|
On July 26 2010 16:34 Morgynia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 08:51 ckw wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote: Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. Why? It's war. It's funny that we'll have explaining to do because of some civilians dying when nothing is said about the jews killing Muslims every freaking day on purpose. Respect isn't the word I would use for Wikileaks. This is insulting the country in which grants them the freedom to exist and putting peoples lives at risk. I hope they get shut down. becouse the only reason Countries in EU and others came with was becouse they had a plan. if one of these documents say otherwise. theyl have to do the explaining. These documents don't say that...
|
On July 26 2010 16:33 semantics wrote: Yes but why! It's a cow eat that dam thing not stuff it full of explosives and throw it down a bank. Yeah, these Afghanis arent exactly living the high life. I would eat it.
What happened to digging holes and putting IEDs in them?
|
On July 26 2010 16:35 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 16:34 Morgynia wrote:On July 26 2010 08:51 ckw wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote: Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. Why? It's war. It's funny that we'll have explaining to do because of some civilians dying when nothing is said about the jews killing Muslims every freaking day on purpose. Respect isn't the word I would use for Wikileaks. This is insulting the country in which grants them the freedom to exist and putting peoples lives at risk. I hope they get shut down. becouse the only reason Countries in EU and others came with was becouse they had a plan. if one of these documents say otherwise. theyl have to do the explaining. These documents don't say that...
its an example....
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 26 2010 16:35 Elegy wrote: Maybe they mean a dead cow stuffed with plastic explosives? but forgot to add explosives?
Probably just a misteak.
|
On July 26 2010 16:33 semantics wrote: Yes but why! It's a cow eat that dam thing not stuff it full of explosives and throw it down a bank.
It's a cow. its big and bulky, it might have gotten away from them O_O. well not that it ran away but maybe whilst stuffing it with a bomb it started rolling away
plus it says it was found in a culvert, which "is a device used to channel water. It may be used to allow water to pass underneath a road, railway, or embankment for example"
I could see having the dead bombcow underneath a railway or something and then blowing it up when something comes by ;P
lot of effort though.
edit; LOL @ Jibba, didn't think cow jokes would start so soon
|
According to the war logs, the ISI envoys are present when insurgent commanders hold war councils -- and even give specific orders to carry out murders. These include orders to try to assassinate Afghan President Hamid Karzai. For example, a threat report dated August 21, 2008 warned: "Colonel Mohammad Yusuf from the ISI had directed Taliban official Maulawi Izzatullah to see that Karzai was assassinated."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708314-5,00.html
|
On July 26 2010 16:41 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 16:35 Elegy wrote: Maybe they mean a dead cow stuffed with plastic explosives? but forgot to add explosives?
Probably just a misteak.
can a banling ban himself?
|
On July 26 2010 16:41 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 16:35 Elegy wrote: Maybe they mean a dead cow stuffed with plastic explosives? but forgot to add explosives?
Probably just a misteak.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
OK how is about we stop the stupid one liners at least in this thread?
Fantastic that this happened. I can't wait to get more information out of this. And I can't wait for the stupid faces of our government officials who are still trying to pretend there isn't actually a war going on in Afghanistan but that it's all happy and and "peacekeeping" and "nation building".
|
i havent had any time to look into it but i would be really really really surprised if this just happened like that, my guess would be that it`s an allowed leak, possibly not even entirely real
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
I've been reading through December 2009 only (~2500 reports). As far as I can see there is nothing controversial, embarrassing or remotely interesting to those interested in bashing US, the joint forces or the war altogether.
- Kill ratio for US vs. Enemy (for December) is about 3:1, the number of injured is a lot higher for US, the number of killed and wounded civilians trumps everything by a mile. - #1 cause of US Army losses - IEDs, #2 - direct fire, ambush. - #1 cause of Afghan losses - aircraft/heavy attacks by US, #2 - failed ambushes and return fire, #3 - suicide. - Some of the most interesting reports feature 'Operations', all of which for December are labeled 'Ineffective" inside the reports themselves. - Another interesting read is 'Cache Found/Cleared' category. For the most part recovered materials include: explosives and components, wire, batteries, Russian (majority) and Chinese rifles with ammunition and a surprisingly large quantity of RPGs, launchers and heavy stuff of different kind. - For the month of December: US ~50-75 killed (reading through December 20th), ~200 injured.
One report from mid-December Caught my eye:
A local man started running away from one of US patrols, - eventually he stopped and laid down @ the command of the soldiers. While they were walking toward him somebody opened some sort of gate and the man made a run for it for whatever reason. A soldier fired 4 shots, one of which hit the man (non-lethal injury). One of the other three bullets went through the window (or a weak wall) of one of the houses and killed a woman. The man later turned out to be an unarmed local farmer (so was the woman), the family of a killed woman was offered a financial compensation (amount undisclosed), incident was labeled an unfortunate accident.
|
Agree, there is nothing epicly controversial or anything considered classified from these reports. Many of these facts were already suspect of, if not already known from varies intel analysis.
|
Well there is plenty of classified things, not really national secret kinds of things but more of hush hush, media isn't allowed to report or has to hold the story kind of deals
|
WikiLeaks is a bliss.
It's about time people are informed about what really goes on in Afghanistan. I hear a lot of officials and politicians are upset about the leak. The question is why. Aren't our governments constantly asking us whether we have anything to hide when they opt for video surveillance, control of the internet and shit?
Well, let them tatse some of their own medicine and have the people control their actions. Let the so called "democracies" play by thewir own rules, I say, most importantly transparency.
I remember a strategy paper of the U.S. Military which described in detail the best method to get European countires continued support for the war in Afghanistan. This paper said, the German public could be manipulated by focussing on womens rights in Afghanistan. That said, it seems the Governments try to manipulated the public to share a certain opinion and for that purpose control of the infromation available is crucial. No wonder they are pissed of when unfiltered information is leaked.
An about the argument that leaking that infromation endagers the life of soldiers...you know what really endagers their lifes? Sending them to a war in the first place. but no one seems to have a problem with that.
|
|
|
On July 26 2010 12:41 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:37 kzn wrote:On July 26 2010 12:36 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 12:32 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote: Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you. The invasion was approved based on incorrect information. This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country. They were harboring the people who were behind the world trade center attacks. If you're really going to say that everything the UN and NATO reviewed was false then there's no point in discussing this with you. Who is "they"? An entire population? The government in question. Doesn't it make more sense for a country to secure within it's own borders than to invade other countries in an attempt to get rid of security risks there? It seems obvious to me that such security risks are infinite in number, and that invading a country only creates more of them.
It might make sense if it weren't for the fact that the majority of terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda against the United States happened outside the contintental US.
|
On July 26 2010 14:45 AttackZerg wrote: Wow.
Someone is going to input all of this data into video format day by day and year by year and it will be the most sad thing I'll ever seen.
My girlfriend is a former solider who served in the afghan and iraq wars.
She immediately showed me an event in this damn thing.
Then a few years later, someone will get the same files from iraq and we will no longer be a super power =(.
Dang america we suck =(. you aren't a superpower.. the American state is a superpower. Has this fact ever done any good for you other than give you a boner every time you watch O'Reilly? All you're ever going to get from these adventures is the bill. Wakey! wakey!
|
On July 26 2010 10:22 OPSavioR wrote: They shouldnt be punished , freedom of speech dude
amen to that. One of my favorite things about wikileaks is that it reminds us we live in a society where we can have threads like this without worrying about the government coming after us. Not everyone is so lucky
+ Show Spoiler +http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/2010/07/12/two-venezuelans-face-up-to-11-years-in-prison-for-twittering/
|
Even tho it might hurt our troops, i support wikileaks fully.
|
|
|
|