[Yoces]

Ragy posted:

That analogy made no sense.

You're not making much sense either, my boy.

[Ragy]

ZekeTwo posted:

So will you admit that atrocities have been committed that would not have come to light had it not been for the leak?

1. I never said war crimes have never been committed.
2. No war crimes have been brought to light from the leaks.

[Ragy]

Yoces posted:

You're not making much sense either, my boy.

I'm pretty sure I'm making more sense than that analogy.

[Mr. Scorpio]

Ragy posted:

I'm pretty sure I'm making more sense than that analogy.

You really, really, really, really aren't.

[Jsm]

Xen Tricks posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...6-9A10EA65D5A9

Air strike. US Inquiry later found many more civilian casualties. Red X say 'dozens'

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)

[Yoces]

Ragy posted:

I'm pretty sure I'm making more sense than that analogy.

Nope.

[Ragy]

Mr. Scorpio posted:

read that definition very carefully


because I think you'll find that assault does not mean what you think it means

Violently attacking someone? I think I used it correctly.

[Xen Tricks]

Ragy posted:

1. I never said war crimes have never been committed.
2. No war crimes have been brought to light from the leaks.

Xen Tricks posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...0-C9A30F25C104

Brit troops kill two, wound two in Toyota with "warning shots"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...32AD577FEEB706

Gate guard shoots civilian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...CD5E27D5B93898

Irrigation ditch digger shot dead, companion wounded for fear of IEDs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...7-E1F43E8B59E1

Two teenagers on motorbikes shot by Canadian patrol

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...6b160d6c8fe12d

Convoy patrol shoots "too close" van driver

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...28160d2d8b87b6

French convoy shoots 8 children on bus

Xen Tricks posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...6-9A10EA65D5A9

Air strike. US Inquiry later found many more civilian casualties. Red X say 'dozens'


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...1610DB68C2EDBD

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.

What are these?

[Mr. Scorpio]

Ragy posted:

Violently attacking someone? I think I used it correctly.

Do I have to define violence too.

[ZekeTwo]

Ragy posted:

2. No war crimes have been brought to light from the leaks.

How do you figure? What about the 20 or so links we just provided for you?

[Mr. Scorpio]

ZekeTwo posted:

How do you figure? What about the 20 or so links we just provided for you?

no data sry

[Ragy]

ZekeTwo posted:

How do you figure? What about the 20 or so links we just provided for you?

Hold up, gotta read them first.

Edited:

Mr. Scorpio posted:

Do I have to define violence too.

What are you talking about? lol? How did I use "assault" wrongly? Please explain.

[Xen Tricks]

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...hanevents1.xls

Here's a spreadsheet of these events categorized

http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/so...e_white_0.html

Here's a list of blue-white (army-civilian) casualties

[Ragy]

Xen Tricks posted:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...hanevents1.xls

Here's a spreadsheet of these events categorized

http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/so...e_white_0.html

Here's a list of blue-white (army-civilian) casualties

Pick out one you want me to read, because I honestly don't have time to read all eight of them.

[ZekeTwo]

Ragy posted:

Pick out one you want me to read, because I honestly don't have time to read all eight of them.

ahahaha

"I'm scared to read the things that will prove me wrong so I won't"

[Xen Tricks]

But you have time to argue about things you're ignorant of. Read them.

[Ragy]

ZekeTwo posted:

ahahaha

"I'm scared to read the things that will prove me wrong so I won't"

Is that why I'm asking him to pick one out? :colbert:

[Jsm]

oops missed this post

Ragy posted:

If there is no evidence, there is nothing there to prove he committed the murder. It's very simple.

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?

[Ragy]

Xen Tricks posted:

But you have time to argue about things you're ignorant of. Read them.

Pick one out you believe is a war crime. Don't state documents which you believe there is.

[Xen Tricks]

Ragy posted:

Is that why I'm asking him to pick one out? :colbert:

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.

[Ragy]

Jsm posted:

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?

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).

Edited:

Xen Tricks posted:

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.

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.

[Xen Tricks]

Here, one example to start off with:

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.

Airstike to destroy fuel trucks and smugglers kills 56 confirmed civilians.

[Ragy]

Xen Tricks posted:

Here, one example to start off with:



Airstike to destroy fuel trucks and smugglers kills 56 confirmed civilians.

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?

[Jsm]

Xen Tricks posted:

Here, one example to start off with:



Airstike to destroy fuel trucks and smugglers kills 56 confirmed civilians.

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).

[Xen Tricks]

Ragy posted:

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?

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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...1610DB68C2EDBD
56 civilians killed in Nato bombing



Doesn't sound like insurgents to me

[Ragy]

Jsm posted:

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).

Two insurgents stole a truck (2x INS) and killed 56 other insurgents (56x INS). No citizens were killed.

[Jsm]

Ragy posted:

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?

That was a bad quote by him, the rest of the report states it was updated, and civilians were found to be killed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...1610DB68C2EDBD

"NFI.56 Killed None(None) Insurgent

(NFI = not further identified)

[Xen Tricks]

Here's another

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...28160d2d8b87b6
French convoy shoots 8 children on bus

[Ragy]

Xen Tricks posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...1610DB68C2EDBD
56 civilians killed in Nato bombing



Doesn't sound like insurgents to me

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.

[Jsm]

Xen Tricks posted:

Here's another



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...28160d2d8b87b6
French convoy shoots 8 children on bus

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...

[Ragy]

Jsm posted:

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...

Last one, reading.

[Jsm]

Ragy posted:

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.

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 most of the casualties were Taliban."

"most" suggests there were civilian casualties, maybe not 56 but some.

[Xen Tricks]

Ragy posted:

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.

Then why is the title of the document/report "56 civilians killed" and not "56 insurgents killed, media reports 56 civilians"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...6-9A10EA65D5A9

Air strike. US Inquiry later found many more civilian casualties. Red X say 'dozens'

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

9 Wounded None(None) Local Civilian

Ragy posted:

Last one, reading.

Ok you can't argue for 3-4 pages and refuse to read all but 1-2 things disproving your claims. That's bullshit.

[Ragy]

Xen Tricks posted:

Here's another



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afgh...28160d2d8b87b6
French convoy shoots 8 children on bus

"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.

[Jsm]

Ragy posted:

"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 its perfectly fine to shoot CHILDREN?

[Ragy]

Jsm posted:

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 most of the casualties were Taliban."

"most" suggests there were civilian casualties, maybe not 56 but some.

No one could tell, that's the thing. There are no facts proving civilians were killed.

Edited:

Jsm posted:

So its perfectly fine to shoot CHILDREN?

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.

[Warhol]

Ragy posted:

1. I never said war crimes have never been committed.
2. No war crimes have been brought to light from the leaks.

The Apache massacre?

[Ragy]

Xen Tricks posted:

Then why is the title of the document/report "56 civilians killed" and not "56 insurgents killed, media reports 56 civilians"?

The title is highly misleading. Don't judge something by the title, because this site is extremely bias simply from these reports.

[Clark21]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/data...stan-data#data

Look

Ragy posted:

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.

So that gives them permission to shoot children?

[Ragy]

Warhol posted:

The Apache massacre?

Please, don't bring that up. For the love of god, don't.