Wikileaks releases 400,000 documents

dlofnep · 22-10-2010 10:36PM #1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-nato-pentagon

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, condemned the release of almost 400,000 secret US army field reports by whistleblowing website WikiLeaks claiming the disclosure could put lives at risk.

Speaking to reporters in Washington before the documents had been posted on the website, Clinton said she condemned "in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organisations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk".

The US and NATO is not very happy with the release. They are concerned that the release will endanger the lives of those operating in Iraq. Wikileaks is a genuine threat to Government secrecy.

pablo_escobar · 23-10-2010 12:53AM

The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces).

The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths.That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period.

For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivallent population size.

I wonder how many news agencies will ignore this information...

Chavez and Castro look like angels.

Mahatma coat · 23-10-2010 05:52AM

OK So let me just get this one straight in my head

Sending Poorly Equipped and demoralised Young Men into an Illegal War of agression to Act as Occupying Forces and Activley assist in the theft of a Nations Wealth,

Is Not as Dangerous as

Posting their reports on the Internet

RIIIIIIIIGHT

And I'd say most of the News agencies will ignore the content of the reports and instead focus on Demonising Electron

A Dub in Glasgo · 23-10-2010 07:33AM

This is why millions took to the streets to oppose the illegal war. The US and Britain is responsible for one of the biggest slaughter of civilians in recent time.

karma_ · 23-10-2010 08:48AM

The BBC is running a story so maybe it will get out to a wider audience. I hope so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11611319

A US Department of Defense spokesman dismissed the documents published by the whistleblowing website as raw observations by tactical units, which were only snapshots of tragic, mundane events.

Mundane events indeed, unless of course you were on teh receiving end.

mrboswell · 23-10-2010 09:22AM

Fair play to the whistle blowers

gandalf · 23-10-2010 09:52AM

karma_ wrote: »

Mundane events indeed, unless of course you were on teh receiving end.

Yes when I read the story on the BBC website that is the word that struck me as very insensitive. These mundane events ended in quite a large amount of cases in the death of innocent civilians.

Given the fact that the US & UK fabricated evidence to illegally attack Iraq should the leaders in charge at the time not face war crimes trials in the Hague especially with evidence like this. I also see that the same helicopter gunship that killed two journalists in the infamous leaked video also took part in another dubious operation where 2 insurgents who were clearing indicating that they wanted to surrender were gunned down.

Memnoch · 23-10-2010 10:03AM

It's been amply demonstrated, ONCE AGAIN, that the so called moral authority of the west is a weak and self-serving delusion.

Jonny7 · 23-10-2010 10:26AM

The people releasing these leaks and the website staff are going to have difficult lives, hats off to them.

In the future when they release important leaks about Chinese troops in Tibet, or the actions of the Zimbabwe military, then they will be applauded.

Bah, at least Bush inadvertently gave us a reason to examine our own "moral principles", we're not the jolly hurrah chaps fighting Hitler, we're more like the old empires colonising Africa.

BluePlanet · 23-10-2010 10:30AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

In the future when they release important leaks about Chinese troops in Tibet, or the actions of the Zimbabwe military, then they will be applauded.

Difference is that China nor Zimbabwe don't go around lecturing others about "human rights".

dlofnep · 23-10-2010 10:37AM

With the likes of TOR - You can be sure that leaks from China will be released at some point. It's interesting that the US hasn't commented on the severity of the actions in the documents, but rather - quickly condemned wikileaks for releasing the documents.

The US will ultimately need to comment on a number of these incidents. I would estimate that they will focus on brushing them under the carpet, and a heavy guilt-lead propaganda campaign attacking wikileaks, rather than addressing matters relating to torture and such..

paulaa · 23-10-2010 10:55AM

dlofnep wrote: »

With the likes of TOR - You can be sure that leaks from China will be released at some point. It's interesting that the US hasn't commented on the severity of the actions in the documents, but rather - quickly condemned wikileaks for releasing the documents.

The US will ultimately need to comment on a number of these incidents. I would estimate that they will focus on brushing them under the carpet, and a heavy guilt-lead propaganda campaign attacking wikileaks, rather than addressing matters relating to torture and such..

It just shows that Hilary Clinton is more concerned about the the fact that these atrocities are now in the public domain than the fact that thousands of innocents have been killed and tortured by her badly trained troops. These lives don't matter as long as they are swept under the carpet.

I have a feeling that the US, UK and the west in general will suffer for these actions in years to come. More terrorist attacks from people who have been radicalised by the brutality of the "democratic" armies and they have only themselves to blame .

Fo Real · 23-10-2010 10:58AM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The US and Britain is responsible for one of the biggest slaughter of civilians in recent time.

Do you have figures to back this up or am I correct in assuming that you're lying in order to push your own personal agenda?

BluePlanet · 23-10-2010 11:56AM

Fo Real wrote: »

Do you have figures to back this up or am I correct in assuming that you're lying in order to push your own personal agenda?

So, you're posting in a thread about the release of classified US documents which among other things, highlights 66,000 civilian deaths, and you're accusing another poster of pushing a personal agenda over civilian casualties?

I doubt Saddam Hussien managed such a high kill rate (of civilians).
He was in power a long time, the USA have only been at it less than 10 years now?

dlofnep · 23-10-2010 11:57AM

Fo Real wrote: »

Do you have figures to back this up or am I correct in assuming that you're lying in order to push your own personal agenda?

There was certainly a high civilian death count during the invasion of Iraq. Many of which were directly attributed to US & British actions. The conservative number is 100,000 civilians, but that only includes reported deaths.

The real problem is that many people have become decensitised to the loss of civilian life in the middle-east. When you put out figures like 100,000 civilian deaths - it doesn't register with many people as it should.

The loss of even one life is tragic and heartbreaking. The loss of 100,000+ lives is inexcusable.

Wolfe Tone · 23-10-2010 12:31PM

TBH, is anyone really surprised at this? Looking at Britains and USAs respective military histories I am not.

Fo Real · 23-10-2010 12:40PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

So, you're posting in a thread about the release of classified US documents which among other things, highlights 66,000 civilian deaths, and you're accusing another poster of pushing a personal agenda over civilian casualties?

I doubt Saddam Hussien managed such a high kill rate (of civilians).
He was in power a long time, the USA have only been at it less than 10 years now?

Saddam Hussein's kill tally approaches two million, including

between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi
between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War.
An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000.
Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared".
No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000).
Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

source

Please leave your political agenda at the door. You hate America, we get it, but you can't deny that Saddam killed massive amounts of innocents during his reign. I still have yet to hear conclusive evidence that Iraq and its neighbours, and indeed the world, would be better off with him still in power.

karma_ · 23-10-2010 12:51PM

Fo Real wrote: »

Saddam Hussein's kill tally approaches two million, including
between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi

between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War.

An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000.

Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared".

No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000).

Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

source

Please leave your political agenda at the door. You hate America, we get it, but you can't deny that Saddam killed massive amounts of innocents during his reign. I still have yet to hear conclusive evidence that Iraq and its neighbours, and indeed the world, would be better off with him still in power.

Funny that you find teh combat deaths during the Iran-Iraq war objectionable, a war where Saddam was supported by both the US & the UK. I guess it just suits your argument at the time, a tactic most apologists use in fairness.

A Dub in Glasgo · 23-10-2010 12:53PM

Fo Real wrote: »

Saddam Hussein's kill tally approaches two million, including
between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi

between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War.

An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000.

Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared".

No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000).

Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

source

Please leave your political agenda at the door. You hate America, we get it, but you can't deny that Saddam killed massive amounts of innocents during his reign. I still have yet to hear conclusive evidence that Iraq and its neighbours, and indeed the world, would be better off with him still in power.

Are you For Real?

[*]Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

Those trade sanctions were the responsibility of the UNSC which Britain and the US are permanent members of and they pushed for it.

Edit: The Iran - Iraq war deaths were supported by the US & Britain as Saddam was the ally in that one

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

dlofnep · 23-10-2010 01:00PM

Without veering completely off-topic - I think we can all agree Saddam was scum, and the world is better off without him. However, the context of this discussion is the recently released documents, and the role that the US & Britain played in Iraq in the most recent conflict.

pablo_escobar · 23-10-2010 01:00PM

Fo Real wrote:

Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

When US secretary of state Madeleine Albright was asked on 60 minutes.
"is the price worth it"? knowing that 500,000 children were dead, she said: "..the price is worth it"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

Manic Moran · 23-10-2010 03:36PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Without veering completely off-topic - I think we can all agree Saddam was scum, and the world is better off without him. However, the context of this discussion is the recently released documents, and the role that the US & Britain played in Iraq in the most recent conflict.

Why are you focusing solely on those two? Why not every country involved, from Denmark to Iran?

It seems they didn't learn from last time. Despite assurances that they would take care not to release information which might harm Iraqis.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/22/wikileaks.iraq/index.html?hpt=T1

The U.S. military is notifying Iraqis named in the documents, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told CNN.

"There are 300 names of Iraqis in here that we think would be particularly endangered by their exposure," he said. "We have passed that information on to U.S. Forces Iraq. They are in the process right now of contacting those Iraqis to try to safeguard them."

I guess if you're trying to red 400,000 random documents, a few things will slip through the cracks.

NTM

karma_ · 23-10-2010 03:52PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why are you focusing solely on those two? Why not every country involved, from Denmark to Iran?

It seems they didn't learn from last time. Despite assurances that they would take care not to release information which might harm Iraqis.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/22/wikileaks.iraq/index.html?hpt=T1

I guess if you're trying to red 400,000 random documents, a few things will slip through the cracks.

NTM

Indeed, it is unfortunate that some names may have slipped through. The US were complicit it seems in the torture of many more Iraqis, and many more of their deaths at checkpoints also, what of a little justice for them maybe? You are a soldier Moran, did you know these things were going on? Did you agree with them?

FlutterinBantam · 23-10-2010 04:13PM

Fo Real wrote: »

Saddam Hussein's kill tally approaches two million, including
between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi

between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War.

An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000.

Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared".

No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000).

Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

source

Please leave your political agenda at the door. You hate America, we get it, but you can't deny that Saddam killed massive amounts of innocents during his reign. I still have yet to hear conclusive evidence that Iraq and its neighbours, and indeed the world, would be better off with him still in power.

Excellent post.
However, don't expect any change from the anti-American lobby in here.

Like the Duracell battery, they just keep going on.

Facts like that they just ignore.

FlutterinBantam · 23-10-2010 04:15PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Without veering completely off-topic - I think we can all agree Saddam was scum, and the world is better off without him. However, the context of this discussion is the recently released documents, and the role that the US & Britain played in Iraq in the most recent conflict.

Which was ridding Iraq of that scum and freeing it's people.

Nodin · 23-10-2010 04:17PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Which was ridding Iraq of that scum and freeing it's people.

....but, seeing as theres still systematic torture, killings and abuse of prisoners, its fairly plain they didn't do that, and in fact had no interest in the Iraqi people whatsoever.

karma_ · 23-10-2010 04:18PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Which was ridding Iraq of that scum and freeing it's people.

Freeing them to be tortured by the next administration and killed at checkpoints by the occupying force.

dlofnep · 23-10-2010 04:21PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why are you focusing solely on those two? Why not every country involved, from Denmark to Iran?

It seems they didn't learn from last time. Despite assurances that they would take care not to release information which might harm Iraqis.

Perhaps because these made up the majority of the occupational forces?

dlofnep · 23-10-2010 04:23PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Which was ridding Iraq of that scum and freeing it's people.

And that alone would have been a noble gesture. But we know it's not quite that simple. High losses of civilians, state-torture, suppression of information in a war started on false pretenses.

The US and Britain did not enter Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. Anyone who thinks that was their sole motive is either naive, or willfully ignorant.

FlutterinBantam · 23-10-2010 04:26PM

Nodin wrote: »

....but, seeing as theres still systematic torture, killings and abuse of prisoners, its fairly plain they didn't do that, and in fact had no interest in the Iraqi people whatsoever.

That is a statement which is foolish in the extreme.

They commit huge resources.equipment and military power to the country and they have no interest in the Iraqi people?

that is not the statement of a rational person.

dlofnep · 23-10-2010 04:34PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

that is not the statement of a rational person.

There you go yet again with ad hominem attacks. Challenge his statement instead of his character?

Wikileaks releases 400,000 documents

Comments