back to article Wikileaks publishes encrypted 'insurance' file

Wikileaks, the transparency website under pressure from the US government over its disclosure of intelligence documents from Afghanistan, has published a mysterious large file labelled 'insurance'. The 1.4GB file is encrypted with AES-256, so its contents are unknown, but it was quietly posted on the site's Afghan War Diary …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. Mephistro

      So...

      I read a few months ago that the USA military routinely shared intelligence data with private contractors, and that sometimes private contractors where in charge of maintaining the military computers.

      The fact that such sensible data, including names and locations of spies was ever in the hands of a very junior intelligence officer seems to be coherent with that hypothesis.

      If people dies due to this data being made public, I think that other hands -in the american military and intelligence communities- are more blooded than Mr.Assange's.

      Making this stuff public may even have a positive effect, by forcing the Americans to remove those operatives from the field, because chances are that data has already been compromised before.

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Surely this is the point

    "However, the material was classified only as Secret, so would be relatively widely available to security-cleared individuals. As far as we know none of them published it, though."

    Am I missing something, if it's classified as Secret then it should be treated as such. Wiki are not in a position to make that choice on this material. The fact that one person has put his colleagues and many others lives at risk is disgusting. A great deal on intelligence can be gathered by chatter which this number of documents provides, in addition to hard facts.

    If he did feel the need to betray his country and leak certain information then at least have the decency to make it non operational. If they want to make a point that some losses have been hidden then they should have specifically targeted information relating to that whilst also ensuring nothing to compromise security went out with it.

    1. kissingthecarpet
      Headmaster

      Which country?

      I believe Mr. Assange is an Australian citizen

      1. PirateSlayer
        Terminator

        @kissingthecarpet

        I believe the Australians are part of the effort in Afghanistan. Operation Slipper.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yes, missing the point.

      @Am I missing something, if it's classified as Secret then it should be treated as such. Wiki are not in a position to make that choice on this material. The fact that one person has put his colleagues and many others lives at risk is disgusting

      So some bod in the army classifies something as "secret" and WE have to adhere to it despite the fact we all know they are a bunch of corrupt bastards who make these classifications to cover their own backs and NOT to protect sources. The wikileaks guy makes it quite clear that they have removed identifying information from these documents where they find the person could be compromised in some way.

      I do not beleive that the publication of these documents puts peoples lives at risk (the government, armed forces and special ops guys do a perfectly good job of this as it is) but instead embarrasses the intelligence gathering SOB's, sadistic torturing operatives and trigger happy 25 year olds who love nothing more than mowing down lightly armed ground guys from their heavily armed copters, all of whom are happy to do whatever they wish, contravening whatever laws they wish.

      Good on the guys at wikileaks - without them we are all just paranoid androids and conspiracy theorists but with them we have the evidence of what a shifty bunch of characters our so called protectors are.

      1. Ysean
        FAIL

        @Yes, missing the point.

        Do you REALLY REALLY believe that the people involved in wikileaks have the ability to properly vet the intelligence data they are receiving to make sure no individuals are harmed as a result of the illegal leak of data. Beside the fact that the face of Wikileaks is an arrogant b*st*rd that is as reality impaired as the people involved in wikipedia and the "web 2.0 will change the world for the better" crowd.

      2. ViagraFalls

        No lives at risk?

        "The wiki leaks guy makes it quite clear that they have removed identifying information from these documents...I do not believe the publication of these documents puts peoples lives at risk..."

        The thing is that they apparently did not remove all this identifying information from the documents before they published it. I absolutely am for exposing stuff being kept under wraps in order not to damage the military's reputation, and think that blatant abuse and/or misconduct ought to be made known.

        But FFS, if wikileaks somehow managed to expose even the name of a single source, they ARE putting peoples lives in danger, as Mullah Omar and his cronies will have no problems beheading more people.

    3. No. Really!?
      Big Brother

      Title

      :::Sigh:::

      The problem with American's world view is that the World is American.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yes, you are missing the ability to think about someone else as if they were yourself.

      "Am I missing something, if it's classified as Secret then it should be treated as such."

      If someone killed your father by toting their machine-gun rather more extensively than the situation required; if that someone then attempted to dress up the killing by branding the circumstances a 'secret'; if that someone's superior furthermore decided it would be in 'the national interest' for this stuff to get buried away where no-one would find it; in those circumstances would you or would you not be of the opinion that this entire matter should just stay a secret and we'll all forget it ever happened?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    insurance file....

    ...might not have anything to do with the current Afgnanistan files.

    If I were Wikileaks I would have kept back some of the information I'd recieved previously, some of the really juicy stuff, the use as INSURANCE/BLACKMAIL is case anything like this current situation happened. But it will in the end only lead to them getting in more trouble.

    I don't see why everyone is so shocked with these files and what our troops have done. War is war: you can dress it up how ever you want, but innocent people will die, international human rights laws will be broken and no government is going to tell it's public a damn thing about why it really happened.

    If it's endangering lives I agree the information should be kept classified/edited, otherwise I say let the western world accept the monster it has become, and finally try and change for the better.

  3. Blofeld's Cat

    The second oldest profession?

    "In war, truth is the first casualty."

    Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)

  4. Blofeld's Cat
    Unhappy

    Insurance file

    The forms and other paperwork that make up my quote for car insurance probably come to about 1.4 GB.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    lives at risk

    maybe they should come home now then.

    1. DS 1

      Maybe they should come home now then

      Maybe they should. On the other hand, Wikileaks has made enormous noises about human rights. Thats why they have done this. It seems a regular piece of garbage claimed by leftists, communists, and socialists, who have an underlying hatred of the west, and the US - and will basically use anything and everything as a stick.

      A short stick.

      So, let us bask in the glorious idea that driving the west from these places is a terrific idea. And leaving millions to live under the horrors of the Taleban and their many friends is delicious. The ability to fly kites, girls to go to school, and men to not have their noses cut off for having a lack or incorrect length of beard, and women to not be covered in acid for minor issues, and other decident western ideas is over rated. Any and all of the above only brought back to people because of US/UK/NATO men and women willing to go to all lengths including dying for the ideas. Call me old fashioned, sometimes an idea is worth fighting for.

      In the meantime, yes, lets bask in the idea that wikileaks is promoting 'Human rights' - because off course, PR that forces the US and the West in general will lead to better human rights.

      Sarcasm off. I've grown exceptionally sick of this crap. The world is in a fight against 7th century barbarians, and its time it woke up to the reality. Coming home won't end it, and there are no human rights at all under its yolk.

      1. frank ly

        Maybe.

        "..It seems a regular piece of garbage claimed by leftists, communists, and socialists,... "

        You forgot the gays and the Jews and the Gypsies.

        We had to destroy the village in order to save it. - Wise words.

        1. Dave Cradle

          @frank ly

          >> "..It seems a regular piece of garbage claimed by leftists, communists, and socialists,... "

          >> You forgot the gays and the Jews and the Gypsies.

          Just because someone doesn't hold the same political views as you doesn't make them a homophobe, an anti-semite or a racist.

          Typical leftie. :-)

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Flame

            @Typical leftie

            A fine point. Righties should also make an effort not to accuse those that don't agree with them of being a traitor, a terrorist, an antichrist, or a leftie. Or a lesbian left-handed eskimo midget albino.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        WTF?

        The issue is...

        How can you claim to love democracy and then use it to stamp your own ideas all over the world despite what the locals want?

        Frankly the whole world is pretty f*cked up but it really comes down to - What are we supposedly fighting for? If it's peace and democracy and mum's apple pie then we should be holding ourselves to the highest possible standards (and quite simply we're not). If it's to defend ourselves then that's fine too - but is invading someone else really in line with that vision? As far as I can tell, it's a mix of financial gain, political necessity and a few other things all rolled into one - Maybe I'm wrong but I haven't seen anything believable to the contrary yet.

        I'd be more convinced if "Terrorism" wasn't used as an excuse to get so many freedom restricting laws passed.

        One question: Why is the middle east any more in need of fixing than (say) South Africa or god knows how many other places?

        Frankly, I'm just sick of the lies, cover ups and cock ups - I wish we had some politicians with the balls to either say "this is what we're doing and why it's necessary" or "This is what it would cost to achieve - and we're not willing to pay that price"

        AC as I like my job and it requires a security clearance

      3. Kubla Cant

        @DS 1

        "The world is in a fight against 7th century barbarians...". Yes, but you win that fight by not being 21st century barbarians.

        "...there are no human rights at all under its yolk." - A yolk is the yellow thing in the middle of an egg. I think you mean "yoke".

        1. Andus McCoatover

          @Kubla Kant

          Think he may have meant "joke". Whole bloody thing is a sick one.

      4. snafu

        No, maybe they should do things right instead of utterly wrong

        The question is: are we really doing that, really? And, if so, are we really doing it right? Because that's what the leak is about, really.

      5. ertdfg

        Wha the hunh?

        "Wikileaks has made enormous noises about human rights"

        Ok, so in the furtherance of human rights, they released the names of civilians who helped army troops; so those civilians can be tortured and killed by the terrorists?

        Clearly I don't understand what is good for human rights, and what is bad for human rights. Overthrowing a dictator = bad; torturing, butchering, and killing civilians = good. Yeah, I'm clearly confused.

        Wait, maybe I've got it. Anything that might help the US = bad, anything that harms the US = good regardless of people being killed in any situation... yeah, that covers it.

        Lets not call that "human rights" unless the only human right is to kill people out of hatred for America. If you're willing to have innocent civilians butchered to further your cause; I'm guessing your cause isn't "human rights"... it's furthering the butchering of various people for other goals.

      6. Captain Thyratron

        Wrong idea.

        People stop being barbarians when they realize there's a better way to live. If you think your country's a better way to live, why not let the barbarians figure that out, rather than meddle in theirs until they're convinced yours is dangerous and evil?

        Examples of things western intervention has caused or made worse:

        * The Islamic revolution in Iran, which would probably never have happened if American agents hadn't suppressed Iran's previous, more peaceful democratic revolution decades before to prop up a convenient monarch. (Funny how much we talk about spreading democracy these days.)

        * The regime of Saddam Hussein, which would not have been nearly so well-armed had western powers not armed him to the teeth so he'd do a better job of fighting Iran (see previous point).

        * Osama bin Laden, who first got the idea of hucking bombs at Americans when US soldiers were stationed on Saudi soil to fight off the army of a man we ourselves had armed (see previous point).

        * The Khmer Rouge, which would likely not have been nearly as popular if the US hadn't overthrown the government of Norodom Sihanouk and installed Lon Nol. (In fact, former members of the Khmer Rouge leadership have stated that American intervention in Cambodia was essential in their rise to power.)

        * In fact, what were we doing messing with Cambodia and Vietnam in the first place?

        And so on.

        A lot of the trouble we seem to get into with so-called barbarians is trouble we made in the first place. Maybe they'd stop blowing things up if we stopped giving them reasons.

    2. Daniel Wilkie

      IMHO

      It's the people who are "home" now that are the ones they have made the point about risk. The informants etc who have helped us in *insert whatever you want to call it here*.

      And from reading the whole article, it seems like the biggest part of the problem is that they HAVEN'T removed all the identification information, and are just blaming that on the military. Whom I guess made the assumption that by classifying said information as secret would mean that the information within would be protected.

      But then I'm not going to find many commentards agreeing with me I guess because it's much easier to blame it all on big brother and say the information should be free. Because you know, there was no terrorism before "The War on Terror" was there? So if we had left them too it we'd have no issues whatsoever.

      Muppets

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    cryptome on iq.org

    "31 July 2010 These essays on conspiracies by Julian Assange (me@iq.org) were retrieved today from his website iq.org."

    iq.org/conspiracies.pdf

    http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070129125831/iq.org/conspiracies.pdf

    Thanks to Jason Lewis for pointing to this in his Mail on Sunday report.

    http://www.mailonline.co.uk/news/article-1299311/FBI-question-WikiLeaks-mother-Welsh-home-Agent-interrogate-distressed-woman-search-sons-bedroom.html

    -- unquote -

    http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

    -------

    Curiously enough that site appears to be empty .. and the Mail on Sunday report don't actually link to the original site.

  7. EvilGav 1

    Or, of course . . .

    . . . the file could be the same FUD that the security services are spouting about the WikiLeaks published stuff anyway (lives at risk etc etc).

    Why go to the trouble of actually publishing something real, when it'd be easy to create a randomised document and then encrypt it. Security services will spend ages trying to hack it to find out what they have.

    reality could be that all WikiLeaks are doing is sowing the seeds of doubt in the security services.

    1. Lee Dowling Silver badge

      Pfft

      I'd be ultra-surprised if any military *bothered* to try to decrypt it, even if they believed it to be damning. If it's damning, they KNOW what it is, know who COULD have it and know who's likely to be the source. They wouldn't need to "verify" it at all.

      And wasting billions of CPU cycles just to say "Oh, yes, those are the classified files" (to yourself) is a bit pointless - if you suspect they are, you have to ASSUME they are, and work from that assumption. Note that this doesn't mean confirming they are authentic in a public forum under any circumstances - any military that did that is too stupid to manage its own PR team - confirmation or denial is as good as authenticating and thus "approving" the collection, content of, and dissemination of all that data publicly. Oh, and if they are, then they are now "compromised" so it pretty much doesn't matter if one person or a million saw them - thus you only have to worry about the consequences and methods of leak rather than the actual particular leak itself.

      If you know for sure they are not your files, well, it would be easy to call them on it, make them give you the key for verification purposes (there's no point paying a hostage-taker when you're not sure he *HAS* any hostages) and a 0.001 second decryption of the first few bytes with the key they give you to see if they do have something you didn't know they had. Or you could just ignore it and let them make a fool of themselves.

      The best thing for ANY military intelligence organisation to do is absolutely nothing until it becomes a militarily-important operation - and then you've nothing to lose by just blowing everyone away whether they're in a foreign country or not. If they are genuinely going to compromise your military, blowing them away is the best option no matter what kill-switches, colleagues, etc. they claim to have. If it's that big a problem, blow them away too. It's a military leak, not a kindergarten rumour.

      I don't think the US public would hate you at the moment if you were to say that he was threatening to release some much-more-sensitive information that would compromise military installations, special forces, "our boys' lives" and so you took him out. Even if it's against some law or constitution, there are countries willing to do your dirty work for you (isn't the UK special forces arm basically used for assassination of people that the US doesn't like because they have a law about doing that and we don't?).

      In all the movie plot threats, yes, the security services might try desperately to decrypt these files. More likely or not, they hardly know they exist until you try to publish something that's actually damaging to the military in a non-PR way (Does a military really care about PR? They kill people for a living!) - like operationally-important details - and then they just kill you. It's like the XKCD cartoon - do you spend years trying to decrypt ultimate mathematics, or do you just hit the bloke over the head until he gives you the password and/or takes the password with him to the grave?

      Hell, the US tortured foreign people, in foreign countries, totally against all its own laws and even allowed filming, photographs and non-classified, bog-standard, low-ranking Army personnel to do it. Do you really think they'd care a jot about just taking someone they consider an *actual* military threat (not a PR threat), torturing him using the same Special Forces personnel that could be put in danger by his actions, and then doing everything under the sun to him until he dies / tells what he knows?

      1. Mephistro

        They should consider also the 'cons' before acting

        Killing a national of an allied country who lives in another allied country, a person with a big public profile, who has some popular support in your country and a bigger popular support in allied countries... Doesn't seem a good way of keeping one's allies. Or winning wars, for that matter.

        The day American constituents start questioning this war is the day the war is over, and the military are naturally afraid of any act that brings that day closer.

        It has happened before, and it will happen again.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Reality ?

    Its a good thing that reality is not like the films or these guys would have already been bagged by a black ops team from Langley

    Can't say I would miss them.

  9. envmod
    Alien

    A.L.F.

    aliens/not aliens.

  10. Parax
    Boffin

    Body Count.

    Yes those two words can add a little perspective. Whilst the US military wants us all to believe that wikileaks have put lives in danger, I would like you to think how many lives (and I am considering civilians only!) are in danger from the US military.

    Perspective. use it.

    1. Daniel Wilkie

      Well

      As far as I can make out, not really any more than are at risk from the taliban, iraqi insurgents, the various suicide bomb attacks that continually take place but everyone ignores all across Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        hunch?

        Show us the numbers then please - or are you just making it up?

        Or is it OK, on a hunch, to invade sovereign nations and impose 'our kind' of freedoms?

        1. PirateSlayer
          FAIL

          F

          "Whilst the US military wants us all to believe that wikileaks have put lives in danger, I would like you to think how many lives (and I am considering civilians only!) are in danger from the US military.

          Perspective. use it."

          So...er...two wrongs make a right? Excellent logic! Brain. Use it.

          1. Parax

            Daniel Wilkie and PirateSlayer

            Wow two totally diametrically opposed replies... One espousing two wrongs And the other thinking I inferred it. well comon guys fight it out and make up your minds.. you cant both be right. infact you are both wrong.

            If I can quote from Admiral Mike Mullen's Statement: " the truth is they[wikileaks] might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family ". Where as I see it as some people ALREADY have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family. I'm sure you are capable of seeing the perspective, and understanding how small and insignificant the wikileaks issue really is. (I am neither espousing more or less action just lets focus on the large issues that have happened not a small (in perspective) issues that might.)

            @AC no hunch, US Military at least 5000 Direct casualties and counting, wikileaks ?? so far.

            http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=wiki+civilian+casualties+Afghanistan&l=1

            1. PirateSlayer
              FAIL

              D

              So Parax, unless you are suggesting that the allied forces in Afghanistan are killing civilians on purpose (instead of taking every measure they can be expected to in a war zone), how does this information being released make anybody in Afghanistan any safer? I mean both civilians and soldiers here. Oh...you have no idea? Oh...its doesn't! Well. I am convinced it should have been casually released.

              So lets use your perspective argument. Take 5000 deaths and divide it by the number of troops in Afghanistan. Then take the arsehole at Wikileaks and divide it by a best case scenario of 1 death. I think you'll find that the actions of 1 man in Wikileaks will give you a 1, whereas the actions of the US army will give you less than 1. Therefore the arsehole at Wikileaks has more blood on his hands than the US army for causing civilian deaths! I know, it's a bit dodgy...but so is your specious argument that just because other people have more blood on their hands it somehow excuses the blood that this man probably has on his.

              1. Parax

                reD

                It doesn't make anyone safer, I have not claimed such. I have to stress that I am not trying to defend wikileaks, and if it were my choice I probably would not have published much of the material. However I am trying to highlight the stupid hypocrasy in Mike Mullen's Statement, where he attempts to 'spin' the story, to show wikileaks as being evil. in my opinion they have both done some wrong but so far the count is pretty much one sided. Pot, Kettle, I'll you choose which is which.

                As for your example, First, your best case for wikileaks is premature. Secondly, the figure used for the US military is DIRECT Deaths and I really dont think Wikileaks will score there. But if you want to compare I think you should look at the INDIRECT deaths for both sides. and from memory thats way over 30,000 civilians (excluding combatants) SO FAR, verses erm... none so lets wait on that one and put the prejudment back in tha can.

                Not that it matters, as has been stated, 'two wrongs dont make a right' and as someone once said, 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone' so the US military (voiced by Mike Mullen) should stfu.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Follow the money

    What wikileaks apparently desperately needs, is money. How do you get money? By stirring up enough publicity that enough people'll take the nagging hook and toss you some quarters.

    I think they were doing something interesting back before the "turn off the site for some funding drive thing", but then they started to get annoying, and now it's more fluff than substance. The main value you get is meta-value: Seeing how the media interaction works and noticing that the modern journo hack is more hack than journo. Didn't think various governments hadn't noticed that? Of course they have, they're professionals at this game. I think that mr. Assange and wikileaks are well on their way from blogosphere darlings to self-destructed has-beens.

    Which is both a first and quite sad, come to think of it. I'm not even talking about the relatively irrelevant bickering who's got theoretical blood on their hands--there's plenty of actual blood on many hands around already. If he goes down, their submission network vanishes even more than it apparently is already defunct. Someone whack the guy over the head and have him pull his stuff together.

  12. Danny 2

    In support of peace

    There are thousands of unprosecuted murders listed in these files, like the Poles who mortared a wedding party in 'retaliation' for a nearby IED. Even those of you who don't give a damn about Afghan civilians must acknowledge these create more insurgents and terrorists and therefore more Western deaths, what McChrystal called 'insurgent math'.. It is stupid to think that these informers are on our side or well motivated, often they have proven to be using ISAF forces to settle petty disputes, or simply for profit. If these leaks help end this bloody senseless war a single day earlier then they will have saved more lives than they risk.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Err...

      Accordinng to Radio 4 news, those Poles were shipped back to Poland and put on trial for what they did.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Fail

    Wikileaks is being very foolish.

    Can you say treason?

    Even the posting of a file in an attempt to make a veiled threat could be deemed actionable.

    When Wikileaks gets shut down, and the 'employees' tossed in jail, what do you think will happen?

    2 things. 1) No one will care or raise a meaningful protest. 2) Someone will have downloaded and copied the file (hint: some other entity outside of the US) and if/when the wikileaks founder publishes the key...

    Not a smart move on the part of wikileaks. But then again... their publishing what they did in the first place wasn't the smartest thing either.

    1. Cazzo Enorme

      Re: Fail

      "Wikileaks is being very foolish. Can you say treason?"

      Nope, you fail. Assange is an Australian citizen, and as such cannot commit treason even under American law.

      1. PirateSlayer
        Flame

        @Cazzo Enorme

        Really? So Australia has no treason laws? Australia is not part of the war in Afghanistan? You can see past the end of your nose?

        1. Noodle

          @PirateSlayer

          "Really? So Australia has no treason laws? Australia is not part of the war in Afghanistan? "

          Australia has treason laws - Section 80 of the Criminal Code defines it and I think the relevant section is:

          "A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person:

          ..

          (e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:

          (i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and

          (ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or

          (f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist:

          (i) another country; or

          (ii) an organisation;

          that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force.

          The key phrase there is "with intent to assist" - it would have to be shown that the guys behind Wikileaks deliberately and intentionally published information for the purpose of assisting "the enemy". While you might argue that it was unwise to publish *some* of the information they have uploaded, I don't think it would stand up as treason.

        2. A J Stiles
          Headmaster

          Point missed

          Australia has treason laws, but they only cover acts that would be harmful to Australia or Great Britain. Acts that are harmful to the USA *wouldn't* be covered under Australian treason laws.

          That's kind of the point of treason; it's a crime against your *own* country. Not someone else's.

          1. PirateSlayer
            Flame

            D

            So endangering Australian forces in Afghanistan then. Aiding the enemy is aiding the enemy, no matter which country you do it in.

            1. Captain Thyratron

              You're really reaching, aren't you?

              Just a thought.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      WIN!

      "Even the posting of a file in an attempt to make a veiled threat could be deemed actionable."

      As could mowing down civilians then attempting to hide the evidence.

      Can you say "liars"?

  14. JaitcH
    Grenade

    More Apache videos?

    Perhaps Wikileaks has a few more videos shot by Apache pilots as they murder innocent reporters going about their lawful business.

    The U.S. military seems to have as many scruples as the Al Quaida.

    1. PirateSlayer
      Flame

      You

      You must have watched a different video. What I saw and heard were two pilots misidentfying insurgents armed with rocket launchers and killing them. A far cry from riding into a crowded market place on a motorbike with explosives strapped to your chest embedded with nails to kill and maime as many innocent civilians as possible.

      What was that about scruples? When was the last time a US Marine or other soldier actually targetted a crowded street PURELY for the purposes of murding innocent civilians...how many times has it happened? How many times have Al Quaida done it?

      Get a grip on reality. I am sure the pilots of those Apaches will have to deal with what they have done long after the war has ended. The cowardly suicide bombers won't have to deal with the consequences of their actions, not that they would care.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like