• Assange ignores human rights groups as Wikileaks prepares to publish more documents
    868 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;24056297]You DO commit warcrimes lol [editline]08:52AM[/editline] And you're BARELY 'reconstructing'[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/world/asia/02contractors.html[/url] As of this time last year, well over half of the people we have in Afghanistan are civilian contractors rebuilding the country. Roughly 68 thousand civilian contractors.
I wouldn't have a problem with wikileaks but it pisses me off that it's an english guy releasing the documents.
[QUOTE=Novangel;24056647]That guy's a prick regardless.[/QUOTE] Not really. [editline]09:57AM[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;24056931][url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/world/asia/02contractors.html[/url] As of this time last year, well over half of the people we have in Afghanistan are civilian contractors rebuilding the country. Roughly 68 thousand civilian contractors.[/QUOTE] contractors include Titan, CACI, Blackwater, and KBR and NONE of them are "rebuilding" the country.
If I was in his position, I would just call out pentagon, and tell them to openly release their version of the documents, with the names and hurtful details (only) blackened out, if they didn't want me to release my uncensored version. That would be effortless, and safe for everybody, while still showing the truth.
The smear campaign continues, and people get dumber and angrier. What a world we live in today. Dance! puppets dance!...
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;24057017]Not really. [editline]09:57AM[/editline] contractors include Titan, CACI, Blackwater, and KBR and NONE of them are "rebuilding" the country.[/QUOTE] Yes, actually they are. They protect civilian contractors and diplomats. It is part of their job to make sure construction materials, medical supplies, and job sites remain safe or get where they need to be. In many cases the vehicles being used to transport the materials themselves are actually part of the logistical branch of the PMC. They do way more good than harm.
Assange is like global trolling now.
[QUOTE=GunFox;24057068]Yes, actually they are. They protect civilian contractors and diplomats. It is part of their job to make sure construction materials, medical supplies, and job sites remain safe or get where they need to be. In many cases the vehicles being used to transport the materials themselves are actually part of the logistical branch of the PMC. They do way more good than harm.[/QUOTE] Except they're absolutly horrendous at their job. You have never met a person in the military, have you? I know for a fact, gunfurry, you have about as much military experience as a fucking 10 year old. [editline]10:04AM[/editline] If you spent about 5 seconds talking to a military person, they would tell you why PC's are terrible. [editline]10:04AM[/editline] Not just to the country, but to the soldiers themselves. [editline]10:05AM[/editline] Soliders have DIED because of how terrible they do their job. [editline]10:06AM[/editline] and the PMC's are corrupt as shit and kill civilians for fun. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - GunFox))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;24057101]Except they're absolutly horrendous at their job. You have never met a person in the military, have you? I know for a fact, gunfurry, you have about as much military experience as a fucking 10 year old. [editline]10:04AM[/editline] If you spent about 5 seconds talking to a military person, they would tell you why PC's are terrible. [editline]10:04AM[/editline] Not just to the country, but to the soldiers themselves. [editline]10:05AM[/editline] Soliders have DIED because of how terrible they do their job. [editline]10:06AM[/editline] and the PMC's are corrupt as shit and kill civilians for fun. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - GunFox))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Wow, flaming AND blatantly wrong. You failed pretty hard here, kiddo.
[QUOTE]In his latest tweet, posted yesterday afternoon, Mr Assange said: "Don't be fooled on the "human rights groups". No formal statement. US led."[/QUOTE] He's right, without some further backing beyond "e-mails sent", and with the US obviously opposed to the site, you can't make any judgements about this.
[QUOTE=BmB;24057164]He's right, without some further backing beyond "e-mails sent", and with the US obviously opposed to the site, you can't make any judgements about this.[/QUOTE] You do have a point there. It's not beyond media reporters to somehow extrapolate an intern at a charity related to Amnesty International saying "I don't agree with what Assange is doing" into AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL DEMANDS ASSANGE STOP HIS MERCILESS ASSAULT ON US TROOPS. People are so easy to manipulate.
[QUOTE=GunFox;24057160]Wow, flaming AND blatantly wrong. You failed pretty hard here, kiddo.[/QUOTE] Scouring a post and banning people for the slightest infringement (Can you even call that an infringement?) of the rules to cut out a person trying to prove you wrong is a great way to win an argument.
[QUOTE=Sickle;24057332]Scouring a post and banning people for the slightest infringement (Can you even call that an infringement?) of the rules to cut out a person trying to prove you wrong is a great way to win an argument.[/QUOTE] I was actually kind of shocked by that as well.
[QUOTE=imadaman;24047506][QUOTE=JDK721;24046406]good I look forward to reading them[/QUOTE] As do I. [QUOTE=Alyx Zark;24046546]I need to read these later. I've been hearing a shit ton about WikiLeaks. Anyone able to give me a brief summary?[/QUOTE] Wikileaks was given almost 92,000 documents regarding the War in Afghanistan by an unknown person (presumed to be that Pvt. whatshisface), and they released about 77,000 documents after going through them undermanned for months attempting to censor all possible names that might endanger people's lives without the help of US Government which they requested, and withheld about 15,000 documents for further censoring. I'd say that's pretty accurate.[/QUOTE] [Re]Posting to the copy :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Sickle;24057332]Scouring a post and banning people for the slightest infringement (Can you even call that an infringement?) of the rules to cut out a person trying to prove you wrong is a great way to win an argument.[/QUOTE] I let countless amounts of shit go. I ENJOY debating. If I ban the other person, then the fun is over. However "Gunfurry" is about to start earning people a permaban. I've let it go for half a decade. It's over. EDIT: Oh hey, looks like the localflavor is actually Warhol. Come back to continue causing trouble even while banned.
[QUOTE=BloodYScar;24056554]I want this shit to go down, I want him to leak some more nice info about what the US is doing. The people have a right to know.[/QUOTE] You wouldn't know what to do with it even if they told you.
[QUOTE=GunFox;24057877]I let countless amounts of shit go. I ENJOY debating. If I ban the other person, then the fun is over. However "Gunfurry" is about to start earning people a permaban. I've let it go for half a decade. It's over. EDIT: Oh hey, looks like the localflavor is actually Warhol. Come back to continue causing trouble even while banned.[/QUOTE] It's exactly the same as me calling Zeke, 'Zurry' or 'FurryZeke'. It isn't insulting in the slightest if you know for a fact that you aren't a furry.
[QUOTE=Sickle;24058093]It's exactly the same as me calling Zeke, 'Zurry' or 'FurryZeke'. It isn't insulting in the slightest if you know for a fact that you aren't a furry.[/QUOTE] You could also call him an idiot or a monkey rapist, but despite neither of those being true (we hope), they are still an attempt to be insulting and therefore are flaming, plain and simple.
[QUOTE=starpluck;24055294]Seeing as he's censored all the names in this batch, they're only bitching just to cover up their war crimes.[/QUOTE] The war crimes performed by human rights groups? [editline]01:14PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24055851]When they're unjust, you bet.[/QUOTE] Hey guess who suffers for this. (Hint: American soldiers and Afghan civilians).
[QUOTE=GunFox;24058166]You could also call him an idiot or a monkey rapist, but despite neither of those being true (we hope), they are still an attempt to be insulting and therefore are flaming, plain and simple.[/QUOTE] so youre gonna permaban people for calling you names?? lol
[QUOTE=GunFox;24058166]You could also call him an idiot or a monkey rapist, but despite neither of those being true (we hope), they are still an attempt to be insulting and therefore are flaming, plain and simple.[/QUOTE] But 'Furry' is not an insult.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;24058503]The war crimes performed by human rights groups? [/QUOTE] Read the this page again.
wikileak is just using the free speech bs as an excuse to troll the us military. Personally, I'd love to see the snob creator of that site get taken care of CIA black-ops style.
[QUOTE=Master117;24054372]Assange is a a fucking asshole. I hope he gets fucking caught and detained in a jail cell where he is raped every day for the rest of his life.[/QUOTE] oh, you again. [editline]01:06PM[/editline] [QUOTE=johncage;24059162]wikileak is just using the free speech bs as an excuse to troll the us military. Personally, I'd love to see the snob creator of that site get taken care of CIA black-ops style.[/QUOTE] lol, how's being 12 working out for you?
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;24053146]Assanage is an asshole. He should only release documents about war crimes, when he starts allowing the release of actual military documents, thats basically handing over our men on a silver platter.[/QUOTE] No. They're "handing over" Afghani informants, not U.S. troops. It's not like they released these documents and then all of a sudden the Taliban knew where we're operating (HINT: They already do). As bad as that is, blaming all of this on Assange is fucking ridiculous. It says right there in the article that Wikileaks invited several organizations to help make the release of the documents more secure. It's not as if Wikileaks knows offhand which names are informants and which aren't, especially in a pile of 70,000 documents. The U.S. government refused to participate, presumably in an attempt to keep the documents from being released altogether. In essence, this is their fault and none other. Wikileaks is doing a great service to the American people and the rights of free speech. American citizens need to become aware they are paying for the slaughter of innocent civilians in a war that will never end. As for this being a human rights violation somehow ... that's so untrue, I don't even know what to say about it.
But what if they release war plans and operations that are still going on? For example, what if one of the documents says "Tomorrow a whole bunch of soldiers will go to blahvillage" The document is released. Taliban kills them all because they knew they were going to blahvillage. By the way we aren't "slaughtering" innocent civilians. Most of the time they were accidents. Only 25% of the civilian deaths were intentional by a rough estimate. If you want to see slaughtering civilians, go back to when the Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. They had fortresses where they would paint the walls with human blood.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;24059513]But what if they release war plans and operations that are still going on? For example, what if one of the documents says "Tomorrow a whole bunch of soldiers will go to blahvillage" The document is released. Taliban kills them all because they knew they were going to blahvillage.[/QUOTE] But they don't, and they wouldn't, so why is this an issue? Btw, the Taliban already knows where the troops are going for the most part. Why do you think they're dying to IEDs constantly? edit [quote]By the way we aren't "slaughtering" innocent civilians. Most of the time they were accidents. Only 25% of the civilian deaths were intentional by a rough estimate. If you want to see slaughtering civilians, go back to when the Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. They had fortresses where they would paint the walls with human blood.[/quote] Because accidental killing is only involuntary manslaughter, where as murder is murder and therefore worse! Please. At any rate, I never defended the Taliban, nor do I need an education in their violent tactics. The simple fact is that civilians who are living in a combat zone (because they are too poor to just move out, you understand) are getting killed on a scale much higher than troop fatalities. In the end, that will only serve to bring in new recruits to the Taliban. Thus we return to my original point: we are fighting a losing war, and this information needs to be made available if we ever hope to stop it.
[quote] American citizens need to become aware they are paying for the slaughter of innocent civilians in a war that will never end.[/quote] Happens in any war. I don't think I need to be made aware of it. The alternative is to tuck tail and run then wait for them to fly another plane into a skyscraper.
[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;24059541]But they don't, and they wouldn't, so why is this an issue? Btw, the Taliban already knows where the troops are going for the most part. Why do you think they're dying to IEDs constantly?[/QUOTE] They rig IEDs on frequently used highways. Its all a matter of luck that a US convoy goes past them. And what about that insurance file they have, but is still encrypted? What if that contains files that reveal operations? What happens then.
If you idiots would read the article instead of the fear mongering headline, you would see that he has called on the US Military and Human rights groups to help crawl the documents for names, they have refused to do this. They missed some names on the initial round because they're understaffed and had to go through 70,000 documents. They held back this second round for additional harm minimization.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.