• Assange ignores human rights groups as Wikileaks prepares to publish more documents
    868 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075122]That analogy made no sense.[/QUOTE] You're not making much sense either, my boy.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24075245]So will you admit that atrocities have been committed that would not have come to light had it not been for the leak?[/QUOTE] 1. I never said war crimes have never been committed. 2. No war crimes have been brought to light from the leaks.
[QUOTE=Yoces;24075264]You're not making much sense either, my boy.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure I'm making more sense than that analogy.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075274]I'm pretty sure I'm making more sense than that analogy.[/QUOTE] You really, really, really, really aren't.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075257][url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/FB5A6FCD-78A8-4BD4-9F66-9A10EA65D5A9[/url] [B]Air strike. US Inquiry later found many more civilian casualties. Red X say 'dozens'[/B] [/QUOTE] Doesn't the usage of "Red X" prove that names have been removed? (Or that they were not there in the first place). Red X seems to suggest that is someone aligned with what ever the "red" side is (Its listed somewhere on the Guardian site)
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075274]I'm pretty sure I'm making more sense than that analogy.[/QUOTE] Nope.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;24075254]read that definition very carefully because I think you'll find that assault does not mean what you think it means[/QUOTE] Violently attacking someone? I think I used it correctly.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075265]1. I never said war crimes have never been committed. [B]2. No war crimes have been brought to light from the leaks.[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075186][URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/4F4AE864-F26D-4AAF-9F40-C9A30F25C104[/URL] Brit troops kill two, wound two in Toyota with "warning shots" [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/ADB8594A-1517-911C-C532AD577FEEB706[/URL] Gate guard shoots civilian [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/8C5B7A4C-07F6-0B88-30CD5E27D5B93898[/URL] Irrigation ditch digger shot dead, companion wounded for fear of IEDs [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/64B31DA4-648E-4ECF-98A7-E1F43E8B59E1[/URL] Two teenagers on motorbikes shot by Canadian patrol [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/080e0000011ccb3b0b6b160d6c8fe12d[/URL] Convoy patrol shoots "too close" van driver [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/080e0000011cbbafec28160d2d8b87b6[/URL] French convoy shoots [B]8 children on bus[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075257][URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/FB5A6FCD-78A8-4BD4-9F66-9A10EA65D5A9[/URL] [B]Air strike. US Inquiry later found many more civilian casualties. Red X say 'dozens'[/B] [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/826B488C-EA6F-A132-511610DB68C2EDBD[/URL] 56 civilians killed in NATO bombings Every single one of these links to the documents in the link. Read them, now, and tell me there's no evidence.[/QUOTE] What are these?
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075291]Violently attacking someone? I think I used it correctly.[/QUOTE] Do I have to define violence too.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075265] 2. No war crimes have been brought to light from the leaks.[/QUOTE] How do you figure? What about the 20 or so links we just provided for you?
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24075301]How do you figure? What about the 20 or so links we just provided for you?[/QUOTE] no data sry
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24075301]How do you figure? What about the 20 or so links we just provided for you?[/QUOTE] Hold up, gotta read them first. [editline]03:20AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;24075297]Do I have to define violence too.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? lol? How did I use "assault" wrongly? Please explain.
[url]http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2010/07/25/Afghanevents1.xls[/url] Here's a spreadsheet of these events categorized [url]http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/sort/category/blue_white_0.html[/url] Here's a list of blue-white (army-civilian) casualties
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075360][url]http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2010/07/25/Afghanevents1.xls[/url] Here's a spreadsheet of these events categorized [url]http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/sort/category/blue_white_0.html[/url] Here's a list of blue-white (army-civilian) casualties[/QUOTE] Pick out one you want me to read, because I honestly don't have time to read all eight of them.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075371]Pick out one you want me to read, because I honestly don't have time to read all eight of them.[/QUOTE] ahahaha "I'm scared to read the things that will prove me wrong so I won't"
But you have time to argue about things you're ignorant of. Read them.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24075382]ahahaha "I'm scared to read the things that will prove me wrong so I won't"[/QUOTE] Is that why I'm asking him to pick one out? :colbert:
oops missed this post [QUOTE=Ragy;24075205]If there is no evidence, there is nothing there to prove he committed the murder. It's very simple. [/QUOTE] So you are saying if an event happens yet there is no evidence (AT THE TIME) then in your eyes the event did not take place?
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075387]But you have time to argue about things you're ignorant of. Read them.[/QUOTE] Pick one out you believe is a war crime. Don't state documents which you believe there is.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075394]Is that why I'm asking him to pick one out? :colbert:[/QUOTE] Each one is a document about a page in length, if not less. You can skip the spreadsheet for now, but read every incident I linked. EDIT: All of them seem like war crimes to me.
[QUOTE=Jsm;24075395]So you are saying if an event happens yet there is no evidence (AT THE TIME) then in your eyes the event did not take place?[/QUOTE] Technically yes, that is how it is seen. Regardless of what you believe, statements of what happen can not be confirmed without evidence. No evidence means there is nothing there that proves an event ever took place or connects someone to that event (murder). [editline]03:28AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075407]Each one is a document about a page in length, if not less. You can skip the spreadsheet for now, but read every incident I linked. EDIT: All of them seem like war crimes to me.[/QUOTE] Please, just pick one. I have time to talk about one document, not eight. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by picking.
Here, one example to start off with: [QUOTE] 031542ZAUG09, OCC-P KDZ REPORTED 2X FUEL TRUCKS WERE STOLEN BY UNK NUMBER OF INS. INS INTENDED TO CROSS KDZ RIVER AT A FORD TO BRING THE FUEL TO CHAHAR DARREH DISTRICT. AT 1730Z, PRT KDZ JTAC OBSERVED KDZ RIVER AND REPORTED THAT IT DISCOVERED THE TRUCKS AS WELL AS UP TO 70X INS AT 42SVF8903852017, ON THE FORD ON THE RIVER. THE TRUCKS WERE STUCK IN THE MUD. COM PERT KDZ LINKED UP WITH JTAC AND, AFTER ENSURING THAT NO CIVILIANS WERE IN THE VICINITY, COM PRT KDZ AUTHORIZED AN AIRSTRIKE. AT 2119Z, AN F-15 DROPPED 2X GBU 38 BOMBS. AT 2158Z, BDA CONDUCTED BY F-15/ROVER WAS THAT 56X INS KIA (CONFIRMED) AND 14X INS FLEEING IN NE DIRECTION. THE 2X FUEL TRUCKS WERE ALSO DESTROYED. [/QUOTE] Airstike to destroy fuel trucks and smugglers kills 56 confirmed civilians.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075474]Here, one example to start off with: Airstike to destroy fuel trucks and smugglers kills 56 confirmed civilians.[/QUOTE] That clearly states 56 insurgents were killed. Aka 56x INS. That has nothing to do with citizens being killed at all. Did you even read it?
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075474]Here, one example to start off with: Airstike to destroy fuel trucks and smugglers kills 56 confirmed civilians.[/QUOTE] I don't quite get this one, how can they have confirmed that no civilians were in the vicinity yet kill 56? Unless that was one hell of an unexpected fireball (they were bombing fuel trucks after all).
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075499]That clearly states 56 insurgents were killed. Aka 56x INS. That has nothing to do with citizens being killed at all. Did you even read it?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]UPDATE 041120D* At 0900 hrs International Media reported that US airstrike had killed 60 civilians in Kunduz. The media are reporting that Taliban did steal the trucks and had invited civilians in the area to take fuel. ISAF HQ commenced CIVCAS procedures and conducted a brief over VTC with COMD RC-N. Mitigation proceudres have commenced and liaison with GIRoA officials in KABUL and in KUNDUZ are a priority. The Governor of KUNDUZ is commenting that most of the casualties were Taliban. RC-N and PRT KDZ are gathering more facts. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/826B488C-EA6F-A132-511610DB68C2EDBD[/url] [B]56 civilians killed in Nato bombing[/B] Doesn't sound like insurgents to me
[QUOTE=Jsm;24075504]I don't quite get this one, how can they have confirmed that no civilians were in the vicinity yet kill 56? Unless that was one hell of an unexpected fireball (they were bombing fuel trucks after all).[/QUOTE] Two insurgents stole a truck (2x INS) and killed 56 other insurgents (56x INS). No citizens were killed.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075499]That clearly states 56 insurgents were killed. Aka 56x INS. That has nothing to do with citizens being killed at all. Did you even read it?[/QUOTE] That was a bad quote by him, the rest of the report states it was updated, and civilians were found to be killed. [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/826B488C-EA6F-A132-511610DB68C2EDBD[/url] [quote]"NFI.56 Killed None(None) Insurgent[/quote] (NFI = not further identified)
Here's another [QUOTE]ISAF #10-049 INFO;DTG of Report: 020845SEP08 (as reported by villagers from Tangi Kalay) 201ST S: 4xLN WIA A: FRA BG vehicles opened fire on a bus that came too close to convoy L: IVO Tangi Kalay village, 42SWD 365 260( 12 NE OF CAMP PHOENIX) T: 02 0820L OCT 08 R: TAG received reports from villagers via phone and others who arrived at front gate. TAG confirmed incident with Camp Warehouse TOC LNO 1LT Logan. KMTC ANA personnel are BPT respond with QRF and medical care. Camp Warehouse is preparing medical units to respond. According to LN reports as of 0853, most of the children have been put into taxis by LNs IOT evacuate them to CF medical facilities. At 0900: ISAF is reporting that at least 5 wounded children have arrived at Camp Warehouse, 8x LN CHILDREN WIA[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/080e0000011cbbafec28160d2d8b87b6[/url] [B]French convoy shoots 8 children on bus[/B]
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075527][url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/826B488C-EA6F-A132-511610DB68C2EDBD[/url] [B]56 civilians killed in Nato bombing[/B] Doesn't sound like insurgents to me[/QUOTE] As Jsm stated, the 56 killed were NFI. The quote only says that the media reported civilians killed when there was nothing to support it. It just shows that the media jumped to a conclusion before anything was proven. No war crime in that one.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075583]Here's another [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/080e0000011cbbafec28160d2d8b87b6[/url] [B]French convoy shoots 8 children on bus[/B][/QUOTE] Ok you have found one which is a clear cut case of civilians being killed. He will still find a way to say it didn't happen...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.