Wikileaks. Any comments?

[BeAChooser]

I consistently asked people to provide descriptions of the ROE's.

Which you then ignored when you stated the rules of engagement "required 'hostile acts'".

This is just childish idiocy.

No, childish idiocy is your lying and your continuing to dig the hole you now find yourself in as a result of your defending Assange's lies.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
LIAR. You said "they found the RPG's in the van that pulled up later."

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

No, your statement "they found the RPG's in the van" is unambiguous. And an obvious lie.

The visual evidence that the people were holding RPGs is poor.

How did an RPG round end up UNDER an insurgent's body? Notice in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgYfTRAZqek&feature=player_embedded at 5:13) that it states that. And notice that the position of the van where it finally ended up after being attacked (which is the same location it was when trying to load the injured insurgent) is a good 30 or 40 feet from the location where the insurgents were clustered when first attacked (and where the RPG was found). How did that RPG get from inside the van to there, if that's what you still wish to claim? Hmmmmm? Cannon fire couldn't do that. There was no explosion to propel an RPG any great distance. So like I said, you must believe in Santa Clause and his sleigh. Or magic. Or that American forces planted the weapon afterwards. Any one of those choices is just "childish idiocy".

There are still two problems with this:

1) The order to attack was granted before anyone ID's an RPG.

As is your continued harping about this. The ROE does not require an RPG be "ID"ed before engaging. It's irrelevant.

2) Holding an RPG is not alone sufficient for ROEs

LOL! Holding an RPG is not even necessary to order engagement, as my links convincely prove. Your continued insinuation that it is necessary, is both childish and dishonest. But you go right ahead and keep digging that OPEN PIT you are constructing for your credibility. It's works for me because this thread is going to be quite useful in the future.

Show me the part of the video where any American is in danger.

At 0:41 - "Okay we got a target fifteen coming at you. It's a guy with a weapon."

At 1:20 - "Have individuals with weapons." (seen moving towards the direction from which the Americans are coming about 100 meters away.)

At 1:35 - "Have five to six individuals with AK47s." (So how many armed men does it take before you see a threat, TraneWreck?)

At 2:19 - "Yeah, we had a guy shooting --- and now he's behind the building. [profanity] Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the Brad." (So how close would a guy with what appeared to be an RPG have to be from a Bradley, before you'd see him as a threat, TraneWreck?)

At 4:40 - "They uh had AK-47 and were to our east, so, where we were taking small arms fire."

Believe me, I know more than I would evey want to know about you just from reading your insane posts.

Dig, dig, dig.

Quote:
15:28 Yeah Two-Six. One-Eight I just also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG cropping round the corner getting ready to fire on your location.

This was the part I was referring to.

Ok, these are indeed two helicopters talking to one another, but "fire on your location" does not necessarily mean fire at you. But I can see why you might interpret it that way. At least you now are admitting that the pilots could have thought the RPG was about to be fired and that would constitute an "immediate" threat even in your narrow, anti-American view of things to American forces regardless of the intended target. Right?

save the childish "LOL's" and "LIARS." You're arguments are pathetic, so you try to taunt. It's really quite infantile.

I'm quite content to let readers of this thread decide whose arguments were pathetic and who was being infantile. Which is why I'll certainly save a URL to it for future use.

Impressive lack of self-awareness.

Speaking of "self-awareness", what do you think of Iraqis who would drive a van with two small children in it to a location that was just hit by 30 MM cannon fire? Hmmmmm?

By all means, keep digging, TraneWreck.

 

[BeAChooser]

Have had these discussions under the protection of attorney-client privilage

Ahhhhh, so you are a lawyer. That might explain a lot.

 

[Oliver]

Let me get this straight, BAC:

1. You invade a country without any evidence whatsoever.

2. You are free - and without any consequence - to shoot at everyone wearing a weapon or look-alike.

3. If you shot a Reporter by accident, all of it is irrelevant because your hidden helicopter somehow was in great danger while the random guy on the street had nothing to fear about with his weapon or look-alike.

4. You brag about all the rightdoing of your country in a public forum as if nothing of the three other points are at odds with all the wonderful mantras of freedom and justice and that pledge thingy.

5. And if there is something wrong with that picture, it's - of course - Barack "teh Kenyan" Obamas fault.

 

[TraneWreck]

Which you then ignored when you stated the rules of engagement "required 'hostile acts'".

Quote that. Find me saying that after your post with the links about ROE.

You're completely making that up.

LOL! Holding an RPG is not even necessary to order engagement, as my links convincely prove. Your continued insinuation that it is necessary, is both childish and dishonest. But you go right ahead and keep digging that OPEN PIT you are constructing for your credibility. It's works for me because this thread is going to be quite useful in the future.

Haha, so all the times I said IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY, just passed you buy until you concluded that RPG didn't matter.

Good lord.

At 1:35 - "Have five to six individuals with AK47s." (So how many armed men does it take before you see a threat, TraneWreck?)

Remember, according the ROE quiz you provided, a car full of people with AK's speeding towards Americans is not sufficient for deadly force. Thus, guns that pose no threat to folks hovering in helicopters doesn't, either.

At 2:19 - "Yeah, we had a guy shooting --- and now he's behind the building. [profanity] Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the Brad." (So how close would a guy with what appeared to be an RPG have to be from a Bradley, before you'd see him as a threat, TraneWreck?)

At 4:40 - "They uh had AK-47 and were to our east, so, where we were taking small arms fire."

This would be them making a mistake. No one in that group fired anything.

Once again, according to the ROE's you offered, being near a gunfight is not sufficient.

Dig, dig, dig.

Smarm, smarm, smarm.

Ok, these are indeed two helicopters talking to one another, but "fire on your location" does not necessarily mean fire at you. But I can see why you might interpret it that way. At least you now are admitting that the pilots could have thought the RPG was about to be fired and that would constitute an "immediate" threat even in your narrow, anti-American view of things to American forces regardless of the intended target. Right?

Whenever BAC posts in a thread, we always arrive at these pure moments when you realize how full of **** he really is. Here is that moment.

I'm quite content to let readers of this thread decide whose arguments were pathetic and who was being infantile. Which is why I'll certainly save a URL to it for future use.

Haha, ok. You can't even figure out what's happening now, you think time will give you clarity?

Speaking of "self-awareness", what do you think of Iraqis who would drive a van with two small children in it to a location that was just hit by 30 MM cannon fire? Hmmmmm?

By all means, keep digging, TraneWreck.

Yeah, why were they rushing to the aid of their injured neighbors. WHat idiots.

Oh yeah, they live there, that's the problem. In the part of the video that's cut out, they shoot missiles into a building that kills some families that lived there:

The owner of the building says that three families had been living in the building and seven residents had died, including his wife and daughter.[3] On April 7, 2010, The New Yorker published a report which concentrates on the Hellfire missile attacks, describing them as "inherently more indiscriminate"[3] than the earlier engagements. The report states that the helicopter crew did not know how many people were in the building when they destroyed it with missiles, and that "there is evidence that unarmed people have both entered and are nearby".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike

Stupid Iraqis, living in a country we want to blow up.

 

[TraneWreck]

Ahhhhh, so you are a lawyer. That might explain a lot.

Yes, like why my arguments make sense.

I don't know how to explain why yours don't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Guess I need a new thread to get any attention for some very critical issues.

 

[TraneWreck]

Guess I need a new thread to get any attention for some very critical issues.

Yes, we're trapped in a glass case of pettiness.

 

[Toontown]

What do you think happens when you make posts in a discussion forum.

Duh.

People start haranguing me endlessly, without respite, until I stop responding. Then they claim "victory" because I stopped responding.

Next question.

Either you're in total denial or you don't realize how obnoxious your sanctimonious string of "chicken" posts were.

"False Dichotomy" is your middle name. The "chicken posts" were both humorous and a response in kind to the stubborn, denialist, mindless accusatory bickering that had broken out, led by you.

Instead of dealing with facts or making an argument, you just implied that you knew something about battle.

The central point had already been repeatedly pointed out by multiple posters, not to mention the pilots, who were actually there, and could see much better than the concatenated version of events you saw in the video they recorded. You simply ignored or denied the central point repeatedly. You didn't want to acknowledge what constitutes an implicate imminent threat in the midst of an area of hostile enemy activity within 100 meters of friendly troops.

So what was the use of me pointing out the central point one more time? You would only ignore or deny it one more time. So I decided to start making funny "chicken" posts with stinging allusions to the chickens' humanoid counterparts.

"Here I am just making smarmy, condescending posts on a discussion forum and other people point that out, what the hell?"

No one pointed "that" out. What someone did do was falsely accuse me of lying about military service when I hadn't even mentioned military service and then falsely allege that I had been "exposed" at lying about military service, when I hadn't even mentioned it.

I don't know which is worse - people who make smarmy, condescending posts, or the smarmy, condescending liars who become enraged at the smarmy, condescending posts. All I know is, you people were stinking up the place before I showed up.

I don't know whether that's true or not. I'm pointing out it's irrelevant, and that instead of rambling on based on childish, misdirected analogies, you should try to make a point.

And I am once again pointing out that it was not I who brought up my military service. If the fact annoys you, then I suggest taking it up with the Childlike Empress who brought it up.

And I take issue with your characterization of my "chicken" posts as being "misdirected". Because they damn sure hit something, as evidenced by all the squawking.

When you are along with BAC about anything, you should worry.

Or maybe when you get thrashed by BAC because you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge a plain, obvious fact, and then become enraged by a chicken-post, and then spend half the evening trying desperately to discredit the chicken-poster, who hasn't even bothered to "make a point", YOU should worry.

Well, I hope you're happy now. I have now made a point. It's the same point made by others, unnecessarily made again by me as a result of your badgering, buried somewhere in the previous paragraphs. You will undoubtedly fail to recognize or refuse to acknowledge the point. Again. And so it goes, on and on, ad infinitum.

 

[Toontown]

Let me get this straight, BAC:

1. You invade a country without any evidence whatsoever.

2. You are free - and without any consequence - to shoot at everyone wearing a weapon or look-alike.

3. If you shot a Reporter by accident, all of it is irrelevant because your hidden helicopter somehow was in great danger while the random guy on the street had nothing to fear about with his weapon or look-alike.

4. You brag about all the rightdoing of your country in a public forum as if nothing of the three other points are at odds with all the wonderful mantras of freedom and justice and that pledge thingy.

5. And if there is something wrong with that picture, it's - of course - Barack "teh Kenyan" Obamas fault.

If that's your idea of getting something straight, you should show some of your work to bin Laden. He could use a guy like you.

If bin Laden won't have you, try Iran. Their propagandists suck. Not saying your propaganda doesn't suck, but you've got a shot.

 

[TraneWreck]

"False Dichotomy" is your middle name. The "chicken posts" were both humorous and a response in kind to the stubborn, denialist, mindless accusatory bickering that had broken out, led by you.

Add "humorous" to the list of words you need to look up.

Ah, the sanctimony. If only we could be more like you, above the fray, but still willing to toss in poorly thought out insults. Truly a model of civility.

The central point had already been repeatedly pointed out by multiple posters, not to mention the the pilots. You simply ignored or denied the central point repeatedly. You didn't want to acknowledge what constitutes an implicate imminent threat in the midst of an area of hostile enemy activity within 100 meters of friendly troops.

According to the rules of engagement linked by BAC, that's not sufficient. Being near violence is not enough.

So what was the use of me pointing out the central point one more time? You would only ignore or deny it one more time. So I decided to start making funny "chicken" posts with stinging allusions to the chickens' humanoid counterparts.

You can keep saying it, but unless you provide some argument applying the rules of engagement to the scenario seen on video, you're just advancing your unvarnished position.

And then, once more, if that's the result of behaving as one should in Iraq, then our mission was more barbaric and pointless than I previously thought.

No one pointed "that" out. What someone did do was falsely accuse me of lying about military service when I hadn't even mentioned military service and then falsely allege that I had been "exposed" at lying about military service, when I hadn't even mentioned it.

That's not quite what happened, but sure, that would be a dickish thing to do.

As I recall, the statement made was conditional.

I don't know which is worse - people who make smarmy, condescending posts, or the smarmy, condescending liars who become enraged at the smarmy, condescending posts. All I know is, you people were stinking up the place before I showed up.

And to show your superiority, you just thought you'd drop trow and unleash some brown missiles on the thread.

And I am once again pointing out that it was not I who brought up my military service. If the fact annoys you, then I suggest taking it up with the Childlike Empress who brought it up.

Please. The entire point of your wrongly described "humorous" chicken analogy was that there was no point trying to explain military engagement to civilians (or those not "in the know"). You just posses superior knowledge, that doesn't translate into English, interestingly enough, and you shouldn't have to deign to explain yourself.

I pointed out that this sort of argument doesn't impress me. I'm not intimidated by these claims. I still don't know if you were in the military or not.

And I take issue with your characterization of my "chicken" posts as being "misdirected". Because they damn sure hit something, as evidenced by all the squawking.

Yes, it struck me as childish and not pertinent to the point at hand. The fact that you're so proud of it earns you ridicule, but don't overestimate the impact. It's only worthy of note for its unintentional humor value.

Or maybe when you get thrashed by BAC because you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge a plain, obvious fact, and then become enraged by a chicken-post, and then spend half the evening trying desperately to discredit the chicken-poster, who hasn't even bothered to "make a point", YOU should worry.

Such as what? Offer a quote of that happening. It didn't. BAC is astonishingly wrong.

Well, I hope you're happy now. I have now made a point. It's the same point made by others, unnecessarily made again by me as a result of your badgering, buried somewhere in the previous paragraphs. You will undoubtedly fail to recognize or refuse to acknowledge the point. Again. And so it goes, on and on, ad infinitum.

No, you made half of a point. You asserted that violence was occurring near this group, you offered no evidence to suggest that was sufficient under the ROE's.

If you had read the quiz BAC linked, you would know that soldiers could not fire on an insurgent that shot one an American in the neck if he was surrounded by innocents because the collateral damage was not justified.

That's after an actual act of aggression. Obviously someone standing around with a weapon making no hostile act or not implying any hostile act shouldn't be unloaded on just as a matter of course, but there's certainly no justification for killing everyone in the area.

 

[Childlike Empress]

And I am once again pointing out that it was not I who brought up my military service. If the fact annoys you, then I suggest taking it up with the Childlike Empress who brought it up.

Interesting to see how touchy you are on this subject. In reality, foreign me did not at all accuse you of lying about military service. I just made a casual remark about well known events your posts reminded me of. To test your reaction.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I see the thread has changed, but I feel I still have something to say about Assange/

First, I admit I was wrong about some details on Assange. I looked some stuff up, and while he does have some positive characteristics, I still find him smug. As for argument?

Is Wikileaks the 5th estate? Does Assange belong to a background or profession that grants him responsibility/authority to make these decisions? What system do they use to make these judgments and where did the system originate?

Assange is not a journalist. Other threads, you will hear me bitch about modern journalism, but I support the 4th estate. To the extent wikileaks works with reporters make their decision, I applaud them. To the extent they do not, I have issues.

I am not even saying that what system they use is wrong. But there are these nagging issues of authority and responsibility. He is not elected, appointed, or belongs to an institution with guidelines. That is a scary responsibility.

 

[PS13]

I'm quite content to let readers of this thread decide whose arguments were pathetic and who was being infantile. Which is why I'll certainly save a URL to it for future use.

Okay... from what I've read, and I've read every post in this thread, it's your arguments that have been pathetic and you are being infantile. TraneWreck is doing a fine job of 'handling' you here in this thread.


Oh, and is their a reason you call him a liar when he's not a liar?


And why the excessive use of this guy ---> ''?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I am not even saying that what system they use is wrong.

Because you are unable to make reasonable distinctions between journalists and WikiLeaks.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Because you are unable to make reasonable distinctions between journalists and WikiLeaks.

Yeah, I thought that is what I said. What is that difference? Is there one? Are they making it up as they go along? That is fine, too. Journalists had to make it up when they first started; so did doctors.

Is it even Jouralism? To an extent?

 

[Childlike Empress]

It's up to you to define the difference because you stated that Assange isn't a journalist. Define Journalism.

 

[egslim]

Yeah, I thought that is what I said. What is that difference? Is there one? Are they making it up as they go along? That is fine, too. Journalists had to make it up when they first started; so did doctors.

Is it even Jouralism? To an extent?

According to wiki: "Journalism is the practice of investigation and reporting of events, issues, and trends to a broad audience. Although there is much variation within journalism, the ideal is to inform the citizenry."

Journalism is an extremely broad field. Wikileaks does some investigation to check the quality of its sources, and they report events to a broad audience. According to the definition that makes them journalists.

But wikileaks is a new kind of journalism, because they publish information in almost raw form - which became realistic only with the advent of widespread broadband.

 

[INRM]

The government wants to shut down Wikileaks because they're exposing embarrassing secrets, not secrets that are seriously a danger to the country.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's up to you to define the difference because you stated that Assange isn't a journalist. Define Journalism.

In the widest sense, he is. Even in the widest sense, he is not a reporter. He is the editor of the website. He is a computer programmer.

If he is a journalist, he may violate the ethical framework. The boundaries are not clear on where government secrecy and public need meets.

 

[Smackety]

I wouldn't mind a government where every meeting is taped and transcribed, whether committees, office visits, or donor fundraisers.

I wouldn't mind a government where diplomatic cables are almost always public knowledge.

I wouldn't mind a government where the absolutely only information that wasn't completely transparent and accessible to citizens were wartime documents relating to current/impending troop movements/dispositions and similar immediate security concerns.

I'm with the right in that I don't trust the government, but I think they tend to try and destroy the helpful parts and keep the authoritarianism and corporate welfare state alive.

I'm with the left in that that I see the government as a series of expressions of the will of the citizens, in whole and in parts, but I can't decide if it's gutlessness or hypocrisy that keeps them from actually delivering on any of the hope and change that is often promised and never delivered.

I like representative democracy, but I don't feel like there's anyone in state or federal government right now that represents me or the interests of me and people like me.

I think it would help if we could shine a bright light on everything that happens in government. The citizens should know what America is saying, doing, planning, and who it's doing it with. Why? Because it's our country and we need more of a say in it than we're getting right now.

And when CPS interviews YOU because your dickhead neighbor accused you of porking your daughter..... should that be taped and transcribed?