Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    05 Apr '10 18:06
    WikiLeaks is a website that has been up for some time (and have faced some recent troubles) whose mission is to provide way for whistle blowers all around the world to safely leak government documents that the said governments wouldn't like to see leaked in the first place. Think of is as FOIA with copyleft.

    http://wikileaks.org/
    What they were doing is so deviant that even US intelligence planned to have the whole thing shut down: http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf

    Their most recent expose is how the US military murdered innocent civilians in Baghdad:
    The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.


    The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

    After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

    Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.


    I tried to find the Rules of Engagement on the web but couldn't do it, but anyway for those of you that have strong enough stomaches here it goes:

    (Viewer discretion is seriously advised)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=player_embedded

    So what has this world come to? Security forces go out of their ways to shoot and denigrate reporters in foreign lands that they are supposedly defending. Security forces that seem to be doing everything but to defend civilians.

    Isn't about time to leave these people alone instead of helping the tyrants that were murdering them in the first place in order to then go there to shoot at what's left?

    So waht's the deal with this export of "democracy"?
  2. 05 Apr '10 19:04
    Synopsis for those who don't look at the video.

    Apache pilot identifies persons with guns on the street. Not very effectively though, as some of those identified as being armed are actually carrying cameras. He gets permission to open fire and does so, gunning down everyone. Some time later a van pulls up, people from the van start loading up a wounded person. There is absolutely no indication that these people are armed, nothing to link them to the persons just gunned down, they are just people coming upon wounded and helping them. Permission is again given to engage, they are gunned down.
  3. 05 Apr '10 19:08
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    WikiLeaks is a website that has been up for some time (and have faced some recent troubles) whose mission is to provide way for whistle blowers all around the world to safely leak government documents that the said governments wouldn't like to see leaked in the first place. Think of is as FOIA with copyleft.

    http://wikileaks.org/
    What they we ...[text shortened]... o there to shoot at what's left?

    So waht's the deal with this export of "democracy"?
    Jesus!!
    "its there fault for bringing kids to the battle " !!!!
    Sufficticate millions of dollar's apache helicopter with a crew of murderous idiot's . When will "Hearts and minds " ever sink in with American's??
  4. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    05 Apr '10 19:20 / 1 edit
    If you feel that what you saw is important and relevant in any way please donate something to WikiLeaks and speak up against this.

    Edit: and for those that like to speak about Rules of Engagement here they are: http://collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html
  5. 05 Apr '10 19:42
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    WikiLeaks is a website that has been up for some time (and have faced some recent troubles) whose mission is to provide way for whistle blowers all around the world to safely leak government documents that the said governments wouldn't like to see leaked in the first place. Think of is as FOIA with copyleft.

    http://wikileaks.org/
    What they we ...[text shortened]... o there to shoot at what's left?

    So waht's the deal with this export of "democracy"?
    Except, even in your heavily edited video muzzle flashes could be seen from the Iraqis in the impact area.

    Here's the Washington Post story that your video cites:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202357.html
  6. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    05 Apr '10 19:44
    Laughing while shooting people.

    "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon."
  7. 05 Apr '10 19:50
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    If you feel that what you saw is important and relevant in any way please donate something to WikiLeaks and speak up against this.

    Edit: and for those that like to speak about Rules of Engagement here they are: http://collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html
    I learn about rules of engagement from ROE briefs. You learn about them from "collateralmurder.com"

    Even from their dated documents they didn't exactly discover damning information.

    http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf
  8. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    05 Apr '10 19:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Except, even in your heavily edited video muzzle flashes could be seen from the Iraqis in the impact area.

    Here's the Washington Post story that your video cites:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202357.html
    I'm not a specialist like you so can you tell at what time muzle flashes can be seen?

    And what about the journalists? What about the whole group demeanor? Pretty laid back for someone that had been fighting recently.

    Besides this
    It was unclear whether the journalists had been killed by U.S. fire or by shooting from the Iraqis targeted by the Apache.


    is not true. It is perfectly clear that the journalists were killed by American fire and it is also quite clear that the journalists were there all the time, so I'm guessing they were in cahoots with the militia.

    The Apache crew fired because militants "were endangering the stability of Iraq" and because they had positive identification that the militants "had weapons and were using them against coalition and Iraqi security forces,"

    Another lie.

    Also Thursday, the U.S. military said an American soldier had died in fighting east of Baghdad. No other details were available.

    Gunmen near Tikrit attacked a police checkpoint with machine guns and killed four policemen and wounded four others, said Maj. Mohammed al-Doori, of al-Door police station. The initial clashes lasted half an hour, then gunmen took the four policemen into a room near the checkpoint and executed them, he said.

    Totally irrelevant to what these "journalists" were reporting and only serves to whitewash the bloodbath that just happened by giving some sort plausibility.
  9. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    05 Apr '10 19:57
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I learn about rules of engagement from ROE briefs. You learn about them from "collateralmurder.com"

    Even from their dated documents they didn't exactly discover damning information.

    http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf
    It's not about getting damning information it's about getting information. You learned rules of engagement but most people don't and don't have access to them. This site has provided access to them for most people.

    And your snide remark doesn't really cut it because the original source of the reports is wikileaks and wikileaks reputation is very well high.
    Don't knock it just because it is the first time you heard about it.
  10. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    05 Apr '10 19:59 / 4 edits
    And paratrooper what's it about shooting a van where it is clearly visible that the people aren't armed and are only picking up the bodies? can you please elucidate me in that.

    Edit: Also explain to me their more than apparent glee at killing other people from up above. Do they see it as some kind of video game or something?

    Edit2: What do you think actions will do in already radical Islam. Do you think that shooting up innocent civilians will get more people to join their cause? Do you think that it is likely that people that aren't so open to radical Islam have a chance to be won over?
    Do you really saw anything useful in that slaughter.
    Do you see anything useful in the current occupation of Iraq?

    Edit: the longer video version in case you don't find it: http://www.youtube.com/user/sunshinepress#p/a/u/1/is9sxRfU-ik
  11. 05 Apr '10 20:27
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    It's not about getting damning information it's about getting information. You learned rules of engagement but most people don't and don't have access to them. This site has provided access to them for most people.

    And your snide remark doesn't really cut it because the original source of the reports is wikileaks and wikileaks reputation is very well high.
    Don't knock it just because it is the first time you heard about it.
    out of curiosity how much combat or even military experience does our resident e-thug tough guy adam warlock have?
  12. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    05 Apr '10 20:31
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    out of curiosity how much combat or even military experience does our resident e-thug tough guy adam warlock have?
    I don't see the relevance in that question, but I do see the relevance in not making a single comment about the content of the thread.
  13. 05 Apr '10 20:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    And paratrooper what's it about shooting at van where it is clearly visible that the people aren't armed and are only picking up the bodies? can you please elucidate me in that.

    Edit: Also explain to me their more than apparent glee at killing other people from up above. Do they see it as some kind of video game or something?

    Edit2: What do you th ion in case you don't find it: http://www.youtube.com/user/sunshinepress#p/a/u/1/is9sxRfU-ik
    Unless I was actually a part of the operation I'm not going to try to judge. All I have is an edited video from the helicopter and a story about the battle from the Washington Post.

    I wasn't in the TOC (tactical operations center).

    I wasn't the on the patrol.

    I wasn't a part of the OP Order.

    I wasn't involved in the intel brief.

    I don't know what their situation was.

    Do you think that shooting up innocent civilians will get more people to join their cause?

    No, but I don't buy into your implication that, as a practice, the US military deliberately shoots up innocent civilians.

    Also explain to me their more than apparent glee at killing other people from up above.

    Perhaps that was inappropriate. Maybe you should offer to give US troops training on human emotions and coping skills as it pertains to battle stress. You know, from the vastness of your experience in your armchair.
  14. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    05 Apr '10 20:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Unless I was actually a part of the operation I'm not going to try to judge. All I have is an edited video from the helicopter and a story about the battle from the Washington Post.

    I wasn't in the TOC (tactical operations center).

    I wasn't the on the patrol.

    I wasn't a part of the OP Order.

    I wasn't involved in the intel brief.

    rtains to battle stress. You know, from the vastness of your experience in your armchair.
    So all you have to offer is some cop out to your fellow American military men. That's understandable though. Just so you know: the media is picking up the truth in this story as we speak and you might find some shame in defending this.

    "No, but I don't buy into your implication that, as a practice, the US military deliberately shoots up innocent civilians."
    It's not about buying into it's about checking the facts. Google a little bit and you'll be a bit surprised to what you may find.

    You failed to answer t this though:"I'm not a specialist like you so can you tell at what time muzle flashes can be seen?"

    Here's the longer video: http://www.youtube.com/user/sunshinepress#p/a/u/1/is9sxRfU-ik

    And do you have anything to say about the comments I made on article you linked to. Or do you agree with all of my assessments?

    Edit: the part of shooting up the van was pretty much un-edited and it is evident that those people weren't armed. It is evident that those people were just picking up the bodies. It also is evident how eager those guys were to shoot at the van.

    Do you honestly believe that the people that were shot were engaging in some sort of violence towards anybody?
  15. 05 Apr '10 20:43
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    I don't see the relevance in that question, but I do see the relevance in not making a single comment about the content of the thread.
    What was your relevance asking me over and over again if I was a Christian?

    That being said,what is/was your rank in the Portugal army? They do have one don't they?
    Also, where have you been engaged in combat during your service that makes you such an expert?

    Please don't threaten to come to Atlanta,Ga USA to knock my teeth out. (I may piss myself and just put on a clean pair of jeans)