Asim Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 KF2miwIWOE4&feature=player_embedded#! At 5pm EST Friday 22nd October 2010 WikiLeaks released the largest classified military leak in history. At 5pm EST Friday 22nd October 2010 WikiLeaks released the largest classified military leak in history. The 391,832 reports ('The Iraq War Logs'), document the war and occupation in Iraq, from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by soldiers in the United States Army. Each is a 'SIGACT' or Significant Action in the war. They detail events as seen and heard by the US military troops on the ground in Iraq and are the first real glimpse into the secret history of the war that the United States government has been privy to throughout. The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces). The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths.That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period. For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivalent population size. Wikileaks describes the apparent torture of Iraqi detainees by the Iraqi authorities, sometimes using electrocution, electric drills and in some cases even executing detainees. The US military knew of the abuses, the documents suggest, but reports were sent up the chain of command marked ‘no further investigation’, the BBC reports. The US criticised the largest leak of classified documents in its history. A US Department of Defense spokesman dismissed the documents published by the whistleblowing website as raw observations by tactical units, which were only snapshots of tragic, mundane events. Speaking to reporters in Washington earlier, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she condemned ‘in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organisations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk’. --------------------------------------------------------------- So thats the true face of champions of human rights... who asked Pak army to investigate killing of 6 civilians and themselves killing 66000 civilians, and killing with an element of enjoyment, you must have seen a video released few months back, wherer they are killing the real human beings as you are playing a video game... one face is crying for human rights everywhere and other face, actually true face is committing a non stop Genocide...
ViruRulez Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 Iraq was an useless war that should never have been fought at all. Saddam was obnoxious no doubt as was Bush but Iraq had not done any terrorist activity against any international country to have been attacked. Saddam was also a very good ally of India and supported India on all issues including the Kashmir issue. I never understood the reason for attacking Iraq and it should never have been done. Regarding the casualties it is sad but once a war happens it was bound to happen as in case of any other war. Afghanistan was a different case and US were absolutely right in attacking Afghanistan as it was ruled by Talibans who were proven terrorist. Instead of screwing themselves up in Iraq which was a much powerful nation if they had concentrated on eliminating Taliban then they would have been able to eliminate Talibans a long time ago. Talibans and Al-qaeda were terrorist but Iraqi govt. was not. Iraq, Iran and North Korea have enmity only with US and not the rest of the world and these three countries are targeted only in the garb of the war on terror though there has been no proof of them ever being involved in terrorism internationally. I know you are a Paki but to be frank if US were really serious about war on terror then they should have attacked Pakistan or at least known terrorist areas in Pakistan as terrorists have a lot more safe haven in Pakistan compared to Iraq, Iran or North Korea. But then you know that this war on terror was only partially war on terror and instead was an US attempt to attack only its enemies (except Afghanistan which was legitimate terror center like Pakistan).
Clarke Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 So thats the true face of champions of human rights... who asked Pak army to investigate killing of 6 civilians and themselves killing 66000 civilians' date= and killing with an element of enjoyment, you must have seen a video released few months back, wherer they are killing the real human beings as you are playing a video game... one face is crying for human rights everywhere and other face, actually true face is committing a non stop Genocide... What's the figure comprised of ? overall deaths due to the civil war or the blank point firing/bombing by the US Army ? And no, its not a genocide. You guys may throw around that term all over to absolve the crimes of 1971, but every event of rioting/civil war/ethnic clashes/local issues is not genocide. Thousands of American soldiers gave their lives for democracy and freedom in 'Islamic land', and not commit genocide. The war may be illegal and unnecessary but the armed forces, in a very large majority of instances did the best they could, which cannot be said of the Bush Administration. Those accused in the US Army face the courts and sentences are handed out; how many were brought to justice since 1971 ?
Asim Posted October 23, 2010 Author Posted October 23, 2010 What's the figure comprised of ? overall deaths due to the civil war or the blank point firing/bombing by the US Army ? And no, its not a genocide. You guys may throw around that term all over to absolve the crimes of 1971, but every event of rioting/civil war/ethnic clashes/local issues is not genocide. Thousands of American soldiers gave their lives for democracy and freedom in 'Islamic land', and not commit genocide. The war may be illegal and unnecessary but the armed forces, in a very large majority of instances did the best they could, which cannot be said of the Bush Administration. Those accused in the US Army face the courts and sentences are handed out; how many were brought to justice since 1971 ? 5rXPrfnU3G0&has_verified=1
Asim Posted October 23, 2010 Author Posted October 23, 2010 Iraq was an useless war that should never have been fought at all. Saddam was obnoxious no doubt as was Bush but Iraq had not done any terrorist activity against any international country to have been attacked. Saddam was also a very good ally of India and supported India on all issues including the Kashmir issue. I never understood the reason for attacking Iraq and it should never have been done. Regarding the casualties it is sad but once a war happens it was bound to happen as in case of any other war. Afghanistan was a different case and US were absolutely right in attacking Afghanistan as it was ruled by Talibans who were proven terrorist. Instead of screwing themselves up in Iraq which was a much powerful nation if they had concentrated on eliminating Taliban then they would have been able to eliminate Talibans a long time ago. Talibans and Al-qaeda were terrorist but Iraqi govt. was not. Iraq, Iran and North Korea have enmity only with US and not the rest of the world and these three countries are targeted only in the garb of the war on terror though there has been no proof of them ever being involved in terrorism internationally. I know you are a Paki but to be frank if US were really serious about war on terror then they should have attacked Pakistan or at least known terrorist areas in Pakistan as terrorists have a lot more safe haven in Pakistan compared to Iraq, Iran or North Korea. But then you know that this war on terror was only partially war on terror and instead was an US attempt to attack only its enemies (except Afghanistan which was legitimate terror center like Pakistan). Oil resources, as simple as that... pure "badmaashi"... Afghanistan, taliban, pakistan, terrorism blah blah.... My question is simple, "who created and supported Taliban by whatever means and methods, to grow up and become so strong?"... it was none other than US... so if you say Taliban are terrorist, you are bound to say US is dad of terrorists... and if you are bad dad you dont necessarily got to kill your kids, first check yourself...
Clarke Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 youtube video see the difference .. the worst of the US Army takes the kids to hospital, while urs shoots them in the face. btw, u gonna answer the questions i put forward or display the cowardice of ur army, for whom even the Interpol issues arrest warrants http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8050866/Interpol-issues-Pakistan-army-arrest-warrants-over-Mumbai-attacks.html Oil resources, as simple as that... pure "badmaashi"... There's open bidding on the oil contracts & French/Chinese firms (those that were strictly against the invasion) have won major chunks. The latest round of bidding for the gas fields was won by Kuwait, Turkey, South Korea & Kazakhstan. You couldn't be more ignorant! Afghanistan, taliban, pakistan, terrorism blah blah.... My question is simple, "who created and supported Taliban by whatever means and methods, to grow up and become so strong?"... it was none other than US... so if you say Taliban are terrorist, you are bound to say US is dad of terrorists... and if you are bad dad you dont necessarily got to kill your kids, first check yourself... :hysterical: I love this argument. But let me go through the story once more. The Americans supported the mujahideen as a whole, not the Taliban. Once the Soviet Union left, who was supporting one faction over the other in the civil war ? Who recognized the Taliban govt before 2001 ?
seedhi Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 KF2miwIWOE4&feature=player_embedded#! At 5pm EST Friday 22nd October 2010 WikiLeaks released the largest classified military leak in history. At 5pm EST Friday 22nd October 2010 WikiLeaks released the largest classified military leak in history. The 391,832 reports ('The Iraq War Logs'), document the war and occupation in Iraq, from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by soldiers in the United States Army. Each is a 'SIGACT' or Significant Action in the war. They detail events as seen and heard by the US military troops on the ground in Iraq and are the first real glimpse into the secret history of the war that the United States government has been privy to throughout. The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces). The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths.That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period. For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivalent population size. Wikileaks describes the apparent torture of Iraqi detainees by the Iraqi authorities, sometimes using electrocution, electric drills and in some cases even executing detainees. The US military knew of the abuses, the documents suggest, but reports were sent up the chain of command marked ‘no further investigation’, the BBC reports. The US criticised the largest leak of classified documents in its history. A US Department of Defense spokesman dismissed the documents published by the whistleblowing website as raw observations by tactical units, which were only snapshots of tragic, mundane events. Speaking to reporters in Washington earlier, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she condemned ‘in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organisations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk’. --------------------------------------------------------------- So thats the true face of champions of human rights... who asked Pak army to investigate killing of 6 civilians and themselves killing 66000 civilians, and killing with an element of enjoyment, you must have seen a video released few months back, wherer they are killing the real human beings as you are playing a video game... one face is crying for human rights everywhere and other face, actually true face is committing a non stop Genocide... Where does this say that the 66000 civilians were killed by the United States? A huge majority have been killed by the insurgents and militants purporting to fight on the behalf of the Iraqis.
ravishingravi Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 Absolutely shocking. Or maybe not. I still think it might be on the lower end. US functions like a "terrorist" state by the very definition of it.
Asim Posted October 24, 2010 Author Posted October 24, 2010 Where does this say that the 66000 civilians were killed by the United States? A huge majority have been killed by the insurgents and militants purporting to fight on the behalf of the Iraqis. Quite Innocent... yeah you are right, who says US killed 66,000... they actually killed 6,66,000, yeah yeah right...
Asim Posted October 24, 2010 Author Posted October 24, 2010 see the difference .. the worst of the US Army takes the kids to hospital' date=' while urs shoots them in the face. [/quote'] taking the kid to hospital who actually remained alive by "mistake"... + killing all the people who were actually helping an only remained alive man + enjoying the fact that a tank probably moved over a dead body + destroying the buildings for fun only + killing the animals + killing the pregnent women + killing 31 civilians each day for years long, and this is only the number which is "on the record" wow, whot civilized manners of war, so nice, an ultimate example of human rights... btw, u gonna answer the questions i put forward or display the cowardice of ur army, for whom even the Interpol issues arrest warrants http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8050866/Interpol-issues-Pakistan-army-arrest-warrants-over-Mumbai-attacks.html non-issue as for as this thread is concerned... start it in a seperate one, this thread has no relevence with Mumbai attachs, 71 war, 65 war, world war II, indo pak partition, 1857 war of indipendence and so on... There's open bidding on the oil contracts & French/Chinese firms (those that were strictly against the invasion) have won major chunks. The latest round of bidding for the gas fields was won by Kuwait' date=' Turkey, South Korea & Kazakhstan. You couldn't be more ignorant![/quote'] so you feel US army had will comein press confrence and will announce there "gentlemen we launched here the war to take over the oil resources basically"... its just an expected thought of mine, I dont have any prove and btw few hundred million other people also think the same... And I forgot one thing, what was the basic purpose of war.... ummmmmm.... oh yeah nuclear weapons, and hopefully they are finding 100s of those each day, right? or how much tons of those been found? you might have better stats I love this argument. But let me go through the story once more. The Americans supported the mujahideen as a whole, not the Taliban. Once the Soviet Union left, who was supporting one faction over the other in the civil war ? Who recognized the Taliban govt before 2001 ? oh sorry I missed that fact, you are right, actually US supported not only the Taliban but Taliban+other all mujahdeen groups, thats nice, so I was wrong that US is father of terrorism, its actually grandfather...
seedhi Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 Quite Innocent... yeah you are right' date=' who says US killed 66,000... they actually killed 6,66,000, yeah yeah right...[/quote']You dont have to display your pakiness all the time. I asked a simple question - where do the documents show that the 66000 civilian deaths were caused by US forces. In fact most of them were caused by insurgents fighting the coalition forces.
Clarke Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 taking the kid to hospital who actually remained alive by "mistake"... + killing all the people who were actually helping an only remained alive man + enjoying the fact that a tank probably moved over a dead body + destroying the buildings for fun only + killing the animals + killing the pregnent women + killing 31 civilians each day for years long, and this is only the number which is "on the record" wow, whot civilized manners of war, so nice, an ultimate example of human rights... The incident can be debated, but the nonsense of 31 killings every day as part of a planned genocide is just rubbish. You can try and misconstrue facts as per ur agenda but the insurgency in Iraq is not the same as point blank murder that you compared it with. non-issue as for as this thread is concerned... start it in a seperate one, this thread has no relevence with Mumbai attachs, 71 war, 65 war, world war II, indo pak partition, 1857 war of indipendence and so on... Fair enough. I brought it up because u thought Pakistani Army and the shootings were relevant to the discussion. so you feel US army had will comein press confrence and will announce there "gentlemen we launched here the war to take over the oil resources basically"... its just an expected thought of mine, I dont have any prove and btw few hundred million other people also think the same... USA is a democracy and the army does not go to war by itself as if it were some banana republic. The Armed Forces go by the orders of the commander in chief, i.e. former president George W. Bush. You and the few hundred million others need a reality check. Even if the oil contracts were awarded to American corporations(which is not the case), the long term cost of the war far exceeded any benefits that could have been gained. And I forgot one thing, what was the basic purpose of war.... ummmmmm.... oh yeah nuclear weapons, and hopefully they are finding 100s of those each day, right? or how much tons of those been found? you might have better stats As i said earlier, the war was illegal and unnecessary. Dubya and his administration's decision to go to war over a single British intelligence report hurt Iraq quite a bit during the insurgency as well as USA till date. That does not mean you blame the US Army of genocide. oh sorry I missed that fact, you are right, actually US supported not only the Taliban but Taliban+other all mujahdeen groups, thats nice, so I was wrong that US is father of terrorism, its actually grandfather... That's like saying Hitler's mom was the ultimate evil because she gave birth to him and fed him. What was the aid directed at, fighting the Red Army or flogging women ? The Americans in fact acknowledge (subtly) that they should not have left Afghanistan high and dry and are determined to not do so again. Will your country ever do that despite supporting the Taliban for more than a decade for the sake of influence and Saudi alms ?
Asim Posted October 24, 2010 Author Posted October 24, 2010 You dont have to display your pakiness all the time. I asked a simple question - where do the documents show that the 66000 civilian deaths were caused by US forces. In fact most of them were caused by insurgents fighting the coalition forces. you also dont have to display your blind madness for US, where do the documents show that 66000 were not killed by US only? the fact is that even US itself not denying these stats and log files and secondly the insurgents fighting you are mentioning, adding that will make it above half million...
seedhi Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 you also dont have to display your blind madness for US' date=' [b']where do the documents show that 66000 were not killed by US only? the fact is that even US itself not denying these stats and log files and secondly the insurgents fighting you are mentioning, adding that will make it above half million...If you care to read the wikileaks documents it will be clear to you that a huge majority of those deaths were caused by insurgent activities or by intra-Iraqi, Shia-Sunni conflict. The number 66000 is the civilian deaths that have been documented by the US forces, not killed by them.
EnterTheVoid Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 Where does this say that the 66000 civilians were killed by the United States? A huge majority have been killed by the insurgents and militants purporting to fight on the behalf of the Iraqis. Good question, I wanted to ask the same.
Asim Posted October 24, 2010 Author Posted October 24, 2010 The incident can be debated' date=' but the nonsense of 31 killings every day as part of a planned genocide is just rubbish. You can try and misconstrue facts as per ur agenda but the insurgency in Iraq is not the same as point blank murder that you compared it with.[/quote'] It is just A FACT that each day 31 civilians were killed each day, does that matter whether it was planned or not, because the bigger fact is that they simply did not cared for civilians lives, they kept on ignoring all the war crimes there, do you feel brining few 10 or 20 or even 100 in US court is equal to doing justice of civilian killings, its rather the biggest joke... USA is a democracy and the army does not go to war by itself as if it were some banana republic. The Armed Forces go by the orders of the commander in chief' date=' i.e. former president George W. Bush. [/quote'] so what? does that justify the brutality and civilian killing or what? You and the few hundred million others need a reality check. Even if the oil contracts were awarded to American corporations(which is not the case)' date=' the long term cost of the war far exceeded any benefits that could have been gained. [/quote'] whatever that is, suppose they did not went for oil or anything, those matters are comparativly of lesser importance, human lives are more important than oil or any other resources... The fact is that US dont consider one iraqi or afghan civilian human = one US human... rather I wonder even if they consider any iraqi or afghan as human or not... As i said earlier' date=' the war was illegal and unnecessary. Dubya and his administration's decision to go to war over a single British intelligence report hurt Iraq quite a bit during the insurgency as well as USA till date. That does not mean you blame the US Army of genocide. [/quote'] killing 1000s of people for only a FAILED report, for 0 result, for absoulty nothing purposful, for 0 objective is Yes, a genocide... That's like saying Hitler's mom was the ultimate evil because she gave birth to him and fed him. What was the aid directed at' date=' fighting the Red Army or flogging women ? [/quote'] Nice example but imagine... had Hitler's mom grown him up with an only such *** purpose in mind, brainwashed him to justify all brutality etc, trained him practically for those very reasons... yes she would have been called the ultimate evil... The Americans in fact acknowledge (subtly) that they should not have left Afghanistan high and dry and are determined to not do so again. Will your country ever do that despite supporting the Taliban for more than a decade for the sake of influence and Saudi alms ? By the way (now myself may be going away from actual topic but) only if you want to reply, a question to you... Name a single harm Taliban gave to the world outside Afghanistan... mind you, I am asking about Taliban not Al-Quaida (and only real Talibans who ruled the Afghanistan for those few 5,7 years, not the current ones who are using that name only or Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan etc) and another relevent question tell me the difference between Taliban and Al-Quaida (if you feel any)?
Asim Posted October 24, 2010 Author Posted October 24, 2010 If you care to read the wikileaks documents it will be clear to you that a huge majority of those deaths were caused by insurgent activities or by intra-Iraqi, Shia-Sunni conflict. The number 66000 is the civilian deaths that have been documented by the US forces, not killed by them. and now think about those who are not documented...
seedhi Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 and now think about those who are not documented... 66000 civilians have not been killed by the US forces, the title of this thread is a blatant lie which needs to be edited. PS: Whoever is the mod please change the title of the thread if the retard doesnt do so himself.
Clarke Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 It is just A FACT that each day 31 civilians were killed each day, does that matter whether it was planned or not, because the bigger fact is that they simply did not cared for civilians lives, they kept on ignoring all the war crimes there, do you feel brining few 10 or 20 or even 100 in US court is equal to doing justice of civilian killings, its rather the biggest joke... so what? does that justify the brutality and civilian killing or what? killing 1000s of people for only a FAILED report, for 0 result, for absoulty nothing purposful, for 0 objective is Yes, a genocide... The vast majority of killings were either by Iraqis or the foreign fighters in the insurgency sunshine. Now don't claim like an idiot that they were there bcoz the US invaded, as if Iraq was some model of peace, prosperity & tolerance earlier. whatever that is, suppose they did not went for oil or anything, those matters are comparativly of lesser importance, human lives are more important than oil or any other resources... The fact is that US dont consider one iraqi or afghan civilian human = one US human... rather I wonder even if they consider any iraqi or afghan as human or not... That's ur claim. They could easily carpet bomb entire nations instead of using sophisticated equipment that costs millions of dollars per day. Nice example but imagine... had Hitler's mom grown him up with an only such *** purpose in mind, brainwashed him to justify all brutality etc, trained him practically for those very reasons... yes she would have been called the ultimate evil... By those standards, the ultimate evil is ur land of the pure for training and supporting the mujahideen. The US was merely providing monetary and material support for the stated objectives. Hell, ur countrymen literally brag about defeating a superpower with the Pakistan Army (Rangers/SSG etc) participating in Afghanistan against the Soviets on ur forums. By the way (now myself may be going away from actual topic but) only if you want to reply, a question to you... Name a single harm Taliban gave to the world outside Afghanistan... mind you, I am asking about Taliban not Al-Quaida (and only real Talibans who ruled the Afghanistan for those few 5,7 years, not the current ones who are using that name only or Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan etc) and another relevent question tell me the difference between Taliban and Al-Quaida (if you feel any)? r u fkin kidding me ? The Afghan Taliban enabled the grand headquarters of Islamic terror in Afghanistan. Why on earth did Indian Airlines flight 814 end up there ? Why did they surround the plane so that Indian Special Forces did not end the hijacking ? How did the murdering hijackers get away ? The murderer of Daniel Pearl, the founder of JeM and another jehadi were released bcoz of that hijacking. So yeah, that's one incident where the Taliban enabled multiple goals for the Islamic terror groups. Ofcourse, u dont have to believe this since the kaffars of India deserved the hijacking and Ghazwa e hind shall ensure that they meet their fate. Go and listen to Zaid Hamid and his bulllcrap while ur head is stuck up ur *** What harm did Taliban do ... :facepalm:
ViruRulez Posted October 24, 2010 Posted October 24, 2010 Oil resources, as simple as that... pure "badmaashi"... Afghanistan, taliban, pakistan, terrorism blah blah.... My question is simple, "who created and supported Taliban by whatever means and methods, to grow up and become so strong?"... it was none other than US... so if you say Taliban are terrorist, you are bound to say US is dad of terrorists... and if you are bad dad you dont necessarily got to kill your kids, first check yourself... I completely agree to your point that Pakistan is the actual hub of world terrorism for a long long time and US govt. is the primary sponsor of this state practiced terrorism. Good to see that you are gradually realizing this. And that is the reason I dont have much respect for either of the two countries. Pakistan is the most obnoxious nation in the whole world and US govt. is not much better either and thanks for confirming the same. :hatsoff:
Recommended Posts