Wikileaks will soon post biggest military leak ever

Wikileaks is just weeks away from posting a huge cache of classified documents related to the US war in Iraq in what one journalist says will be history's biggest military leak. Iain Overton, editor of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, told Newsweek his non-profit organization is working with Wikileaks and several TV and …

[Fatman]

RE: abusive treatment of detainees, not by Americans but by Iraqi security forces.

And, why the fsck should I care.

If the Iraqis want to treat their own citizens like pieces of s--- in their own country; then who am I to complain.

After all, it is THEIR country.

A reduction in the number of trouble makers can not be a bad thing; now can it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should care ...

... because one of the most oft-cited reasons we invaded Iraq is that Saddam Hussein was an oppressive dictator who abused his citizens. How often did we hear about his "rape rooms," etc.

So, we go in, overthrow the government, and basically make EVERYTHING much worse, including how Iraqi citizens are treated by the government/police that we installed. Epic fail.

You should care because your elected government has done this in your name. Maybe you didn't vote for the people directly responsible, but did you do everything you could to prevent it?

[SkippyBing]

True

But wouldn't it be better releasing the documents in Iraq? Then the people there would know what their security forces are doing, or would that not fit in with Assange's self publicity plan?

I mean I think everyone in the West knows we f***ed up in Iraq big time by not having a plan beyond 'Blow Shit Up', maybe the Iraqi people should get a chance to look at this information so they can make their minds up. Might help solve the problem they're having forming a government right now.

And no, looking it up on the internet isn't really an option for them.

Incidentally Iraq, not much worse than it was before we went there, which made me wonder how f***ed up it was before, but there you go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not much worse?

"Incidentally Iraq, not much worse than it was before..."

Tell that to the families/friends of the ~150000 civs *killed* as a result of the conflict so far. And then consider that ~5x as many are wounded and tell it to them and their familes too.

When you are done talking to these 10 million ish people who've been wounded or had a family member wounded/killed, please report back and let us know if they agree w you. Thanks.

[Matt Bryant]

RE: Not much worse?

Well, I suppose it's an improvement that you Libtards have stopped sprouting the debunked Lancet figures. But, let's consider that figure of 150,000 dead over several years. We can compare that to some of Saddam's activities prior to the invasion, such as his use of chemical weapons on the Kurds in Halabja, killing 5000 in a matter of hours. That was part of Saddam's Al Anfal campaign against the Kurds, which killed an extimated 50,000 people in seven months. After he lost in Kuwait in 1991, Saddam mounted a brutal repression of the Shia and Kurdish communities to ensure they didn't rise against him, amounting to between 80,000 to 230,000 dead (it's hard to get a good figure as many of the dead were buried in unmarked graves, some still being found today). Exactly how many people were kiled just in day-to-day torture and repression in Saddam's Iraq is hard to calculate, but the New York Times came up with a figure of 800,000 when not including the various wars (against Iran, Kuwait and the UN) and repressive campaigns (Kurds and Shia). An estimate of the number of people tortured, raped (Uday Hussein's hobby) or otherwise left mentally ot physically injured is estimated by the UN as more than 1.5 million. All in all, 150,000 suddenly doesn't look so bad when you actually have some knowledge to compare it with, rather than just relying on emotional frothing.

[Naughtyhorse]

<cough>redneck fuckwit <cough>

thats all

[Tigra 07]

RE: Fatman

"After all, it is THEIR country.

A reduction in the number of trouble makers can not be a bad thing; now can it?"

You realise it's illegal to be gay in Iraq right?

And punishable by death right?

Spend your life single or live how you want and risk people finding out you're gay and reporting you to the famous death squad, who kidnap you in the night, torture you for years, and then eventually execute you and dump the body by the road.

But after all, it is THEIR country isn't it...

[Matt Bryant]

RE: RE: Fatman

".....You realise it's illegal to be gay in Iraq right?...." It is illegal to be gay in any Islamic state in the World. In any of the Mid-East Arab countries it is punishable by death. The only Mid-East country where being gay is not a crime is in Israel.

[Pascal Monett]

Jusr curious here

but I have to ask : is Mr. Assange tired of living ?

Does he really think that he can continue leaking major military secrets and not be taken down like a rabid dog ?

[stewski]

Terminology "Rabid Dog"

I see where you are coming from, Indeed he may infect others with the virus of Factual Information

an issue for any right thinking civilisation.

[Goat Jam]

Just because the military

Wants you to believe that these are "Military Secrets" it doesn't mean you have to.

What they are embarrassing leaks that the Military would rather you didn't know about thank you very much.

As usual, Fred Reed explains it so much betterer than I ever could.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Wikileaks.shtml

As for being tired of living, I suspect the unvetted documents have already been released in the form of the "mysterious" insurance.aes file he released earlier. It would do them no good to kill Assange and then have the raw documents released into the public domain afterwards.

Grenade is for what this represents to the US Military Machine

[Archie Woodnuts]

el tit

I guess he just assumes that by living in our moral and peace-loving West, he doesn't have to worry about snatch squads or beign black op'd into the ground. That sort of thing is what those naughty evil dicators do, right?

[cannon]

we need accountability

if they (USA, UK Government) have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

if we are funding our governments, then any crimes need to be exposed and the criminals, to face 12 peers in a court of law. the law is the law, no one is exempt.

unfortunately our governments, bombs, bullets, torturers, kidnappers, war criminals, murders, rapists, terrorists all have the justification of god!

its only terrorism and war crimes when THEY do it, not us!

"political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, & to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell

protecting our troops is bringing them home from illegal empire occupations, not exposing war crimes!

America's list of terrorism

http://www.islamawareness.net/WarCrimes/American/list.html

If You Want to Stop Terrorism (Prof Noam Chomsky)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW0eiPiuUuk

American War Crimes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNbWB5UIfeU

USA Murders

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

US used white phosphorus in Iraq

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4440664.stm

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a point...

At the time of posting, 12 upvotes, 3 downvotes...

You state that if they've got nothing to hide they've got nothing to fear. If this statement were made on The Register about an individual you'd be shouted down by people pointing out that it's perfectly acceptable for people to want to hide thing. I would contest that it's perfectly acceptable for Military and Government to want to hide state secrets. What is not acceptable is for Military and Government to want to cover up illigal actions.

[Goat Jam]

State Secrets

We've already had one huge dump of "Military Secrets" on to wikileaks, causing cries of outrage to be issued from all the usual suspects.

It's been some time since it happened, more than enough for the Generals to have gone over everything and weed out all the truly traitorous documents.

Have they found any? A single one? We hear lots of bleating about how these redacted documents are "putting the lives of Americans in danger" but so far I have seen exactly ZERO evidence that that is in fact anything but another big fat lie from a group of organisations that have gigantic departments dedicated solely to the creation and dissemination of big fat lies.

As far as I'm concerned there are no tactical or strategic military involved here at all. The whole lot of it is just the embarrassing truth about various indiscretions, cover ups and just general incompetence on the part of the flat hats running that organised fiasco in the Middle East.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on

history's biggest military leak is tax payers money in the procurement process

[JaitcH]

True Freedom of Information - Couldn't happen to a better source

The military rate almost every piece of paper, other than toilet paper, 'Secret", or above, which really detracts from the ratings worth.

Given the numerous illegal acts committed by U.S. Forces, including killing British and Canadian forces, as well as other coalition forces this information needs outing.

A previous leak showed the murder of Reuters reporters with a sound track that sounded more like game hunting talk rather than the pre-planned, deliberate murder of innocent civilians.

The Pentagon isn't entitled to any secrecy in a pathetic attempt to hide their crimes, crimes which violate civilian, military and war rules. These Wikileaks are justified as anyone who has viewed the helicopter video of the reporters murders would no doubt support.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the world will finally see

what happened in Fallujah?

[Matt Bryant]

RE: Maybe the world will finally see

".....what happened in Fallujah?" What, you mean like the torture chambers used to intimidate, coerce and murder the locals, mainly at the hands of foreign Jihadis? Or the use of mosques as weapon stores and firing points? Or the widespread use of Iraqi civillians as human shields by the same brave Jihadis that were supposedly bringing them "freedom from the Crusaders"? Somehow I'm pretty sure what you think happened is very far from reality.

[kissingthecarpet]

You there then, were you?

Read this link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

[Asgard]

@kissingthecarpet

Thanks for posting that news link. I wasn't aware of that news at all and its shocking how bad it is. I would recommend everyone read your link because that kind of indiscriminate use of force causing such lasting horrific suffering has to be made more public. There is absolutely no way they can bring peace to a country with actions that cause these kinds of horrific results. No innocent person would accept that level of indiscriminate behaviour in their own country, let alone the lasting horrific effects as well!. Actions like this are going to make many people in many countries hate our country. Then on top of that the control freaks over here react by forcing ever more Orwellian levels of control over us all here!, saying its for our protection! It looks like we need wikileaks to tell us what the rest of the world seems to be seeing over there!

WTF are our control freaks in power playing at! ... this isn't making it better, its making it far worse! They are allowing their subordinates to get away with far too much. This madness has to stop.

It looks like wikileaks needs to add lists of who is profiting from both the war and the growing Orwellian levels of control, so we can finally see precisely who to blame and just what they are all getting out of it.

For anyone still believing the political line, here's two excerpts from that news link. Ask yourself if you would accept any country to do that kind of action against your family and your country...

In Fallujah they have ... "a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait."

... and ...

"Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people."

I mean, WTF!, Fallujah now has worse cancer rates than Hiroshima!

[Dan 10]

Seconded...

...especially this bit:

"It looks like wikileaks needs to add lists of who is profiting from both the war and the growing Orwellian levels of control, so we can finally see precisely who to blame and just what they are all getting out of it."

[Goat Jam]

Gosh Matt

Must have been absolutely terrifying witnessing all that violence first hand. We need more eyewitness accounts of the evils perpetrated by those evil towelheads in the name of destroying the freedoms we all hold so dear to our hearts.

Tell us more, please Matt! Oh and pass me some of that delicious looking apple pie while you are at it, ta.

[Matt Bryant]

RE: Gosh Matt

How about photographic evidence of what the Allies found in Fallujah? Please note the torture chambers found were used BEFORE the Allied attacks by Jihadis to intimidate and kill anyone that opposed their turning Fallujah into a military base:

http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/Fallujah_112004.ppt

Then I suggest you go and actually read some real history instead of just sucking down whatever your hip and trendy buddies tell you is the truth.

[Richard 116]

Enlighten me.

As per title.

[Anonymous Coward]

What we actually need is, for one thing: ...

What we actually need is, for one thing: For people who don't know what they're talking about to simply avoid attempting to comment out of their ignorance and false pretenses of knowledge.

Wars aren't won with frittering egos, people. Wars aren't won with information leaks, either. Wikileaks continues to do precisely the wrong thing, if they're genuine in their assumed interested in ending the conflicts abroad.

[fellswoop]

Guerilla Warfare

I think some consideration should be given to the type of war this is. The enemy isn't what we think of as honorable. They hide, attack, then hide again. They attack their own people, their own religious centers, and hide in the populace. How do you avoid civilian casualties? It's nearly impossible to do. Our technologies allow us to be more accurate than in previous wars and that is a big step forward.

The consequences and frustrations are bound to have psychological effects on the soldiers. They are only human. I don't think it would be better to try and brainwash the soldiers to the point where they don't think for themselves and simply follow orders. It's unfortunate that they get to the state where a "blood bath" might occur, but I am sure that such instances were not part of their orders.

There are a lot of gray areas in war, there are a lot of instances where people are unsure and have to use their best judgment based on the facts that are presented to them at the time.

I'm just saying there is a lot to consider and it's too easy to sit back and make quick opinions.

[J1]

hiding

@fellswoop

--The enemy isn't what we think of as honourable.

I suppose you would consider a face to face battle honourable. Equally matched opponents, similar tech etc.. as you say.. this is not the case. One side has vast resources, tech, media etc.. at its disposal.. the other, unless your living in james bond land, the other side has a few home made bombs, and a few guns etc.. (I gather you would not say they have access to tanks, jets, ships, missiles, satellites) no comparison really.

Is it honourable to press a button, from many miles away, perhaps in a high, fast flying jet, at people on the ground, that have no way to even know your there, let alone to respond to you.

Or is it courageous to stand against a foe that you know is superior to you in every way. One that you know you don't stand a chance against.

I'd suggest, the latter is the case. When it comes to courage, I'd say we are beaten hands down.

"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. ", Winston Churchill

As to using what one has at ones disposal, however small and limited.. that's just what people all over the world will do.. I suppose you would agree that if the opposition had access to jets and ships, and the oh so accurate missiles, they would not be sneaking up on us.

--They hide, attack, then hide again.

I suppose you do not count it as hiding if one sits in a tank, or behind a green zone, or in a jet that cannot be touched.

--They attack their own people, their own religious centers

I don't know of anyone that would do such a thing.. perhaps you are attributing your own preconceptions on the enemy. I'd suggest that they would perceive the ones that they are attacking as sell-outs, collaborators, traitors etc.. the religious centers then of course would become centers for info gathering against the people, i.e.. spying for your side etc.. its all a matter of perspective.. you appear not to be able to see your enemy as anything but crazy loons.

--The consequences and frustrations are bound to have psychological effects on the soldiers. They are only human.

Interesting, our soldiers can feel frustration, due to psych effects of the war.. they could lash out, and make mistakes.. but the enemy, they of course cannot. Why do you think that is.. are they just better conditioned than our multimillion dollar war machine? How have they managed something we have not.. is this james bond land again?

--I'm just saying there is a lot to consider and it's too easy to sit back and make quick opinions.

Agreed. It would be a good idea to first realise that the opposition is composed of human beings as a start, with the same hopes and desires as perhaps every other person has. They may well be making the best of a bad situation. Consider how many of them have died in these wars so far.. compared against how many have died on our side.. and yet, they continue to fight on. In order to end this mess, one has to start with an understanding of what actually is going on, rather than what one normally see's in films.

[Matt Bryant]

RE: hiding

Wow, the force is just non-existant with this one!

".....the other side has a few home made bombs, and a few guns etc.. (I gather you would not say they have access to tanks, jets, ships, missiles, satellites) ......" Saddam had plebty of tanks, jets and missiles, they didn't do him much good because we had better ones and used them with superior tactics and strategy. Since the "insurgency" started, the Jihadis have also been copiously armed with guns, explosives, RPGs, landmines, satelliet radios, GPS kit, radios and even anti-tank missiles by Syria and Iran. Your pathetic attempt at pretending the Jihadis in Iraq are brave little soldiers standing up to tanks with popguns is both inaccurate and plain stupid.

".....Or is it courageous to stand against a foe that you know is superior to you in every way.....When it comes to courage, I'd say we are beaten hands down....." I'd say it's much braver to go out on patrol knowing that the enemy is hiding amongst the locals, that the Jihadi doesn't give a damn for the rules of war or who gets killed as collateral damage. That's a lot braver than the "insurgent" that hides behind kids and women. You might think that too if you had the capability for independent thought. Try it - just put yourself in the position of a young Allied soldier in Iraq, knowing that any mistake could send him/her to prison, cost the life of an innocent Iraqi or one of the team, yet not knowing which of the locals out there is actually a Jihadi just waiting to blow you up, or snipe you, or mortar you when you stop to get out of your vehicle. If you had half a clue you'd realise that the Allied soldiers trying to make peace in Iraq and Afghanistan are far braver than you realise.

But, if you want to talk bravery, you really do need to do a lot more reading. The majority of the Jihadis killed in Iraq even years after the war were young, impressionable, foreign Arab males, paid a pittance and left to fend for themselves against a well-equipped and well-trained Allied force. They were fed a diet of Islamic propaganda and fairy-tales about being "immortal to the bullets of the Infidel if they were true Muslims". Allied reports talk of busloads of these Jihadis, promised a bounty for every "Yankee" they killed, being given Chinese AKs that couldn't even fire because the factory grease hadn't been cleaned off them, and being sent out to make night ambushes on Allied patrols that had NVGs and could spot them a mile off. The Fedayeen that organised those cannon-fodder Jihadis would never stick around to help them, they'd just leave them to get slaughtered. I have spoken to soldiers that were shocked at the pointless manner in which these "soldiers of Allah" would throw their lifes away with the kind of non-tactics you'd see in Sunday morning westerns or episodes of Starsky and Hutch. Their brave masters hid away and never risked their own lives, they'd usually surrender immediately when caught by Allied or Iraqi forces.

Like newspaper articles? I bet you only like the ones that bash the Allied forces. Try this one: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/7/20041207-111411-1569r/

Or better still, just to give you an idea of the horrors that were inflicted on the people of Fallujah BEFORE the Allied attack, check out the following slideset the US Military released to counter some of the male bovine manure spread by idiots like you:

http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/Fallujah_112004.ppt

Take a look from slide 31 onwards and then try telling me how "brave" you think those Jihadis were.

[J1]

independent thinking, not.

@Matt Bryant

--Wow, the force is just non-existant with this one!

Pretty much what I was saying, living in the land of films.

--".....the other side has a few home made bombs, and a few guns etc.. (I gather you would not say they have access to tanks, jets, ships, missiles, satellites) ......"

--Saddam had plebty of tanks, jets and missiles, they didn't do him much good because we had better ones and used them with superior tactics and strategy. Since the "insurgency" started, the Jihadis have also been copiously armed with guns, explosives, RPGs, landmines, satelliet radios, GPS kit, radios and even anti-tank missiles by Syria and Iran. Your pathetic attempt at pretending the Jihadis in Iraq are brave little soldiers standing up to tanks with popguns is both inaccurate and plain stupid.

On the one hand you say Saddam/Jihadis had/have lots of deadly toys.. then in the same breath you say that ofcourse we have much better toys, training, intelligence etc.. which is my point to begin with. We have them out matched in every department and they know it.

--".....Or is it courageous to stand against a foe that you know is superior to you in every way.....When it comes to courage, I'd say we are beaten hands down....." I'd say it's much braver to go out on patrol knowing that the enemy is hiding amongst the locals, that the Jihadi doesn't give a damn for the rules of war or who gets killed as collateral damage.

You forgot the part of, on patrol armed to the teeth, with massive overwhelming backup at your beck and call.

Is that what you call it when you drop bombs on houses full of kids? rules of war, or perhaps when we do it, its a mistake, but its not ofcourse possible for the enemy to make mistakes.

--That's a lot braver than the "insurgent" that hides behind kids and women.

Or even perhaps one that sits on the other side of the planet and presses a button.

--You might think that too if you had the capability for independent thought.

Based on this display of it from you, it does not have much going for it. I think I'll pass. (I especially like the sources of information you have as an example of your independence of thought)

--Try it - just put yourself in the position of a young Allied soldier in Iraq, knowing that any mistake could send him/her to prison, cost the life of an innocent Iraqi or one of the team, yet not knowing which of the locals out there is actually a Jihadi just waiting to blow you up, or snipe you, or mortar you when you stop to get out of your vehicle.

I think your missing the point, everything is not all one sided. In the real world, those very Jihadis as you put it, have the same issues as do the soldiers. Neither is perfect or free from error. Try to apply the same rules to each.

I have no idea what it is like to be a soldier, nor a jihadi, wouldn't presume to know their difficulties etc.

I do think however, you could twist the scenario, and put yourself in the jihadis position.. and see if you can get an appreciation of what they go through.

-- If you had half a clue you'd realise that the Allied soldiers trying to make peace in Iraq and Afghanistan are far braver than you realise.

With a little bit of evenhandedness in your analysis, you'd perhaps realise that bravery is not just on which ever side you happen to be supporting at the moment.

--But, if you want to talk bravery, you really do need to do a lot more reading.

What read western propaganda? take it as gospel?

--The majority of the Jihadis killed in Iraq even years after the war were young, impressionable, foreign Arab males, paid a pittance and left to fend for themselves against a well-equipped and well-trained Allied force.

And here comes the admittance.. the jihadis were not well equipped, yet above you go on about how well equipped they all are, all the latest gizmos, and now, all of a sudden, they are up against a 'well equipped and well trained Allied force', which is it?

--They were fed a diet of Islamic propaganda and fairy-tales about being "immortal to the bullets of the Infidel if they were true Muslims".

Lots of propaganda around, goes for all sides I'd say.. seems you can only see if for the 'bad guys', but on our side, we ofcourse do not stoop to using propaganda, nah not us.

--Allied reports talk of busloads of these Jihadis, promised a bounty for every "Yankee" they killed, being given Chinese AKs that couldn't even fire because the factory grease hadn't been cleaned off them, and being sent out to make night ambushes on Allied patrols that had NVGs and could spot them a mile off.

Your not going on about advanced tech again? Are you now saying that they have nothing?? I'm sure the bad guys were all well prepared with military jets that they could use against Allied patrols. You must have a few pics, no? Not even one?

--The Fedayeen that organised those cannon-fodder Jihadis would never stick around to help them, they'd just leave them to get slaughtered. I have spoken to soldiers that were shocked at the pointless manner in which these "soldiers of Allah" would throw their lifes away with the kind of non-tactics you'd see in Sunday morning westerns or episodes of Starsky and Hutch.

More films.. I think your making my point for me.. but you refuse to see it. The guys on the ground have nothing, and yet they are standing up and they continue to stand up.

As to the team in the background, one could make a comparison, the recruiters on the allied side, do they not feed their soldiers stuff about defending the 'motherland', the politicians pontificating about our duty to protect ourselves and the world etc.. and yet all nice and cosy at home. All the while sending their well equiped people to foreign lands to kill people who actually live there.

--Their brave masters hid away and never risked their own lives, they'd usually surrender immediately when caught by Allied or Iraqi forces.

I'm surprise you managed to catch even one of them, shows they have more spine than western politicians if they went anywhere near the actual 'theater of war'. Did you ever see Bush or Blair do so? Do you count these guys as nobel and brave for beating up on nations who have no way of hitting back and that from the safety of their offices thousands of miles away.

--Like newspaper articles? I bet you only like the ones that bash the Allied forces.

Hmm, there are not many of this type to start with. I'd like to know how much you bet, cause you've just lost it.

--Try this one: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/7/20041207-111411-1569r/

Washingtontimes?? was it articulated by Bush and put down on paper by Blair.. your serious that you cannot get to independent sources of information in order to form an opinion. Try http://www.counterpunch.org/ as an example, or perhaps, http://www.medialens.org/.

--Or better still, just to give you an idea of the horrors that were inflicted on the people of Fallujah BEFORE the Allied attack, check out the following slideset the US Military released to counter some of the male bovine manure spread by idiots like you:

Ohh and more one sided info only.

--http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/Fallujah_112004.ppt. Take a look from slide 31 onwards and then try telling me how "brave" you think those Jihadis were.

Ok, had a look.. nothing much but a one sided account, they had lots of weapons stashed in every niche they could find, hardly surprising if true. Didn't notice any jets or nukes.. probably missed them under the stairs or some such. I'm sure you'll have a ppt for those somewhere. You just need to look a bit harder.

Taking a step back, my issue is simply that you are spouting official propaganda. If you try and apply the same standards to both sides, it becomes pretty clear who has a massive advantage, you even admitted it above.

Let me emphasise, I would say that our soldiers do ofcourse have to be brave, however, it is just plain daft not to consider the opposition as brave also.

Consider also that the opposition is not being paid much, you said this above, where as our service personnel do get paid, are a professional army, are trained and equipped far better than the opposition.

As to the use of bad language, it shows that one has no intellect. Since it is the intellect that allows a human being to have self control. Something sorely missing in this day and age, adequately demonstrated above. It would be appreciated if you could refrain from the use of such language in any future posts.

[Matt Bryant]

RE: independent thinking, not.

"....You forgot the part of, on patrol armed to the teeth, with massive overwhelming backup at your beck and call......" You forgot the part where the Jihadis believe that they get to go to heaven and get their 72 virgins if they die a martyr, whcih means they don't give a sh*t about what we can do, they just want to kill "infidels". They actually see dying in combat as a plus, whereas we try to avoid it. That makes every Jihadi extra dangerous, as a Westernised opponent would avoid a situation where they were likley to lose an engagement, whereas the Jihadi sees it as a victory if they kill one of our soldiers and die in the attempt.

"....Is that what you call it when you drop bombs on houses full of kids?...." What houses "full of kids"? Please give me an example where this happened recently in Iraq? Oh, but you must think it is really brave to blow up carbombs in markets packed with Iraqi civillians then, as happens almost weekly? I'm just betting an idiot like you ignores the fact that the massive majority of deaths in Iraq are your "brave" Jihadis killing other Muslims. One of the reasons the Anbar Awakening kicked off was because the Iraqi Sunnis were disgusted by the callous and murderous antics of the Jihadis. Please try and pretend the whole Anbar Awakening thing doesn't explode the male bovine manure you're pushing.

".....Neither is perfect or free from error....." Really? So now you want to try and pretend that someone that drives a carbomb into a crowded market with the express aim of killing as many civillians as possible, simply because they're not "good Muslims", is somehow on a par with a soldier that patrols, putting his life at risk, in the hope of stopping such a carbomber and preventing those deaths? You really have had your noggin filled with rubbish, haven't you? Your moral compass is so screwed up you probably can't think straight for little voices in your head whining about "Bushitler" and the like.

"....Or even perhaps one that sits on the other side of the planet and presses a button....." Nice avoidance, I said you should try thinking it from the perspective of a soldier on the ground. Maybe that was too hard for you? Or maybe it just exposed the weakness in your drivel.

"....I'm surprise you managed to catch even one of them, shows they have more spine than western politicians if they went anywhere near the actual 'theater of war'...." I'll think you'll find that many Western politicians made visits to Iraq and Afghanistan. But, it's very enlightening that you consider the leaders of the Jihadis as "brave" and "having more spine". Please don't tell me you're so stupid you actually think all those carbombings and beheadings in Iraq are to be applauded? I take it you're just bashing the West from the comfort of your bedroom in your parents' house in Leicester?

"....Do you count these guys as nobel and brave for beating up on nations who have no way of hitting back and that from the safety of their offices thousands of miles away....." Yes, seeing as how the Jihadis flew jets into the US capital on 9/11, and bombed the London Underground and Madrid. But then I'm sure you think 9/11, Madrid and London were all more cases of "brave warriors" just "fighting back". If so, you're probably equally anti-Semitic as well as stupid, so I'm really going to enjoy telling you your PC contains Israeli technology! Best you stop using the Internet all together, you wouldn't want to end up funding the nasty Jooooooos!

".....your serious that you cannot get to independent sources of information....." Ah, so I see that you believe anything that supports your "argument" comes from an independent and worthy source, but anything that pokes holes in your drivel just can't be likewise Good luck with that viewpoint! You have obviously formed your rediculous "views" due to that reality filter, it's probably not worth the time to try and enlightening someone like you, but it is fun to show you up for the naive bigot you are. You are so intent on bashing Blair and Bush you just can't see beyond your own little world of impotent rage.

"....Ohh and more one sided info only....." You asked for info to support the claims that there were Jihadi-run torture chambers in Fallujah, what did you expect? Oh, I see the problem is that you really didn't expect me to be able to counter given that the people that have obviously been spoonfeeding you your "views" took great care not to expose you to a little thing called reality. I notice you completely avoided the torture bits - too damaging to your drivel of an argument? Upset that the reality just doesn't match up with what others have told you is "the truth"?

"....Consider also that the opposition is not being paid much....." I earn a lot more than the average grunt, US or Brit, to do a lot less than risk my own life daily, so it is a matter of perspective. The foreign and impressionable Jihadis were being promised thousands of dollars for every Yankee they killed, a sum that dwarves the average annual income across most Arabian countries.

".....As to the use of bad language...." I would consider anyone with as bad a screwed up prespective and lack of moral compass as yourself in serious need of a whole re-education, let alone teaching in the use of language. Your view of the World is as narrow as the drones you mentioned - through a drinking straw. Any evidence to disprove or undermine your narrative is automatically discounted as "not independent" - how on Earth do you expect to learn anything if you won't belief anything shown to be a fact, just because it undermines the carefuly constructed "reality" you have built around yourself?

"......It would be appreciated if you could refrain from the use of such language in any future posts." I would appreciate it if you learnt some facts and came prepared to argue rather than just assume everyone will accept your blinkered Worldview as gospel. Oh, and can you get your head out of your arse whilst you're at it.

[J1]

no self control

Mr Bryant, you should really learn some self control.

It is the least you owe yourself, to your intellect, that you actually start to make use of it to reign in your temper.

I would imagine it must be very difficult for you to get on with anyone who has a different opinion to yourself.

It really is the height of bad manners to use bad language, after all, we are only expressing our opinions, I would really not wish to be any where near you, were you to get really worked up, it appears you are one step away from doing something physical. Very worrying.

If you could clean up your post by removing your bad language, I would be happy to entertain it.

If not, I will invite you to Islam, bid you a good day, and hope never to run into you.

[Matt Bryant]

RE: no self control

"Mr Bryant, you should really learn some self control....." I'd think it a lot more sensible if you just got an iota of real learning. Try reading up on the history of Saddam, how he got to rule Iraq and how he maintained that rule. Better still, read up a lot on the history of the Mid-East (I would recommend Peter Mansfield's "A History of the Middle East" to give you a baseline into the complex history, both before and after the mess created by the European colonial powers). Then try doing some original thinking. The last part may be a bit hard for you but will garner you more respect here.

"....that you actually start to make use of it to reign in your temper....." Why do you make the mistake of assuming I am angry? All I feel for obtuse people like you is amused pity. Or could it be that trying to make it personal is an admittance that you have run out of your very limitted arsenal of arguments and are now avoiding the issues? Am I surprised? No, not really. As expected, and as usual with anyone supporting your line of twaddle, after we scratch away the surface of oft-repeated soundbites, we find that you really don't have a clue about the matter in hand.

".....I would imagine it must be very difficult for you to get on with anyone who has a different opinion to yourself....." Well, seeing as your viewpoint seems to be based on lots of imagination, I can't say I'm surprised. I don't have a problem debating with others, in fact it's fun. It is you that has failed to debate, simply turned to personal attacks. You have failed to answer any of the points I raised either originally or in response to your drivel.

".....It really is the height of bad manners to use bad language....." Strange that you say you feel so strongly about the matter under discussion, but are whinging about "bad language" rather than formulating any reasoned response. Run out of soundbites to repeat? I'm sure the people of Iraq would much rather have bad language than bombs.

".....we are only expressing our opinions...." And that's the crux of the matter - I think you don't actually have any opinion based on reasoning or fact, just some whimsy based on what others have led you to believe. If you did you might be able to actually debate the issue, which you have not.

".....it appears you are one step away from doing something physical....." It appears that, in debating terms, you are running away with your tail between your legs. After trying to lay claim to the moral high ground with a load of unsubstantiated bluster, you have countered with nothing but evasions and froth, a performance that is due nothing more than ridicule. Why would I need to get "physical" with someone when it's much more fun to show them up for their inability to mount an intellectual defence? I'm far too busy pointing and laughing to even think of the need for physical action.

"....If you could clean up your post by removing your bad language, I would be happy to entertain it......" Please tell me exactly which bits are sooooo bad that the omnipotent Ms Bee didn't block the post? I think what is really bugging you is that you expect everyone to toe the PC line and simply take your word for gospel, or be too cowed by the PC brigade to point out the complete lack of facts in your bluster. I can guess where you'll go next, you'll accuse me of being "racist" against Arabs (please note, Arabs are not a race, they are a social group), of being "racists" against Muslims (please note, Muslims are not a race either, it is a political-religeous social order), or of just being a Nazi (favourite label thrown at anyone that disagrees with the viewpoint of the hip'n'trendy PC brigade).

".....I will invite you to Islam....." Thanks but no thanks. And why would I choose Islam over Druidism, Shamanism, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or Bhuddism? You see, even if I was looking for a fairytale to believe in, I could get half-a-dozen Muslims in a room and they wouldn't be able to agree on what constitutes the correct form of Islam. I could start with the main Sunni and Shia blocks, add in the Allawites (oh, sorry, if you're Sunni then you think both the Shia and Allawites are "unbelievers", right?), then I could invite some schools from the Sunni such as the Wahhabbi and Salafists, maybe the Sufis and the Ahmaddiyyas to counter, and if we're lucky I might be able to dig out an Ibadist. I wouldn't even need to go as far as getting a representative from the Druze or Yaziddi or Alevi sects involved to have a good punchup going inside of five minutes! Which is why a minority of the World's Muslims are spending so much time killing each other - you all claim the one true version of Islam, regardless, and think that claim gives you the right to force others to live by your version. But it is very enlightening to see that your worldview is coloured by your faith rather than facts, which also explains your inability to mount a defence of your slurring the Allied forces in Iraq. A big thanks for the unintentional comedy you have provided.

Enjoy!

[Naughtyhorse]

time shift...

... are you talking about concorde? georgetown?

get a grip for christ sake.

walking slowly towards a massively superior enemy and trying to play them at their own game is not brave or honourable, it's a fucking senslese waste. (see WW1)

so you thinks about it.

hides in the bushes and shoots the redcoats/infadels in the ass after they have passed by

simples.

[Bryce 2]

@fellswoop

Agreed. There are a lot of people that seem to think that warfare is very cut and dry. I very seriously doubt there have been any wars where there have been NO civilian casualties, NO atrocities, NO incidents of friendly fire. Especially in this kind of war. It's a very stressful environment.

It's only because of the "Information Age" and how quickly information gets spread across the globe that any of this data is even known this fast.

It's oh-so-easy to judge people in hindsight without giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[teebie]

Corrollary

"I very seriously doubt there have been any wars where there have been NO civilian casualties, NO atrocities, NO incidents of friendly fire. "

Surely the natural conclusion of this is that you shouldn't engage in war unless you absolutely have to.

The governments involved in the invasion tried to make out that this was some grand and just act. Wikileaks is providing the proof that even they know it isn't. If this makes these, or any other governments less likely to go to war on a flimsy pretext in the future then that can only be a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

an ounce of prevention

You may well be right about (ab)use of information in the conduct of war. I am not ideally qualified to judge - never having stepped on a battlefield. But then merely having been in a theatre of war is not sufficient qualification to dismiss alternate views.

Has Wikileaks actually declared that their intent is to end the conflicts abroad ? This is not an idle question. You assume it, but I think where Wikileaks IS going in the right direction is in prevention of future conflicts through the threat of accountability to leaders.

Can we please drop 'abroad' - every place is both abroad for some and home for others. Us and them is not an inevitable state, but it can become true if we allow it.

[James Woods]

im for it

The cost of these wars is mind blowing. For what it's costing us (which is our freedom because we don't have the money to begin with) each soldier should be wearing a freaking helmet cam so we can see what's going on with these things.

How the hell does a country expect to win anything or accomplish it by using money borrowed from the same countries that are against us?

If we had nothing but $ surplus and the people over here weren't as broke as those from the 60's it wouldn't be so bad sending the kids over there to follow rules of engagement and fund the military industrial complex.

More power to em, let's see what the hell we're going in debt with communists for.

[Goat Jam]

Why

Why don't they just release the individual documents as they vet them? Why wait and then dump such huge amount of them at once that it will take months to go through them all?

[Alfred]

Off the top of my head

1) Sometimes documents that seem harmless vetted individually can be combined to provide information that was supposed to be vetted out. The only way to be sure this is not the case is to vet related documents in clumps, and then go back over them.

2) Newspapers don't just want the facts - they want enough facts to make a story AND to have an exclusive on those facts. Releasing them one at a time as they are vetted would not provide any newspaper with the quantity needed to build a story, and as such they wouldn't bother with it.

[Matt Bryant]

RE: Off the top of my head

You forgot that Wikileaks is also desperately seeking funding through donations, hence the recent grandstanding. Their concentration on the US Military is rather obviously playing to a particular group of potential patrons. After all, there wouldn't be any money in, say, "exposing" someone like Robert Mugabe or Fidel castro.....

[Robert E A Harvey]

Snake oil, Jam tomorrow, come to our grand re-opening, New-improved etc.

"Wikileaks will soon post biggest military leak ever"

Do I detect a self-publicist in a state of fugue?

I am reminded of children in the playground "I know something you don't, nah nah".

[Alfred]

How exactly is that?

Fugue; "a pathological state of altered consciousness in which an individual may act and wander around as though conscious but their behaviour is not directed by their complete normal personality and is not remembered after the fugue ends."

Isn't publicising things what a self-publicist does? How is a self-publicist publicising something suggestive of said self-publicist being in a state of fugue?

[crayon]

The irony

"I'm surprise you managed to catch even one of them, shows they have more spine than western politicians if they went anywhere near the actual 'theater of war'. Did you ever see Bush or Blair do so?"

Bush and Blair had to make sneaky, unannounced,fugitive visits to Iraq. Meanwhile when Iranian President Ahmadinejad visited, he was given the full "head of state" red carpet treatment and had a motorcade trundle through Baghdad. The irony.

[J1]

is it brave to stand up against a superior opponent??

To start with, I'd like to applaud you for maintaining a somewhat civil tongue.

-- I'd think it a lot more sensible if you just got an iota of real learning. Try reading up on the history of Saddam, how he got to rule Iraq and how he maintained that rule. Better still, read .. will garner you more respect here.

Your anger appears not to allow you to see what I said. Rather you are building lots of strawmen based on your whims and desires. Nothing to do with what I actually said.

I did not say anything about the history of Saddam etc. I neither think he, nor the nations that supported him, where great. Infact, I'd be all for putting on trial all those that have supported him and his. Would you be up for seeing the likes of Saddams henchmen in the dock? how about the British and American etc.. politicians etc.. guilty of supporting him and his crimes?

I did however talk about courage, and standing up against a superior foe.

Further, I am not after any respect either from you or anyone else on this forum. If you are, then I would suggest maintaining a civil tongue as a start, and then dealing with what is actually being said.

-- Why do you make the mistake of assuming I am angry? All I feel for obtuse people like you is amused pity. ... don't have a clue about the matter in hand.

I gave you the benefit of assuming it is anger that is speaking, and that you do not always behave in this crass manner. It would indeed be a poor human being that relied on bad language, or one that used it so much that it became second nature.

--Well, seeing as your viewpoint seems to be based on lots of imagination, I can't say I'm surprised. I don't have a problem debating with others, in fact it's fun. It is you that has failed to debate, simply turned to personal attacks. You have failed to answer any of the points I raised either originally or in response to your drivel.

The view I expressed is that it takes courage to stand-up against an opposition that is superior to oneself.. whether it is a Allied soldier, or indeed a Jihadi.

To give an example, if an Allied soldier where to have a gun and a home made bomb, and with only those go up against a vastly superior Jihadi force.. I'd say that that soldier is very brave. Similarly, I'd say if you switch the scenario around, and say Jew, then the Jew is very brave, or the Hindu is very brave etc.. I am sure you get the point.

Why is it so difficult for you to admit the same is true for the Jihadi in the same predicament?

There is little imagination required to come up with such a view, merely the assumption that people all over the world are pretty much the same.

This view, has resulted in many colourful words to describe me.

Yet, you play the wounded party. The facts, ie. your posts, clearly show you to be the aggressor on this front. Something I suspect you acknowledge, since you have toned down this particular post.

--Strange that you say you feel so strongly about the matter under discussion, but are whinging about "bad language" rather than formulating any reasoned response. Run out of soundbites to repeat? I'm sure the people of Iraq would much rather have bad language than bombs.

I'd agree with the latter, I am sure most people would prefer bad language to bombs. However, many people do not have a choice. Most such people are the weakest and poorest.

This ofcourse does not excuse one from using bad language in a discussion.

If you are saying that the choice you are giving me is to either be abused by you verbally, or to be bombed by you.. then ofcourse I choose the verbal abuse.

But if I have a choice of not being verbally abused, then ofcourse I would take that. I am sure most people would.

--And that's the crux of the matter - I think you don't actually have any opinion based on reasoning or fact, just some whimsy based on what others have led you to believe. If you did you might be able to actually debate the issue, which you have not.

Then this should be pretty straight forward for you.

Though for one who claims to be so good a debating I am surprised that you use so much bad language.. I would have thought that this is pretty much a first step to not use bad language.

If I understand you correctly, you claim to have lots of experience on the debating front, and do not believe any old thing that is put under your nose.

I wonder why you use the sources of information you have mentioned so far.. are they credible? without propaganda? not selling a view point?

I find it surprising that on the one hand you stick to what are obviously biased sources of information, while berating me for using similarly biased sources, as you have claimed. I have indicated that whatever sources you are pointing to, I do not use. I have mentioned to you both counterpunch and medialens as independent sources that I read on occasion.

--It appears that, in debating terms, you are running away with your tail between your legs. ..... I'm far too busy pointing and laughing to even think of the need for physical action.

Then please enjoy the ridiculing of me.

I am sure you are about to get many many more laughs. Though one should keep in mind, that when one is laughing, one does not always see what is actually being said. One's lower self tends to run away with itself.

I am however pleased that I have lightened your day.

--Please tell me exactly which bits are sooooo bad that the omnipotent Ms Bee didn't block the post? .... I can guess where you'll go next, you'll accuse me of being "racist" against Arabs (please note, Arabs are not a race, they are a social group), of being "racists" against Muslims (please note, Muslims are not a race either, it is a political-religeous social order), or of just being a Nazi ...

Just a selection of your language..

" are brave little soldiers standing up to tanks with popguns is both inaccurate and plain stupid.

US Military released to counter some of the male bovine manure spread by idiots like you:

I'm just betting an idiot like you ignores

Please try and pretend the whole Anbar Awakening thing doesn't explode the male bovine manure you're pushing.

Oh, and can you get your head out of your arse whilst you're at it."

You guessed wrong yet again.. why would I say anything about whether you are racist or not.. I know pretty much nothing about you, apart from you use biased information sources, don't like others who do, use bad language, do not deal with what is being said, rather let your imagination run wild.. like to bet a lot, are pretty bad at it, and are not very good at guessing, like 'male bovine manure' .

Please further note, I neither said anything about Arabs or Muslims being a race.

I also have no idea whether or not you are a Nazi, I would guess though that you are not from your above post.

Please try and deal with what I have actually said.

--Thanks but no thanks. And why would I choose Islam over Druidism, Shamanism, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or Bhuddism? ... inability to mount a defence of your slurring the Allied forces in Iraq. A big thanks for the unintentional comedy you have provided.Enjoy!

A little bit of learning should dispel the fairytale bit.

Why Islam and not Christianity etc.. obviously because its the truth.. how can one be sure.. takes a bit of work on ones part to find out. It has much going for it, I have already posted on this point, about evidence that is independent/external to Islam, that points to the truth of it. I am sure you can have a look through my previous efforts and find the relevant post if you are interested.

As to sects, wrong yet again. The invitation is to Islam, not to this that or the other as you quite correctly say. In the Quran, God only gives us one title, Muslim (ie. one who submits to God), He also gives the religion one name, Islam (peace through submission to the will of God). All the other titles, as you indicate, are man made, and muddy the water.

Please note, I do not know too much about the various sects, apart from that the last of the Holy Prophets of God, peace be upon him, prophesised that this would happen. I am sure you have the ability to look up the details for yourself.

Since you appear to be such an expert in sects, I would hope you have had a chance to have read the Quran for yourself.

Now please can we get back to the point in hand. Are those that stand up to a superior opponent, courageous? I'd say yes, even if that one happens to be a Jihadi.

Also, you have me a bit confused. The following are both from you, yet are contradictory..

"Since the "insurgency" started, the Jihadis have also been copiously armed with guns, explosives, RPGs, landmines, satelliet radios, GPS kit, radios and even anti-tank missiles by Syria and Iran. Your pathetic attempt at pretending the Jihadis in Iraq are brave little soldiers standing up to tanks with popguns is both inaccurate and plain stupid.

The majority of the Jihadis killed in Iraq even years after the war were young, impressionable, foreign Arab males, paid a pittance and left to fend for themselves against a well-equipped and well-trained Allied force.They were fed a diet of Islamic propaganda and fairy-tales about being "immortal to the bullets of the Infidel if they were true Muslims". Allied reports talk of busloads of these Jihadis, promised a bounty for every "Yankee" they killed, being given Chinese AKs that couldn't even fire because the factory grease hadn't been cleaned off them, and being sent out to make night ambushes on Allied patrols that had NVGs and could spot them a mile off."