Wikileaks at it again - largest release of secret U.S. military documents ever!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

SlyPokerDog

Woof!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
127,021
Likes
147,627
Points
115
In what is being described as the largest release of secret U.S. military documents ever, whistle-blowing web site WikiLeaks has published a trove of classified reports about the war in Iraq, including a secret U.S. government tally that put the Iraqi death toll at 285,000, according to news sources that received advanced copies of the documents.

The documents include evidence of state sanctioned torture by the Iraqi government, new evidence of Iraqi government death squads, and Iran's involvement in funneling arms to Shiite militias, according to Arab news channel Al Jazeera, which has been able to review the documents before their release.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikl...assified-military-documents/story?id=11949670
 
Is it me, or does that all seem to be pretty much what most people surmised was happening over there. So I am not sure what the big whoop is. I guess these documents help verify those suspicions, but I don't know anybody who didn't assume that near that many people were killed over there. Iraqi government death squads and Iranian involvement isn't surprising either. Just verification of what most folks assumed.
 
...seems like the gov't is actually using wikileaks to manipulate certain pre-cursors to more war :dunno:
 
you mean the gov't paid off soldiers (SPC Manning) to leak documents, and then sit by idly in prison while it's decided if he should spend life in prison or get shot? Interesting take.
 
...are you taking these wikileaks to be 100% truth?
 
Please read this [anyone].

http://www.infowars.com/the-war-on-terror/

The War On Terror
Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars.com
October 18, 2010


Does anyone remember the “cakewalk war” that would last six weeks, cost $50-$60 billion, and be paid for out of Iraqi oil revenues?

Wikileaks is now akin to a terrorist organization. The American government’s practice of silencing critics will spread across the Internet. Illustration: Raymndo Salvatore Harmon.

Does anyone remember that White House economist Lawrence Lindsey was fired by Dubya because Lindsey estimated that the Iraq war could cost as much as $200 billion?

Lindsey was fired for over -estimating the cost of a war that, according to Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, has cost 15 times more than Lindsey estimated. And the US still has 50,000 troops in Iraq.

Does anyone remember that just prior to the US invasion of Iraq, the US government declared victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Does anyone remember that the reason Dubya gave for invading Iraq was Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, weapons that the US government knew did not exist?

Are Americans aware that the same neoconservarives who made these fantastic mistakes, or told these fabulous lies, are still in control of the government in Washington?

The “war on terror” is now in its tenth year. What is it really all about?

The bottom line answer is that the “war on terror” is about creating real terrorists. The US government desperately needs real terrorists in order to justify its expansion of its wars against Muslim countries and to keep the American people sufficiently fearful that they continue to accept the police state that provides “security from terrorists,” but not from the government that has discarded civil liberties.

The US government creates terrorists by invading Muslim countries, wrecking infrastructure and killing vast numbers of civilians. The US also creates terrorists by installing puppet governments to rule over Muslims and by using the puppet governments to murder and persecute citizens as is occurring on a vast scale in Pakistan today.

Neoconservatives used 9/11 to launch their plan for US world hegemony. Their plan fit with the interests of America’s ruling oligarchies. Wars are good for the profits of the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us in vain a half century ago. American hegemony is good for the oil industry’s control over resources and resource flows. The transformation of the Middle East into a vast American puppet state serves well the Israel Lobby’s Zionist aspirations for Israeli territorial expansion.

Most Americans cannot see what is happening because of their conditioning. Most Americans believe that their government is the best on earth, that it is morally motivated to help others and to do good, that it rushes aid to countries where there is famine and natural catastrophes. Most believe that their presidents tell the truth, except about their sexual affairs.

The persistence of these delusions is extraordinary in the face of daily headlines that report US government bullying of, and interference with, virtually every country on earth. The US policy is to buy off, overthrow, or make war on leaders of other countries who represent their peoples’ interests instead of American interests. A recent victim was the president of Honduras who had the wild idea that the Honduran government should serve the Honduran people.

The American government was able to have the Honduran president discarded, because the Honduran military is trained and supplied by the US military. It is the same case in Pakistan, where the US government has the Pakistani government making war on its own people by invading tribal areas that the Americans consider to be friendly to the Taliban, al Qaeda, “militants” and “terrorists.”

Earlier this year a deputy US Treasury secretary ordered Pakistan to raise taxes so that the Pakistani government could more effectively make war on its own citizens for the Americans. On October 14 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered Pakistan to again raise taxes or the US would withhold flood aid. Clinton pressured America’s European puppet states to do the same, expressing in the same breath that the US government was worried by British cuts in the military budget. God forbid that the hard-pressed British, still reeling from American financial fraud, don’t allocate enough money to fight America’s wars.

On Washington’s orders, the Pakistani government launched a military offensive against Pakistani citizens in the Swat Valley that killed large numbers of Pakistanis and drove millions of civilians from their homes. Last July the US instructed Pakistan to send its troops against the Pakistani residents of North Waziristan. On July 6 Jason Ditz reported on antiwar.com that “at America’s behest, Pakistan has launched offensives against [the Pakistani provinces of] Swat Valley, Bajaur, South Waziristan, Orakzai,and Khyber.”

A week later Israel’s US Senator Carl Levin (D,MI) called for escalating the Obama Administration’s policies of US airstrikes against Pakistan’s tribal areas. On September 30, the Pakistani newspaper, The Frontier Post, wrote that the American air strikes “are, plain and simple, a naked aggression against Pakistan.”

The US claims that its forces in Afghanistan have the right to cross into Pakistan in pursuit of “militants.” Recently US helicopter gunships killed three Pakistani soldiers who they mistook for Taliban. Pakistan closed the main US supply route to Afghanistan until the Americans apologized.

Pakistan warned Washington against future attacks. However, US military officials, under pressure from Obama to show progress in the endless Afghan war, responded to Pakistan’s warning by calling for expanding the Afghan war into Pakistan. On October 5 the Canadian journalist Eric Margolis wrote that “the US edges closer to invading Pakistan.”

In his book, Obama’s Wars, Bob Woodward reports that America’s puppet president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, believes that terrorist bombing attacks inside Pakistan for which the Taliban are blamed are in fact CIA operations designed to destabilize Pakistan and allow Washington to seize Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

To keep Pakistan in line, the US government changed its position that the “Times Square Bombing” was the work of a “lone wolf.” Attorney General Eric Holder switched the blame to the “Pakistani Taliban,” and Secretary of State Clinton threatened Pakistan with “very serious consequences” for the unsuccessful Times Square bombing, which likely was a false flag operation aimed at Pakistan.

To further heighten tensions, on September 1 the eight members of a high-ranking Pakistani military delegation in route to a meeting in Tampa, Florida, with US Central Command, were rudely treated and detained as terrorist suspects at Washington DC’s Dulles Airport.

For decades the US government has enabled repeated Israeli military aggression against Lebanon and now appears to be getting into gear for another Israeli assault on the former American protectorate of Lebanon. On October 14 the US government expressed its “outrage” that the Lebanese government had permitted a visit by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who is the focus of Washington’s intense demonization efforts. Israel’s representatives in the US Congress threatened to stop US military aid to Lebanon, forgetting that US Rep. Howard Berman (D,CA) has had aid to Lebanon blocked since last August to punish Lebanon for a border clash with Israel.

Perhaps the most telling headline of all is the October 14 report, “Somalia’s New American Primer Minister.” An American has been installed as the Prime Minister of Somalia, an American puppet government in Mogadishu backed up by thousands of Ugandan troops paid by Washington.

This barely scratches the surface of Washington’s benevolence toward other countries and respect for their rights, borders, and lives of their citizens.

Meanwhile, to silence Wikileaks and to prevent any more revelations of American war crimes, the “freedom and democracy” government in DC has closed down Wikileaks’ donations by placing the organization on its “watch list” and by having the Australian puppet government blacklist Wikileaks.

Wikileaks is now akin to a terrorist organization. The American government’s practice of silencing critics will spread across the Internet.

Remember, they hate us because we have freedom and democracy, First Amendment rights, habeas corpus, respect for human rights, and show justice and mercy to all.
 
I read it, even though as I read it I could tell it was fiction produced by someone with a) an agenda, b) a poor understanding of today's Washington and c) a poor grasp of history.

What did you want someone to get from this?
 
HAAK, Infowars & Prisonplanet have some credibility issues. They jump from one crazy conspiracy to another. Alex Jones is a bit of a nut case.
 
Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939, in Atlanta, Georgia) is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics."[1] He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. Roberts has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations.

He has written or co-written eight books, contributed chapters to numerous books and has published many articles in journals of scholarship. He has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.
 
Slate.com is hardly a right wing site (it's quite the left wing site, actually).

http://www.slate.com/id/2272205/

WikiLeaks' Iraq War Scoops

Some of these Pentagon papers are new, interesting—and make Iraqis and Iranians look worse than Americans.
...

at least according to the Pentagon's secret report, most Iraqi civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis. The report calculates 31,780 Iraqis killed by roadside bombs and 34,814 by sectarian killings (notated as "murders").
 
I understand if you think someone is a nut, but I have yet to find any credibility issues...

Feel free to present facts that show otherwise.
 
just as one: which neocons are "in power" right now?

as another:
The “war on terror” is now in its tenth year. What is it really all about?

The bottom line answer is that the “war on terror” is about creating real terrorists. The US government desperately needs real terrorists in order to justify its expansion of its wars against Muslim countries and to keep the American people sufficiently fearful that they continue to accept the police state that provides “security from terrorists,” but not from the government that has discarded civil liberties.
War on terror started in late 2001. I'd offer up the following as just a list of "real terrorist" attacks that occurred in 2001 BEFORE 9/11, and BEFORE any "war on terror". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2001
The US government creates terrorists by invading Muslim countries, wrecking infrastructure and killing vast numbers of civilians. The US also creates terrorists by installing puppet governments to rule over Muslims and by using the puppet governments to murder and persecute citizens as is occurring on a vast scale in Pakistan today.
The first Muslim country we "invaded" was Iraq in 1991, as part of a multi-national coalition whose purpose was to remove Saddam Hussein's armies from their illegal overrun, rape and pillage of Kuwait (in the literal senses of those words). Mission accomplished. "Vast numbers" of civilians weren't killed, and we left a large part of the infrastructure (and government) intact. Yet we know where that leniency and compassion got us. Is the author saying that there wasn't terrorism before Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990? Or that Vietnam or Grenada or North Korea or Germany are Muslim countries (since they were the only countries that we'd "invaded" in the century before Saddam invaded Kuwait?)

I don't think the guy's a nutjob. I said he has a poor grasp of both history and present Washington, and that he has an agenda. IMHO, I fail to see how anyone can disagree with my conclusions, and it's relatively easy to look up.
 
Honestly, much of the article was a rambling discourse of unfounded perceptions and odd, "we're bad and the RoW is good" garbage. I mean, it's one thing to give everything a look to make sure you're getting all sides of an argument, and there may be nuggets of truth somewhere in his argument, but the vast majority is poorly-understood, poorly-researched and poorly-written vitriol, for whatever reason.
 
NeoCons are not limited to only one major political party. Throughout the ranks of both Republicans and Democrats, you will find this destructive thought. The only real difference is that the Republicans promote a more in your face version while the Democrats operate under neo-conservatism "lite".

Just as the current administration continues the policies of the previous in terms of foreign military adventures, the neocon foundations of nation building, preemptive war, and policing the world are displayed as integral parts of the political establishments’ international outlook. The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of classic neocon war-policy in action, just as wikileaks will help further promote their agenda.

You think all of the mayhem is justified, I don't.
 
The "War On Terror", as in the propaganda machine started in '01. I am not sure what your terror list reference is supposed to prove? You probably fear "terrorism".
 
Yet we know where that leniency and compassion got us.

IMHO, I fail to see how anyone can disagree with my conclusions, and it's relatively easy to look up.

...no, please tell me, where did it get us?!

You fail to see a lot of things.

p.s. sorry about the rapid iTouch posting, this screen is rather "touchy"
 
Last edited:
If you're being serious, check out how many UN sanctions and cease-fire agreements Saddam Hussein violated between April 1991 and October 2002.

You didn't answer my question. Who are the neo-cons in power? Are you saying that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are neo-cons? Everyone that keeps voting for the defense budget?

"My terror list" was refutation of the author's contention that
The bottom line answer is that the “war on terror” is about creating real terrorists.
"Real terrorists" were doing "real terrorist" things well before GWB spoke out against the Axis of Evil and War on Terror.

I find it ironic that someone who posts an out-of-left-field article and tells everyone to read it will not challenge themselves to look at the multitude of evidence that disproves multiple portions of said article, and then accuses those who attempt to enlighten said someone with "you fail to see a lot of things". To each his own, I guess.
 
If you're being serious, check out how many UN sanctions and cease-fire agreements Saddam Hussein violated between April 1991 and October 2002.

If this is your answer about "where that leniency and compassion got us", then it seems worth pointing out that those UN sanctions and cease-fire agreements that were violated didn't amount to much. We (well, you military folks) had Saddam bottled up. Yes, he tried to resist. Yes, he was corrupt, evil, and really not a very nice man. However, he wasn't any real danger to us or our allies after the first war ended. We've made the region much more dangerous by removing Iraq as a counterweight to Iran. And now we have to deal with Iran.

barfo
 
I don't see Iraq as removed as a counterweight, I guess. But that's another topic.

If Saddam had been arrested and tried for war crimes in 1991, I personally don't think we invade in 2003. Obviously that's up for debate. And we've had Iran to deal with for 30 years.
 
I don't see Iraq as removed as a counterweight, I guess. But that's another topic.

Really? You think Iraq is effectively opposing Iran militarily at the moment? I'm certainly not in the know about such things, but it appears to me that Iraq is far too disorganized to keep Iran from doing anything they might wish to at present.

If Saddam had been arrested and tried for war crimes in 1991, I personally don't think we invade in 2003.

Ok, that makes sense, since we would have had to take over Iraq to arrest Saddam in 1991. Thus there would be no need to invade in 2003.

Obviously that's up for debate. And we've had Iran to deal with for 30 years.

Longer than that, I think. We were certainly dealing with Iran in the Shah's day. Some would say those dealings led to the situation we are in today.

barfo
 
We were certainly dealing with Iran in the Shah's day. Some would say those dealings led to the situation we are in today.

barfo

....or Khomeini's, perhaps?
 
Why is it hard to understand why we were attacked on 9/11? We had troops on what holy land for several years following the first Iraq war. This was the reason behind 9/11 be it fair or not. I would imagine that if a foreign army was occupying the United States some of our citizens might take action as well. Terrorism is a price you pay when you invade other countries, it always has been and always will be. It has happened to every invading nation in almost every major and minor war. Now granted technology has made it a much easier task, and the fact that the United States has such a large diversity. We rounded up the Japanese during WWII for fear that they might attempt something. We had a very strong anti-German society during WWI and WWII. Just like we accept collateral damage as part of dropping US bombs, we must accept that events like 9/11 are a price you pay for nation building and global expansion. The Chinese deal with terrorism all the time because they have a large Muslim population and they are also heavily involved in the Mid-East. They basically just kill them or put them in prison. Sadly there is a pretty fascist segment(Left and Right) in this country that is moving closer to the mindset of the Chinese. Freedom is a slippery slope, and I fear that we are pretty close to falling off the cliff. In terms of Democrats and Republicans there really is no difference, and if you cannot see that then you are blinded by the propaganda and lies of the media.

Another example of our freedom being taken away is the lack of state's rights. We have voted for assisted suicide in this state, and yet the Feds say no. If they legalize pot in California the Feds say they will not allow it. Then you have the ongoing mortgage issues that started with Clinton, worsened under Bush and now have been a pain in the ass to Obama. Yet Obama gets scorned for all of these terrible mortgages when 99% of them were taken out before he came to office. It was the cause of the current economic crisis, and when Bush started the bailouts for the car companies and banks people were not outraged enough. Everyone seems to forget that Obama was not president in September of 2008 when the first bail out was given. I blame Clinton and mainly Bush for the current situation, while at the same time I don't think Obama has done a great job of solving the problem. In addition the people of this nation are spoiled children who lack the ability to accept that their lifestyles have been the major cause of our current plight. We over spend, eat poorly, and don't educate ourselves and yet so many of us place the blame at the feet of the government. What a bunch of losers, and I could actually see myself moving my family out of the states in the next 10-20 years. My family at one point had to leave other countries because they fell apart, and they did find a better life here in the states. At this point the United States is quickly becoming the old Europe of corruption, intolerance, and ignorance. It will fall, and it is already leaning pretty far.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top