Baff1 0]

Baff1 don't start thinking I'm your comrade all the sudden. I disagree with you quite often.

Almost no one agrees with me about anything ever Mr.

I guess that makes me something of a crank.

But I am a good humored and nice one. I like people.

With the posters in this thread I share not only an intrest in the subject matter but also a similar taste in video games. And that is comradeship enough for me.

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------

If you are about to post in a discussion you know nothing about, instead of making stuff up and stating it as fact, don't post.

If I felt I was, I wouldn't.

If you feel I am, you are welcomed to ignore my comments.

If you are unable to recognise that the nature of the subject prevents scientific accuracy, prevents solid incontestable facts then your own understanding of the subject matter is parhaps a little limited itself? Just a thought.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Baff1

[-Snafu- 78]

If I felt I was, I wouldn't.

If you feel I am, you are welcomed to ignore my comments.

If you are unable to recognise that the nature of the subject prevents scientific accuracy, prevents solid incontestable facts then your own understanding of the subject matter is parhaps a little limited itself? Just a thought.

Facts are facts and Pathy used what facts we have available to put forward an argument and make very reasonable conclusions.

It does not matter if you 'feel' you are right or that you 'feel' that you know what you are talking about. Making stuff up and passing it off as fact just because one 'feels' they are correct does not slide.

Furthermore, I am not debating the subject matter (civilian deaths) because I, like you, clearly do not know enough about the subject whereas Pathy at least did some research.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Snafu

[Baff1 0]

Incorrect. What Pathy put forward are collated statistics that offer an opinion of a respected/recognised body of people (or 3).

I am willing to concede that he has accurately portrayed them (although truthfully I don't care about them enough to have checked).

And that his representation of their findings is factual, but that is not the same thing as claiming their statements to be factual or beyond reasonable dispute.

Their findings do not invalidate the findings of others in anyway, but rather add to the general overview. They provide an additional source of data from which an individual could base his own opinions and perceptions should he so wish to do.

It might not matter to you what I feel is accurate, but it matters to me. If it does not matter to you then I repeat to you that I welcome it if you wish to ignore my remarks. Further more, I would welcome your own thoughts on the subject matter far more than I welcome your thoughts on me.

To assume that Pathy has made some research and I have not is your choice to make and not one I care about enough to spend any significant time invalidating.

I think perhaps you might be underestimating me if you feel I have not been following this war (and a few others) for the last 8 years just as presumably many others have been in this thread.

I feel that to make a basic assumption that people here have not been taking the oportunity to learn about this subject rather flies in the face of them being intrested enough in the subject matter to respond to this thread.

As has been previously noted the bulk of this subject matter is not news. It is all public domain information that in my opinion you would have actively had to have tried not to be exposed to.

It's been on every TV set and newspaper and magasines and plastered all over the internet and radio and in books etc, daily, for the last 8 years.

Is there anybody out there at all that doesn't know enough about it to have an informed opinion? Quite unlikely.

I may not be an expert, like you and Pathy I have not conducted any research of my own, (I wasn't there, I didn't count all the dead or see who killed them), but I feel I have read enough on the subject matter to form an opinion of it and it is that which I have chosen to share with you in these remarks.

I hope in future you will be better able to distinguish when I am giving my opinion on subjects of common dispute and when I am stating the validity of empiricly measured facts.

I also hope that in future you will be a better judge of which subjects mankind has actual factual knowledge of and which are at best uncertain estimations and at worst the politically manipulated lies of the nature that Wikileaks has revealed.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Baff1

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

As some people always need it black on white.

Daily Casualty Count of Afghan Civilians Killed by U.S. Bombing

A study by Marc W. Herold, Professor of Economics, International Relations, and Women's Studies at the University of New Hampshire.

Professor Herold has been gathering data on civilian casualties sinceOctober 7, 2001 to May 31, 2003 by culling information from news agencies, major newspapers, and first-hand accounts. "I decided to do the study because I suspected that the modern weaponry was not what it was advertised to be. I was concerned that there would be significant civilian casualties caused by the bombing, and I was able to find some mention of casualties in the foreign press but almost nothing in the U.S. press," said Herold.

For each day since October 7, when the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan began, he lists the number of casualties, location, type of weapon used, and source(s) of information.

Professor Herold has sought whenever possible to cross-corroborate accounts of civilian casualties. He relied upon Indian newspapers, especially The Times of India; three Pakistani daily newspapers; the Singapore News; British, Canadian, and Australian newspapers; Afghan Islamic Press; Agence France Press; Pakistan News Service; Reuters; BBC News Online; Al Jazeera; and a variety of other reputable sources, including the United Nations and other relief agencies.

Afghan Daily Count (PDF 620kb)

Source: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/

Please note that only the period from October 7, 2001 - May 31, 2003 is included here and that the lowest estimation of coalition (US) inflicted CIVCAS is 3.073 and the highest 3.597.

You may also visit the "The Afghan Victim Memorial" websites listing the names of Afghan civlians killed in the consequences of coalition (US) actions.

1: List of Individual Victims – The Bush years- October/2001 - January 20, 2009

2: List of Individual Victims – The Obama presidency since January 21, 2009

[-Snafu- 78]

Incorrect. What Pathy put forward are collated statistics that offer an opinion of a respected/recognised body of people (or 3).

They are statistics collected from three separate studies all of which are relatively lengthy. It was not just pulled out of his arse.

And that his representation of their findings is factual, but that is not the same thing as claiming their statements to be factual or beyond reasonable dispute.

Of course they can be questioned but this is the same for all statistics. The war is still going and obviously not everything is 100% clear. Thirty years after the end of the war when historians can take a look at it we will know more.

Their findings do not invalidate the findings of others in anyway, but rather add to the general overview. They provide an additional source of data from which an individual could base his own opinions and perceptions should he so wish to do.

When one makes an argument they provide evidence to back it up. You made a claim that Allied forces kill more civilians than the insurgents. Where is the evidence?

It might not matter to you what I feel is accurate, but it matters to me. If it does not matter to you then I repeat to you that I welcome it if you wish to ignore my remarks. Further more, I would welcome your own thoughts on the subject matter far more than I welcome your thoughts on me.

Just because you feel something is accurate does not mean it is. You have failed to back up your assertion. What you 'feel' is irrelevant.

To assume that Pathy has made some research and I have not is your choice to make and not one I care about enough to spend any significant time invalidating.

It is not assumption. He has posted extracts from reports showing that he has searched for those reports and read (at least parts of) them. When historians begin to really look at the war 30 years after it has ended we will have a far better picture of almost everything but that is obviously a long time away. Pathy has made use of the facts available to us now.

It is clear you have not done any research because you said so yourself.

Wikileaks would be a good one, topically.

I did briefly consider trawling Google to find one when I wrote that, but I couldn't be bothered. My remarks are based upon my own perceptions alone.

Your 'perceptions' are not research or evidence.

I hope in future you will be better able to distinguish when I am giving my opinion on subjects of common dispute and when I am stating the validity of empiricly measured facts.

Unfortunately you do not make this clear.

The only problem is we kill far more women and children than they do.

You stated it as if it were fact, no hint at all that it is an opinion. Which doesn't really make sense as Allied forces either have or have not. That's not something that's down to opinion.

[Baff1 0]

While they allies either" have or have not", the ability for any one of us, or indeed any body of us to ascertain that information is not empiric. No study will be able to resolve that dilemma for you. In the end it's going to be a judgement call that you will have to make for yourself.

I've made mine and I've taken the time to share it with you.

Pathy does not agree with it and has taken the time and effort to give me an insight into why he feels differently about it.

When one makes an argument they provide evidence to back it up. You made a claim that Allied forces kill more civilians than the insurgents. Where is the evidence?.

I have offered you my opinion. You wish to make an argument of it. I do not.

I've been around long enough in life to know that me pulling studies out of my arse like the one posted above or the ones posted by Pathy will not convince anyone, who does not wish to believe it, any different. That instead of addressing the issues I am intrested in such as the validity and usefulness of the tactic of "courageous restraint" or the political and strategic ramifications of the Wikileaks releases I am instead going to get red herringed into some long and frankly boring dissection of casualty rate studies I have already evaluated enough to pass personal judgement on.

I have read a good many of these kinds of things before and am not intrested in dissecting any more. Should you wish to please go right on ahead.

My opinions are not research or study nor do they make any claim for them to be. They are however influenced by the odd research and studies I have read over the years. I fully expect yours to have been also and I expect that from most of the people here commenting.

Make no mistakes all those studies make assumptions. None of them are irrefutably accurate. No one study free from bias. The ones that agree with me and the ones that don't. All of them. There is no one witness who saw all the killing who has counted all the dead. You know it and I know it. So you will have to decide for yourself what the facts are. I can't prove any to you, only give you my opinion of them and perhaps an insight into the nature of how I came to those conclusions

Myself, I am not here for the arguments you seek.

I am far more intrested in your personal opinion than someone elses supporting opinion that, since this is the internet, anyone of us can pull out of our arses at any time.

To whit if you or Pathy seek to hide your opinions behind someone elses they defeat entirely my intrest in internet forums for their ability to connect me directly with the opinions of my peers and discuss them together.

Had you wished to learn more you could have searched and found what the poster above has found or indeed many more like it. My doing it for you doesn't make it any more or less true. Had you truely sought the evidence you are asking for, you would not need me to post links to it for you. But you don't seek it. You just seek argument.

Aside from trolling me you have shown no particular intrest in commenting on this topic whatsoever. As per usual.

Why humor you?

Why on earth do you feel I would be willing to waste my time hunting down studies and researches for you to dismiss out of hand just because you enjoy argument?

If you can't speak for yourself, if you need to quote me the opinions of peope I have already read to validate yourself, your comment is of very limited intrest to me. I'm not looking for facts, I'm looking for personal opinion and comment. You haven't provided either. All you've managed is a personal critique of me, a subject which while I'm flattered is a little too far off topic.

I don't need you to validate your opinion to me. I am ready to accept it at face value the moment you are ready to give it. Should I feel the need to dispute it with you I may be intrested enough to provide you with google links to reinforce my position, but sadly, I'm not so inclined. I rarely am.

We've all got Google. You are quite as able to look things up for yourself as I am and in fact, you are more likely to learn and absorb such information if you seek it out yourself than if you are presented it by a person whose judgement you do not respect or if you seek it with an open minded attitude than if you seek it merely as an object for you to dissect and refute to further your argument.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Baff1

[echo1 0]

My opinion is that little green men killed them all. Anyone who disagrees is disseminating propaganda and bias. This is what I feel.

[-Snafu- 78]

Blah...

You are needlessly complicating the issue.

You made an outstanding claim. When you do that you provide evidence to back it up. Not others, they did not make that argument, but you. That is how it works. You failed to do so.

Pathy challenged you and provided three different studies to show your assertion is false. He was not posting his 'feelings' on the topic. He was posting facts. It does not matter if you 'feel' you are right. Your feelings on the subject are irrelevant. Facts and evidence matter.

The facts show that you are incorrect. You are right that studies should be challenged but you have not challenged them with anything other than 'if' and 'but'. You may be proven right in 50 years time when more evidence comes to light, however, the facts available to us now show that your 'feelings' are not correct.

My opinion is that little green men killed them all. Anyone who disagrees is disseminating propaganda and bias. This is what I feel.

I feel it is the Irish and their ancient desire for global domination.

Beware the Clover...

[pre-Vet 10]

do try to read:

Those 10 year old boy are orphans. They need the money.

It's not as simple as the Taliban using children to fight for them.

Those children aren;t "children" anymore. They are the same as adults. People who must fend for themselves in life. They will take whatever work they can get. Including placing bombs etc.

I meant blowing them selfs up.

And I am in no way willing to take your word against that of eye witnesses.

I am one. did 2 tours as an infantryman. I love the country, miss it everyday, I have a pair. still, I can tell you things how this scum has terrorized the country, keeps you up at night.

Listening to music? Is that really justification for killing or not killing someone?

The Taliban don't allow music so it's OK to kill them and orphan more children and miss when you are trying to kill threm and kill more children...

Sorry but if that's your idea of morality, it's really not mine.

what I meant is the Taliban would kill people who would listen to music, so I guess you agree with me that is not our morality.

and as said before I will only kill out of defence.

maybe its just hard for you to agree but the taliban are some mean motherfuckers, meaner than the CF. thats not double standarts, that is by the standarts of civilization.

[Baff1 0]

You are needlessly complicating the issue.

You made an outstanding claim. When you do that you provide evidence to back it up. Not others, they did not make that argument, but you. That is how it works. You failed to do so.

Pathy challenged you and provided three different studies to show your assertion is false. He was not posting his 'feelings' on the topic. He was posting facts. It does not matter if you 'feel' you are right. Your feelings on the subject are irrelevant. Facts and evidence matter.

The facts show that you are incorrect. You are right that studies should be challenged but you have not challenged them with anything other than 'if' and 'but'. You may be proven right in 50 years time when more evidence comes to light, however, the facts available to us now show that your 'feelings' are not correct...

Sorry but I don't recognise these to be "facts".

Evidence yes, facts no.

Perhaps you will learn to be more discerning one day.

However since someone else here has posted evidence to contradict Pathy's evidence, your point has become entirely moot.

Perhaps you will be able to understand now that these so called "facts" are commonly disputed and hence not "facts" at all but actually opinion.

Or perhaps you will simply continue to ignore this.

Does it make such a big difference to you that they weren't posted by myself?

Does that in anyway change anything?

Would it really have been so difficult for you to look this up for yourself?

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Getting back to the core of the issue, I sincerely hope that they shoot whoever the fuck is responsible for this leak, if they catch him/her.

[Pathy 0]

Actually, T.S.C Plague didn't post anything to refute my 'evidence' as you put it. He posted something that showed, indeed, yes, Coalition forces have killed Afghan civilians. This is unfortunately a fact of life, it's a war, and these things, like blue on blue incidents, will always happen, no matter how hard you try to avoid them and as sad as that is. So what he's posted doesn't conflict with anything anyone in this thread is saying (at least I haven't seen anyone deny Coalition forces causing civilian casualties).

What his sources do not show or indicate either way is a proportion of casualties caused by either side.

Perhaps you will be more discerning one day.

Perhaps you will simply continue to ignore this.

Or perhaps, as they say, Bullshit Baff1es Brains.

FPDR

[Baff1 0]

do try to read:

I meant blowing them selfs up.

I am one. did 2 tours as an infantryman. I love the country, miss it everyday, I have a pair. still, I can tell you things how this scum has terrorized the country, keeps you up at night.

what I meant is the Taliban would kill people who would listen to music, so I guess you agree with me that is not our morality.

and as said before I will only kill out of defence.

maybe its just hard for you to agree but the taliban are some mean motherfuckers, meaner than the CF. thats not double standarts, that is by the standarts of civilization.

I read your words thanks. I addressed the part of the subject I felt I had something to add to and not the part I felt was just inflammatory.

I could have some up with equally offensive qwips about ABu Gharaib or Haditha or god knows what other instances of our own troops behaving atrociously as a counter, but I feel that these examples while factual are not representative of our idealogy or our general behaviour.

I could seek to connect all our troops with the actions of a few, or solely with the atrocities and the worst examples they have presented for us to examine, but I do not wish to do so. I like to think of these things as the exceptions and not the rule.

I extend this same courtesy to my enemies and I blame this sort of thing more on the enviroment in which they are participating than on the culture of those participating in it.

Although I do agree up to a point that their culture is a factor in these things just as ours is.

I do not disagree that the Taliban can be mean mofo's. That is indeed their reputation. What you say concurs with all that I have heard about them.

And while I'm sure you have many bad stories to tell about them, the people you are presumably attempting to defend have many bad stories to tell about your lot too. Notably, more about you than them. (The methods differ, obviously, an airstrike sounds less horrorific than a suicide bomb).

Given that I do not wish to view the stories they tell about you in quite that light, I like to take the stories they tell about the Taliban with very same pinch of salt.

Perhaps neither side deserves this, but I like to think it all the same. These are my friends and countrymen we are discussing. I like to think highly of them, even if that is many cases just a conceit.

If you will only kill in defence, what on earth were you doing in Afghanistan?

As I understand it the Taliban have never attacked America.

The war against the Taliban is hardly one of defence, it is one of retribution.

They refused to hand over Bin Laden and now you are making them pay.

You take a gun to another man's country and talk about defence?

That doesn't wash with me.

It's one thing to only kill in defence, it's quite another to willfully place yourself in a confrontational position where you force a life or death scenario in which you must kill to defend yourself or your compatriots. This is not defence, it is aggression. Specifically, provocation.

I'm not necessarily anti aggression, but I like to know it for what it is.

I'm not saying you are wrong to have done what you have done, once again I think that's a call far above my pay grade, but it isn't a black and white case of good vs evil in my eyes. It is rather a lot more complex than that.

So let me get this straight previously you were saying that the Taliban would punish people who listened to music.

But now that I have pointed out to you that I do not think this is a crime worthy of death you have changed your story to now say that they kill people who listen to music.

You see, as far as I can tell, you will just say anything about them to provoke a hateful response and justify their deaths. Or if I was to phrase it more kindly, are willing to exaggerate to make your point.

And this while an understandable response, more so given your close proximity to the issues under discussion, it is not one I seek to encourage in my own troops.

I don't really wish to say things that undermine the efforts that you have perhaps made. I do not feel that the potential for good works our troops in Afghanistan and quite possibly and likely even your own and you personally is all an exercise in evil or something which the locals cannot profit from.

Because that is not what I believe.

I like to look for the positives and I believe there are indeed many. I think much of the benefits you have brought to that country will outlive us both.

I do believe however that peace is more beneficial to a society than war, and that it is war that we have brought. Not that I feel that they were ever truely peaceful before in a way that we would recognise.

---------- Post added at 02:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 AM ----------

Actually, T.S.C Plague didn't post anything to refute my 'evidence' as you put it. He posted something that showed, indeed, yes, Coalition forces have killed Afghan civilians. This is unfortunately a fact of life, it's a war, and these things, like blue on blue incidents, will always happen, no matter how hard you try to avoid them and as sad as that is. So what he's posted doesn't conflict with anything anyone in this thread is saying (at least I haven't seen anyone deny Coalition forces causing civilian casualties).

What his sources do not show or indicate either way is a proportion of casualties caused by either side.

Perhaps you will be more discerning one day.

Perhaps you will simply continue to ignore this.

Or perhaps, as they say, Bullshit Baff1es Brains.

FPDR

So? Count them all up and then count up all the ones you can find done by the Taliban?

How stupid do you want to get about this?

The above cited study provides evidence of civilian casualties caused by coalition forces on a grand scale. If you don't feel that stands against the evidence you provided that is your interpretation of it but not mine.

If however you don't feel that at the very least it directly addresses the political bias of one of the institutions you have given and cited as being independant, then I'm sorry but I don't know what to tell you.

As I previously pointed out, no matter what evidence or studies I (or anyone else) posts, nothing is going to change your opinion anymore than any posted by you will change mine. Which is pretty much why I didn't bother to do so.

It's just a troll trick. Whatever I post you refute. So why bother?

Similarly I could have just pointed out all bias of your sources or the flaws in their information gathering processes in enough depth to discredit.

But all that would do is demonstrate a lack of respect for the effort you have made in contributing them towards this discussion.

Further to this we both know that there will be other examples of other studies that do directly refute the ones you have produced. we could both pull them out of our arses all night long if that's what we considered to be fun.

I think my earlier my point was perhaps more relavent.

None of these studies should be considered absolute facts. None of them are likely to have the full picture, none of them are likely to be produced without bias. You should make your own mind up as I have done.

I put it to you that the chances of our forces killing innocent civilians are far higher than the chances of enemy forces doing the same.

It is intuative to think this for a number of reasons and I'll give you a few.

Our enemies don't wear uniforms and we do. It is hard for us to distinguish at a glance enemy from civilian, it is easy for them.

Our advantage on the battlefield is superior fire support. Bigger bombs, artillery and airstrikes. We make use of indiscriminate heavy weapon systems that the enemy does not have ready access to.

We base ourselves outside of civilian populations, they base themselves inside.

The civilians involved are not our own family members and friends, they are often the enemies.

The enemies use suicide bombers which makes our own troops more likely to fire on civilians at check points. More trigger happy out of self-defence.

Our human intelligence is prone to interfactional rivalries and we have no solid method of validating the tip offs we receive.

Given these factors alone to expect anything less than a high civilian deathtoll would be daft. If anything it's a miracle and testament to our soldiers professionalism there arent a whole lot more than there are.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Baff1

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

Getting back to the core of the issue, I sincerely hope that they shoot whoever the fuck is responsible for this leak, if they catch him/her.

If your really think that you should get banned or at least get an infraction IMHO. Why? This is not the place for death wishes and this kind of attitude!

If there wouldn't be people risking their life (not automatically meaning death but other things like imprisonment, loss of live standard etc.) to leak such informations then we would still think that f.e. the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was right. God bless there are people out there who are willing to sacrifice theirselfs for the better and bigger.

[Baff1 0]

But it's a double edged sword mate.

It does harm as well as good.

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

Of course it is but it wouldn't be if the truth would be told from the beginning.

At first the government lies or simply holds back informations which would have been important to know for the general public. If the public would know everything before actions take place most of these actions simply wouldn't take place because of a massive public uproar. Think about this!

I think the saying of Dr. King "A time comes when silence is betrayal" somehow fit here quite well.

Edited July 30, 2010 by T.S.C.Plage

[USSRsniper 0]

Why some people look at the leaked records as something true? People in military do lie to hide their crimes, even in official documents.

If anything, the usage of IED's is an indicator of desperation as their ability to effectively project power into the field is gradually reduced.

Not true. They use IEDs not because its out of desperation, they are using them out of fear of death. The enemy simply does not want to be shot from Apache or APC/Tank. Taliban might be mean but they don't want to get killed. Would you attack a convoy and die or would you sit and just press the button without any danger?

Edited July 30, 2010 by USSRsniper

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

Because it are notes from ongoing operations and such. Nothing that was ever ment to become leaked to the public. Therefore the military had no need to alter these notes. What do you think you can trust more the official blah in the medias or the "unofficial" informations of these records?

[USSRsniper 0]

Because it are notes from ongoing operations and such. Nothing that was ever ment to become leaked to the public. Therefore the military had no need to alter these notes. What do you think you can trust more the official blah in the medias or the "unofficial" informations of these records?

I didn't say anything about government altering the reports. I was talking about the actual soldiers at the war making false reports.

But you answer your last question. I trust the reports more. but there is a chance that reports might be false.

Edited July 30, 2010 by USSRsniper

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

I don't think so because much has been cross checked by analysts from notable news medias. I don't think they are perfect and can't make mistakes but in this case the stuff should be legit.

[USSRsniper 0]

I don't think so because much has been cross checked by analysts from notable news medias. I don't think they are perfect and can't make mistakes but in this case the stuff should be legit.

I hope its not the analysts from the news medias such as CNN....

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

You could inform yourself before you post but to answer your question. No, it's the New York Times (US), the Guardian (UK) and the Spiegel (GER).