1. Post #521
    Xen Tricks's Avatar
    March 2010
    4,223 Posts
    "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.
    So killing's a no-no but somehow just wounding people makes it not a crime? And it changes nothing that the 8 children were killed out of worry of a car bomb. You could make that excuse for any civilian that got killed that was in/on a vehicle.

  2. Post #522
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    So that gives them permission to shoot children?
    They shot a bus, not children.

  3. Post #523
    Jsm
    "Belgium is pretty much a non-country"
    Jsm's Avatar
    June 2006
    8,032 Posts
    The Apache massacre?
    I believe Ragy is saying that there is no evidence war crimes in the leaked documents, not that war crimes haven't taken place.

  4. Post #524
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    So killing's a no-no but somehow just wounding people makes it not a crime? And it changes nothing that the 8 children were killed out of worry of a car bomb. You could make that excuse for any civilian that got killed that was in/on a vehicle.
    Stop listening to the titles, hell. No children were killed.

  5. Post #525
    Xen Tricks's Avatar
    March 2010
    4,223 Posts
    The title is highly misleading. Don't judge something by the title, because this site is extremely bias simply from these reports.
    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.

  6. Post #526
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    I believe Ragy is saying that there is no evidence war crimes in the leaked documents, not that war crimes haven't taken place.
    What you see as war crimes is protected under the right to engage for soldiers.

  7. Post #527
    ZekeTwo's Avatar
    July 2010
    4,314 Posts
    Please, don't bring that up. For the love of god, don't.
    Why not? The Apache incident is perfectly valid here.

  8. Post #528
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    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.
    I just disproved each one of those story's, both, and the titles, and now you're calling me wrong?

    Edited:

    Why not? The Apache incident is perfectly valid here.
    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.

  9. Post #529
    Jsm
    "Belgium is pretty much a non-country"
    Jsm's Avatar
    June 2006
    8,032 Posts
    What you see as war crimes is protected under the right to engage for soldiers.
    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)

  10. Post #530
    ZekeTwo's Avatar
    July 2010
    4,314 Posts
    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.
    And I'm going to say it was, no more.

  11. Post #531
    Xen Tricks's Avatar
    March 2010
    4,223 Posts
    I just disproved each one of those story's, both, and the titles, and now you're calling me wrong?
    You disproved? Really? The title was "French convoy shoot 8 children on bus". The other title was ""
    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.

    All I'm going to say is the soldiers saw believed targets and it was not a war crime, no more.
    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.

  12. Post #532
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    And I'm going to say it was, no more.
    No more. :ninja:

    Edited:

    You disproved? Really? The title was "French convoy shoot 8 children on bus". The other title was ""
    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.
    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.

  13. Post #533
    Xen Tricks's Avatar
    March 2010
    4,223 Posts
    No more. :ninja:

    Edited:



    Why are you believing the titles? If you actually read the reports, you would know the titles are false.
    And you would know the opposite.

    UPDATE
    041353D* PRO COY moves back to PRT KDZ.
    041423D* PRO COY back at PRT KDZ.
    Investigations ongoing.
    NFI.56 Killed None(None) Insurgent
    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.

  14. Post #534
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    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.
    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.

  15. Post #535
    Jsm
    "Belgium is pretty much a non-country"
    Jsm's Avatar
    June 2006
    8,032 Posts
    What about this bit
    "Killed None(None) Insurgent"

  16. Post #536
    ZekeTwo's Avatar
    July 2010
    4,314 Posts
    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.
    Nothing points to an enemy being killed, so that really only leaves one other option.

  17. Post #537
    Warhol's Avatar
    July 2009
    3,473 Posts
    Please, don't bring that up. For the love of god, don't.
    journalists, civilians, and children slaughtered


    and that's not a war crime?

  18. Post #538
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    What about this bit
    "Killed None(None) Insurgent"
    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.

  19. Post #539
    Xen Tricks's Avatar
    March 2010
    4,223 Posts
    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.
    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"?

    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.
    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.

    That's what I said. Nothing points to citizens or insurgents being killed, it's impossible to know.
    " And the report went from initially claiming 56 insurgents were killed, to claiming "NFI 56" were killed"

  20. Post #540
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    Nothing points to an enemy being killed, so that really only leaves one other option.
    That's what I said. Nothing points to citizens or insurgents being killed, it's impossible to know.

  21. Post #541
    Warhol's Avatar
    July 2009
    3,473 Posts
    jesus Ragy, you're ridiculous.

  22. Post #542
    Jsm
    "Belgium is pretty much a non-country"
    Jsm's Avatar
    June 2006
    8,032 Posts
    That's what I said. Nothing points to citizens or insurgents being killed, it's impossible to know.
    Apart from the bit where it says that civilians were invited to take the fuel just before the bombing run.

  23. Post #543
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    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"?
    When the military took the shot and sent troops in to record the damage (which they were under fire while there) they reported 56 insurgents killed. The media reported civilians. Because of this, the military investigated the scene and determined nothing could be, well, determined. Also, the military doesn't lie in classified documents, simply because they're classified and many times later need what really happen at the scene.

  24. Post #544
    Xen Tricks's Avatar
    March 2010
    4,223 Posts
    Apart from the bit where it says that civilians were invited to take the fuel just before the bombing run.
    THE MEDIA SAID THAT SO IT'S FALSE BECAUSE THE ARMY WHICH IS UNBIASED SAID DIFFERENTLY!

    :sigh:

  25. Post #545
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    Apart from the bit where it says that civilians were invited to take the fuel just before the bombing run.
    From the media.

    Edited:

    THE MEDIA SAID THAT SO IT'S FALSE BECAUSE THE ARMY WHICH IS UNBIASED SAID DIFFERENTLY!

    :sigh:
    What do you not understand that nothing could be determined to prove the media or military was correct. Nothing could be determined.

  26. Post #546
    Jsm
    "Belgium is pretty much a non-country"
    Jsm's Avatar
    June 2006
    8,032 Posts
    When the military took the shot and sent troops in the record the damage (which they were under fire while there) they reported 56 insurgents killed. The media reported civilians. Because of this, the military investigated the scene and determined nothing could be, well, determined. Also, the military doesn't lie in classified documents, simply because they're classified and many times later need what really happen at the scene.
    But these are reports filed by people who most likely have better things to be doing with their time. So perhaps instead of investigating they just said "Oh we cant identify anyone, put it down as NFI".

  27. Post #547
    Gold Member
    Ragy's Avatar
    April 2009
    2,463 Posts
    But these are reports filed by people who most likely have better things to be doing with their time. So perhaps instead of investigating they just said "Oh we cant identify anyone, put it down as NFI".
    Maybe, but we will never know, will we? Again, assumptions aren't facts. I'm going off what was reported, not assumed.

    Edited:

    I've disproved both of your story's of war crimes, more than I said I would. I'm out.

  28. Post #548
    Xen Tricks's Avatar
    March 2010
    4,223 Posts
    -ah fuck it all, not the best example. I'm bad at picking these out, i'm sure there's better if someone wants to try-

  29. Post #549
    Gold Member
    DamagePoint's Avatar
    January 2008
    4,661 Posts
    He's done too much good in the past for anyone to think that he released these documents maliciously. Besides, if they start deciding to not leak documents just because some people won't like the result they won't be neutral anymore.
    Just for the record they are anything but neutral. Assange has made it pretty clear that he's strongly opposed to the Afghan war. Just in case the fact that they're accusing everyone who criticizes them of working for the U.S. government didn't make that apparent already.

  30. Post #550
    Melnek's Avatar
    April 2010
    3,050 Posts
    journalists, civilians, and children slaughtered


    and that's not a war crime?
    looked like a perfectly valid mistake to me

    the pilots thought they saw real targets so they did what they had to do.

  31. Post #551
    Warhol's Avatar
    July 2009
    3,473 Posts
    Maybe, but we will never know, will we? Again, assumptions aren't facts. I'm going off what was reported, not assumed.

    Edited:

    I've disproved both of your story's of war crimes, more than I said I would. I'm out.
    children and journalists being slaughtered is not a war crime?

  32. Post #552
    ZekeTwo's Avatar
    July 2010
    4,314 Posts
    Just for the record they are anything but neutral. Assange has made it pretty clear that he's strongly opposed to the Afghan war. Just in case the fact that they're accusing everyone who criticizes them of working for the U.S. government didn't make that apparent already.
    Their commentary isn't neutral but what they publish is.

  33. Post #553
    Dennab
    June 2010
    7,068 Posts
    children and journalists being slaughtered is not a war crime?
    I always thought of war crimes being purposefully done atrocities, not accidents. I mean...that's just how I see it anyway.

  34. Post #554
    Gold Member
    Swilly's Avatar
    December 2009
    16,312 Posts
    Their commentary isn't neutral but what they publish is.
    Thats bullshit, if he was neutral he would've sweeped through all the documents. Yes it would've taken much longer but it would be better to keep innocent civilians alive than dead.

    I've said this time and time again. I support Wikileaks, but what they did now...this shit right here...is a dick move of epic proportions.

  35. Post #555
    Gold Member
    DamagePoint's Avatar
    January 2008
    4,661 Posts
    Thats bullshit, if he was neutral he would sweeped through all the documents. Yes it would've taken much longer but it would better keep innocent civilians alive then dead.

    I've said this time and time again. I support Wikileaks, but what they did now...this shit right here...is a dick move of epic proportions.
    True, it is hypocritical of him to call out the U.S. on civilian casualties when he's too lazy himself to scan through the documents himself to make sure any civilians aren't endangered. The least he could have done was acknowledged Amnesty International's concerns instead of accusing them of working for a U.S. government conspiracy.

    But any respect I had for wikileaks is gone now. I supported them before but this is just getting ridiculous now. Assange needs to pull his head out of his ass.

  36. Post #556
    ZekeTwo's Avatar
    July 2010
    4,314 Posts
    Thats bullshit, if he was neutral he would've sweeped through all the documents. Yes it would've taken much longer but it would be better to keep innocent civilians alive than dead.

    I've said this time and time again. I support Wikileaks, but what they did now...this shit right here...is a dick move of epic proportions.
    Stop referring to the entirety of Wikileaks as "he", they have editors. Assange probably isn't even in the office half the time.

    Edited:

    The least he could have done was acknowledged Amnesty International's concerns instead of accusing them of working for a U.S. government conspiracy.
    He asked if anyone wanted to help with harm minimization and nobody took him up on the offer. Amnesty has no right to criticize when they did nothing to help.

  37. Post #557
    Gold Member
    DamagePoint's Avatar
    January 2008
    4,661 Posts
    He asked if anyone wanted to help with harm minimization and nobody took him up on the offer.
    That's not really their job.

  38. Post #558
    Gold Member
    Swilly's Avatar
    December 2009
    16,312 Posts
    Stop referring to the entirety of Wikileaks as "he", they have editors. Assange probably isn't even in the office half the time.

    Edited:



    He asked if anyone wanted to help with harm minimization and nobody took him up on the offer. Amnesty has no right to criticize when they did nothing to help.
    I thought he only asked the US government, you know the document's original owners? I bet you he didn't even ask, if he did, I wanna hear for a third party reporter, not from him or from the Human rights organization.

  39. Post #559
    Gold Member
    DamagePoint's Avatar
    January 2008
    4,661 Posts
    Amnesty has no right to criticize when they did nothing to help.
    Wikileaks didn't have to release the documents. Or they could have censored them. But blaming other people for their own laziness just shows how far their head is up their ass.

  40. Post #560
    ZekeTwo's Avatar
    July 2010
    4,314 Posts
    Wikileaks didn't have to release the documents. Or they could have censored them. But blaming other people for their own laziness just shows how far their head is up their ass.
    Wikileaks leaks documents. That's their job. And they did their job.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)