View Full Version : Iraq War Documents Leaked
Jason Tate
10/22/10, 03:37 PM
At 5pm EST Friday 22nd October 2010 WikiLeaks released the largest classified military leak in history. The 391,832 reports ('The Iraq War Logs'), document the war and occupation in Iraq, from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by soldiers in the United States Army. Each is a 'SIGACT' or Significant Action in the war. They detail events as seen and heard by the US military troops on the ground in Iraq and are the first real glimpse into the secret history of the war that the United States government has been privy to throughout.
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.
http://warlogs.wikileaks.org/
---
Figured this needed its own thread to discuss. Have at it ...
carriethewait
10/22/10, 03:42 PM
I'm not saying its right but no one will pay any attention until they make a movie about it.
caveBEAR
10/22/10, 04:06 PM
I'm not saying its right but no one will pay any attention until they make a movie about it.
Can anyone else top the stupidity of this first post? Any takers?
carriethewait
10/22/10, 04:15 PM
Sorry dude. It's sad but its true.
Jake Gyllenhaal
10/22/10, 04:18 PM
Can anyone else top the stupidity of this first post? Any takers?
I think he has a point. Mainstream Christians' knowledge of the Bible is usually based on the films like "The Ten Commandments" and "Passion of the Christ"
I don't agree with someone else's ideals, so they're stupid. This is how I operate.
carrie, you're stupid. Jake Gyllenhaal, you're stupid.
Both of you shut up and get out of this thread because I don't like or care what you have to say.
Thank you.
Midget Pirates
10/22/10, 05:00 PM
one of the big issues that is gonna arise from this is, once again, the torture of detainees. part of these leaks have revealed that Iraqi security forces have been involved in brutal torture of prisoners. One question that is going to be asked is how much did we know about how this was going on and did we take action to stop this behavior? Some reports have said that US forces have tried to prevent this from happening, but we'll see how this plays out.
second-the leaks also give some insight on the Syrian/Iran/Hezbollah influence in training militias in Iraq. though a lot of this was known already.
here's some info on this:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/22/breaking-new-wikileaks-docs-reveal-iraqi-security-forces-have-been-torturing-detainees-for-years/
Roboman
10/22/10, 05:04 PM
Really though, how does shit like this get "leaked"? 391,832 reports, spanning six years?! That's undoubtedly more than a million pages, all classified military documents. That's quite the undertaking.
Midget Pirates
10/22/10, 05:06 PM
I'm not saying its right but no one will pay any attention until they make a movie about it.
yeah no one has paid any attention to the Iraq War. I can't wait till the movie comes out so we can finally have the debate about whether the Iraq war was worthwhile or not.
carriethewait
10/22/10, 05:08 PM
yeah no one has paid any attention to the Iraq War. I can't wait till the movie comes out so we can finally have the debate about whether the Iraq war was worthwhile or not.
Or whether or not the movie is any good.
a nocturnal day
10/22/10, 06:07 PM
Saw this on /x/ a few nights ago before the knew what it was. Dammmnn...I can't believe it was something actually serious, holy shit,
Jake Gyllenhaal
10/22/10, 06:27 PM
I don't agree with someone else's ideals, so they're stupid. This is how I operate.
carrie, you're stupid. Jake Gyllenhaal, you're stupid.
Both of you shut up and get out of this thread because I don't like or care what you have to say.
Thank you.
EEK!!
:shrug:
I can only assume you are being sarcastic?
mitchellyoung
10/22/10, 06:30 PM
Apparently the reports reveal that about 60% of Iraqi deaths were civilian? And that there were about 30,000 more Iraqi deaths than reported? Yikes...
ava empire
10/22/10, 06:59 PM
"there were about 30,000 more Iraqi deaths than reported"
that is absolutly insane
The Personist
10/22/10, 07:04 PM
Yikes.
loveisdead
10/22/10, 07:27 PM
The death number is nuts.
Oh dear...That's a lot of deaths.
AP_Punk
10/22/10, 09:57 PM
yowzas.
Fuck Bush. Fuck the most pointless war the United States has ever been in.
America was in a state of shock over a very sketchy 9/11 set of attacks. The government took 100% advantage of every US citizen and took their paranoia and made it go away by "Going to fight the enemy"
Who is the fucking enemy??
Every wife and kid in iraq? 60% of deaths are civillians? That makes me sick to my stomach
JordanBuell
10/23/10, 07:09 AM
So when do we try the Bush Administration for war crimes?
loveisdead
10/23/10, 07:35 AM
So when do we try the Bush Administration for war crimes?
I don't think it'll ever happen.
JordanBuell
10/23/10, 07:58 AM
I don't think it'll ever happen.
Yeah i honestly cant see it happening either. Sad, but it is just the way it works i guess.
tommy's ghost
10/23/10, 08:19 AM
Oof.
jawstheme
10/23/10, 08:59 AM
Over 66,000 civilian deaths? They should be so grateful that Team America World Police was there for them!
thelastnameleft
10/23/10, 09:42 AM
This is completely deplorable. Not only was the US military aware of torture carried out by the Iraqis, but soldiers were encouraged to do nothing to intervene. Instead, they were ordered to "report" it, and the reports, in turn, were to be ignored under another order.
The worst part is, that when I told a friend about this, he said "Shouldn't we be allowed to torture them? I mean, they do it to us." :wallbash:
luqmanhakim
10/23/10, 09:56 AM
Were they really "leaked" though? I always find it hard to believe that classified information could easily land in the wrong hands, resulting in a leak.
secretsociety92
10/23/10, 01:19 PM
Typical American fightlng style, shoot and destroy everything in the hope of hitting the target.
Matt Chylak
10/23/10, 01:29 PM
really disappointing
Jason Tate
10/23/10, 01:54 PM
Typical American fightlng style, shoot and destroy everything in the hope of hitting the target.
Yeah, you guys weren't there or involved at allll ... :rolleyes:
secretsociety92
10/23/10, 01:56 PM
Yeah, you guys weren't there or involved at allll ... :rolleyes:
Blame Tony Blair and his bromance with Bush.
poppa Q
10/23/10, 02:10 PM
Were they really "leaked" though? I always find it hard to believe that classified information could easily land in the wrong hands, resulting in a leak.
This information is six years in the making, I doubt it landed "easily" in the "wrong hands."
Protested Hero
10/23/10, 04:34 PM
The fact that there are three times as many civilian deaths as there are insurgent deaths is fucking disgusting.
luqmanhakim
10/24/10, 12:02 AM
This information is six years in the making, I doubt it landed "easily" in the "wrong hands."
Is that so? Well my bad then.
saysmydoctor
10/24/10, 12:51 AM
I love this shit. It's like government acknowledgment of their own bullshit and yet even still.
kofiadrian
10/24/10, 02:31 AM
Stunned. Absolutely stunned.
Broden Terry
10/24/10, 02:56 AM
I can't believe it. I'm not intending to be rude, but it's just careless and disgusting. It inadvertently reflects so poorly on the US as a whole.
The weird part is that the US actually comes off better now... in the sense that they aren't as bad as the iraqi forces. (The abuses btw, have been noted for being very similar to those performed under Saddam's rule).
also the wikipedia article on this is decent at compiling new info with links to sources :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Logs
Here are the two most notable to me :
http://english.aljazeera.net/secretiraqfiles/2010/10/2010102216241633174.html
700 people were killed for coming close to checkpoints with many being women (some pregnant) or the mentally ill.
http://english.aljazeera.net/secretiraqfiles/2010/10/201010237530782302.html
the pm kept a personal squad or something to pressure political rivals.
So when do we try the Bush Administration for war crimes?
I don't think it'll ever happen.
i read that, towards the end of the bush presidency, they covertly attached a bunch of clauses to some random bill that was going through congress that basically said they could never be held responsible or tried in court for their actions in regards to the war in iraq. so yeah, it'll never happen.
Over 66,000 civilian deaths? They should be so grateful that Team America World Police was there for them!
seriously. this is fucking deplorable.
Oh my word. 66,000 civilian deaths? Speechless.
it's 15000 more than the 107k estimated before by the Iraq body count
Jason Tate
10/24/10, 08:47 PM
Blame Tony Blair and his bromance with Bush.
Then blame Bush and not America.
loveisdead
10/24/10, 08:50 PM
Then blame Bush and not America.
And Blair.
Jason Tate
10/25/10, 09:15 AM
And Blair.
And Tacos.
caveBEAR
10/25/10, 09:16 AM
And Tacos.
And tacos within a taco?
georgedcc
10/26/10, 06:38 AM
Wikileaks is a fantastic website, and its so essential that someone reports this stuff. However, due to the incredible amount of data I find it so hard to navigate and get something out of it myself. I usually just end up reading the abridged versions in the papers. Does anyone else have this problem or am I just too obtuse and impatient to use Wikileaks properly?
ReadyForAction
10/26/10, 07:10 AM
Wikileaks is a fantastic website, and its so essential that someone reports this stuff. However, due to the incredible amount of data I find it so hard to navigate and get something out of it myself. I usually just end up reading the abridged versions in the papers. Does anyone else have this problem or am I just too obtuse and impatient to use Wikileaks properly?
That's way too many pages to sit through haha, I do the same thing
Wikileaks is a fantastic website, and its so essential that someone reports this stuff. However, due to the incredible amount of data I find it so hard to navigate and get something out of it myself. I usually just end up reading the abridged versions in the papers. Does anyone else have this problem or am I just too obtuse and impatient to use Wikileaks properly?
Al jazeera has a pretty good database of a small amount up somewhere, and so do other news organizations. I agree, the wikileaks one is really hard to use.
Echo Park
10/26/10, 05:25 PM
The question is, can you blame them for wanting to blow up our Cities after we commit such atrocities to them?
paper halo
10/26/10, 05:31 PM
I don't think it'll ever happen.
As I recall, the Bush administration made sure of that with the Military Commissions Act.
Sunken In
10/26/10, 05:40 PM
Also noted in the documents was that many incidents had a reported death toll of 0 even though an entire building was destroyed that American intelligence said had "targets" inside. So presumably, the targets were killed when the building exploded around them but yet the death toll reported was still 0.
Another part of the documents I came across documenting American gunships shooting at Iraqis who were trying to surrender under the pretense that an individual on the ground cannot surrender to an air unit.
The article went on the mention that even in Vietnam, Vietnamese soldiers would surrender to air units, and the air units would radio the positions of the troops to Americans on the ground who would then proceed to that location and round them up.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.