• Assange ignores human rights groups as Wikileaks prepares to publish more documents
    868 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jsm;24075645]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...[/QUOTE] Last one, reading.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075612]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] I read it again (its quite hard to read these things due to the amount of abrivations). It seems the media were just reporting the facts "The Governor of KUNDUZ is commenting that [B]most[/B] of the casualties were Taliban." "most" suggests there were civilian casualties, maybe not 56 but some.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075612]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] Then why is the title of the document/report "56 civilians killed" and not "56 insurgents killed, media reports 56 civilians"? [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] PRT FARAH reported that ANP was involved in a TIC in GANJ ABAD. FF requested CAS. BDA: 2 x ANP KIA and 3 ANP WIA (CAT UNK). The WIA were evacuated to FARAH hospital. Information concerning the casualty is unconfirmed. NFI ATT. UPDATE 2030D* A second CAS will be performed by 1 x B-1. Update on casualties and equipment. See personnel and equipment effects. UPDATE 05 0428D* MAY09 PRT FRH reported that the fighting has quelled. Update on BDA: 1 X CF WIA, 3 X ANP KIA, 3 X ANP WIA, 1 X ANA WIA. It is reported that an INS (TB) commander along with 10 others have been killed. JDAMs were dropped on the compounds. Sources indicate that there will be a substantial INS body count tomorrow. FF along with MAROF, ANA, and ANP are dug in for the night. UPDATE 1000D* ISAF/CF not engaged; QRF is is back at FARAH. There are no CF operating in that area at the time; n.1 vehicle turret damage(driveable); unconfirmed reports of 10 KIA, N.1 being Taliban leader. N.1 known WIA girl now at PRT Hospital. Unconfirmed reports of civilian casualties at engagement site. One being death of a girl. N.1 US WIA, laceration of arm, treated at PRT Hospital. N. 3 ANSF WIA, released from PRT Hospital last night, N,2 ANSF treated at PRT Hospital and trasferred to KAF. UPDATE 1008D* Latest update from last night's incident FROM PRT FRH . A family of 5 is at the PRT clinic. Injuries are collateral damage from the 1000lb bomb. Little boy is seriously injured and will require MEDEVAC. UPDATE 1219D* LN CIV INVOLVED DURING TIC. 1. Reports from PRT FRH TOC inform that LN WIA are N.9; 2. a family of 5 persons are being treated at the PRT Hospital, 1 x male with serious injuries; 3. 4 persons receiving treatment at the Farah City hospital. UPDATE 0317D* 06 May correct as at 12:59D* 05 May ICRC in HRT is organizing a convoy to go to the Ganjabad area to extract any remaining civilian casualties and to verify civilian deaths. The Provincial Governor is in contact with the ANSF has given assurance that ANSF will not fire upon the convoy. UPDATE 051350D* NFI AVAILABLE. ***Event closed at 051339D*JUN20091 Wounded in Action, Category D american(USA) NATO/ISAF 1 Wounded in Action afghan(AFG) National Military/Security Force 3 Wounded in Action afghan(AFG) ANP 9 Wounded None(None) Local Civilian 3 Killed in Action None(None) ANP[/QUOTE]9 Wounded None(None) Local Civilian [QUOTE=Ragy;24075663]Last one, reading.[/QUOTE] Ok you can't argue for 3-4 pages and refuse to read all but 1-2 things disproving your claims. That's bullshit.
[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] "FRA BG vehicles opened fire on a bus that came too close to convoy." As this simply states, it came too close to the convoy. Car bombs are a big threat over there if you haven't noticed. "8 CIV WIA." No one was killed. No war crime.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075704]"FRA BG vehicles opened fire on a bus that came too close to convoy." As this simply states, it came too close to the convoy. Car bombs are a big threat over there if you haven't noticed. "8 CIV WIA." No one was killed. No war crime.[/QUOTE] So its perfectly fine to shoot CHILDREN?
[QUOTE=Jsm;24075676]I read it again (its quite hard to read these things due to the amount of abrivations). It seems the media were just reporting the facts "The Governor of KUNDUZ is commenting that [B]most[/B] of the casualties were Taliban." "most" suggests there were civilian casualties, maybe not 56 but some.[/QUOTE] No one could tell, that's the thing. There are no facts proving civilians were killed. [editline]03:48AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Jsm;24075727]So its perfectly fine to shoot CHILDREN?[/QUOTE] The Taliban will literally blow up a bus of children to kill Americans, they literally don't care who dies. It was a threat none the less.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075265]1. I never said war crimes have never been committed. 2. No war crimes have been brought to light from the leaks.[/QUOTE] The Apache massacre?
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075684]Then why is the title of the document/report "56 civilians killed" and not "56 insurgents killed, media reports 56 civilians"?[/quote] The title is highly misleading. Don't judge something by the title, because this site is extremely bias simply from these reports.
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/2010/jul/25/wikileaks-afghanistan-data#data[/url] Look [QUOTE=Ragy;24075732] The Taliban will literally blow up a bus of children to kill Americans, they literally don't care who dies. It was a threat none the less.[/QUOTE] So that gives them permission to shoot children?
[QUOTE=Warhol;24075758]The Apache massacre?[/QUOTE] Please, don't bring that up. For the love of god, don't.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075704]"FRA BG vehicles opened fire on a bus that came too close to convoy." As this simply states, it came too close to the convoy. Car bombs are a big threat over there if you haven't noticed. "8 CIV WIA." No one was killed. No war crime.[/QUOTE] So killing's a no-no but somehow just wounding people makes it not a crime? And it changes nothing that the 8 [B]children were killed[/B] out of worry of a car bomb. You could make that excuse for any civilian that got killed that was in/on a vehicle.
[QUOTE=Clark21;24075778]So that gives them permission to shoot children?[/QUOTE] They shot a bus, not children.
[QUOTE=Warhol;24075758]The Apache massacre?[/QUOTE] I believe Ragy is saying that there is no evidence war crimes in the leaked documents, not that war crimes haven't taken place.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075783]So killing's a no-no but somehow just wounding people makes it not a crime? And it changes nothing that the 8 [B]children were killed[/B] out of worry of a car bomb. You could make that excuse for any civilian that got killed that was in/on a vehicle.[/QUOTE] Stop listening to the titles, hell. No children were killed.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075774]The title is highly misleading. Don't judge something by the title, because this site is extremely bias simply from these reports.[/QUOTE] IT'S THE GUARDIAN! It's not the Sun or Fox News or MSNBC it's the fucking Guardian they're not goddamn biased just because they disagree with your warped perception of the facts. You have no argument, you were presented with direct reports, and you're trying to squirm out of the fact that they directly contradict what you were claiming, and even that's wearing thin so you bring up some stupid bullshit about bias. EDIT: And I misspoke, I meant wounded. The title says shot.
[QUOTE=Jsm;24075798]I believe Ragy is saying that there is no evidence war crimes in the leaked documents, not that war crimes haven't taken place.[/QUOTE] What you see as war crimes is protected under the right to engage for soldiers.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075779]Please, don't bring that up. For the love of god, don't.[/QUOTE] Why not? The Apache incident is perfectly valid here.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075813]IT'S THE GUARDIAN! It's not the Sun or Fox News or MSNBC it's the fucking Guardian they're not goddamn biased just because they disagree with your warped perception of the facts. You have no argument, you were presented with direct reports, and you're trying to squirm out of the fact that they directly contradict what you were claiming, and even that's wearing thin so you bring up some stupid bullshit about bias.[/QUOTE] I just disproved each one of those story's, both, and the titles, and now you're calling me wrong? [editline]03:55AM[/editline] [QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24075823]Why not? The Apache incident is perfectly valid here.[/QUOTE] It's one of those arguments with many different views which starts a storm. All I'm going to say is the soldiers saw believed targets and it was not a war crime, no more.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075816]What you see as war crimes is protected under the right to engage for soldiers.[/QUOTE] Shooting people providing medical assistance is a war crime (I accept that on a black and white thermal imaging camera that might be hard to tell), no matter what you try and argue. It is against the Geneva convention. And shooting journalists is a no no as well (Again I accept they probably couldn't tell)
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075829]It's one of those arguments with many different views which starts a storm. All I'm going to say is it was not a war crime, no more.[/QUOTE] And I'm going to say it was, no more.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075829]I just disproved each one of those story's, both, and the titles, and now you're calling me wrong?[/QUOTE] You disproved? Really? The title was "French convoy shoot 8 children on bus". The other title was "" [B] Air strike. US Inquiry later found many more civilian casualties. Red X say 'dozens'". And you have no proof that 56 civilians weren't killed, and even the report makes it pretty clear they were. The titles aren't biased, the site isn't biased, you are. [/B][QUOTE] All I'm going to say is the soldiers saw believed targets and it was not a war crime, no more. [/QUOTE] What they believed it was doesn't change what it actually was. I can think i'm shooting Pol Pot (hey no Godwin) but that doesn't change the fact I shot a normal guy.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24075848]And I'm going to say it was, no more.[/QUOTE] No more. :ninja: [editline]03:58AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075865]You disproved? Really? The title was "French convoy shoot 8 children on bus". The other title was "" [B] Air strike. US Inquiry later found many more civilian casualties. Red X say 'dozens'". And you have no proof that 56 civilians weren't killed, and even the report makes it pretty clear they were. The titles aren't biased, the site isn't biased, you are. [/B][/QUOTE] Why are you believing the titles? If you actually read the reports, you would know the titles are false. I had to point this out to you. Twice.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075866]No more. :ninja: [editline]03:58AM[/editline] Why are you believing the titles? If you actually read the reports, you would know the titles are false.[/QUOTE] And you would know the opposite. [QUOTE] UPDATE 041353D* PRO COY moves back to PRT KDZ. 041423D* PRO COY back at PRT KDZ. Investigations ongoing. NFI.56 Killed None(None) Insurgent[/QUOTE]That says No Insurgents Killed. Logically, that would mean that the people killed were civilians, or at least not direct targets of the attack, which makes this outside the rules of engagement and arguably a war crime. This in no way contradicts the title, which for some reason you think is false. Furthermore, you have no reason to believe the titles are false besides your imagined bias from an organization you know nothing of, except for the fact they disagree with you. EDIT: And even if they are biased, that doesn't mean they fucking lie outright. It's a paper that's been around since 1821, they have some integrity.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24075945]That says No Insurgents Killed. Logically, that would mean that the people killed were civilians, or at least not direct targets of the attack, which makes this outside the rules of engagement and arguably a war crime. This in no way contradicts the title, which for some reason you think is false. Furthermore, you have no reason to believe the titles are false besides your imagined bias against an organization you know nothing of, except for the fact they disagree with you.[/QUOTE] NFI means no further information. Which in this story means a conclusion could not be made, probably because all the bodies were incinerated. Again, nothing points to civilians being killed or does it point to insurgents. This means a war crime can't be determined.
What about this bit "Killed None(None) Insurgent"
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075979]NFI means no further information. Which in this story means a conclusion could not be made, probably because all the bodies were incinerated. Again, nothing points to civilians being killed or does it point to insurgents. This means a war crime can't be determined.[/QUOTE] Nothing points to an enemy being killed, so that really only leaves one other option.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075779]Please, don't bring that up. For the love of god, don't.[/QUOTE] journalists, civilians, and children slaughtered and that's not a war crime?
[QUOTE=Jsm;24075996]What about this bit "Killed None(None) Insurgent"[/QUOTE] As you've said, it's difficult to understand what that means without knowing the format. Other than that, the 56 NFI clearly says no further information could be determined about those deaths.
[QUOTE=Ragy;24075979]NFI means no further information. Which in this story means a conclusion could not be made, probably because all the bodies were incinerated. Again, nothing points to civilians being killed or does it point to insurgents. This means a war crime can't be determined.[/QUOTE] NFI means not further identified. And the report went from initially claiming 56 insurgents were killed, to claiming "NFI 56" were killed, which at the very least tells us it wasn't insurgents. "The media are reporting that Taliban did steal the trucks and had invited civilians in the area to take fuel.", as well. Another huge point behind all of this is that the US was very lax in their record keeping, and tended to bias it towards them. Do you really think someone making this report is going to put "56 civilians killed" instead of "56 unknowns killed"? [QUOTE=Ragy;24076053]As you've said, it's difficult to understand what that means without knowing the format. Other than that, the 56 NFI clearly says no further information could be determined about those deaths.[/QUOTE] Yea it's so hard to tell what it is when it says "No insurgents were killed", but when it says "56 NFI killed" instead well that's easy to tell. [QUOTE=Ragy;24076064]That's what I said. Nothing points to citizens or insurgents being killed, it's impossible to know.[/QUOTE] " And the report went from initially claiming 56 insurgents were killed, to claiming "NFI 56" were killed"
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24076009]Nothing points to an enemy being killed, so that really only leaves one other option.[/QUOTE] That's what I said. Nothing points to citizens or insurgents being killed, it's impossible to know.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.