They make it sound like there's actually a war going on over there.

war crimes included

If that were really a concern of yours you'd be all for trying to stop the Taliban an al Qaeda.

all war criminals should be stopped, whoever they may be

Squeeeeeel like a piggy boy!! Yeehhaaww!

That will teach him to be more polite to the nice police officer.

They make it sound like there's actually a war going on over there.

war crimes included

If that were really a concern of yours you'd be all for trying to stop the Taliban an al Qaeda.

all war criminals should be stopped, whoever they may be

And it's a lot safer to go after the ones that will show up in court if there is any evidence as opposed to trying to go after someone who will just hack your head off.

Wiki-hype...

Wikileaks' release of classified field reports on Afghan war reveals not much

THOUGH IT may represent one of the most voluminous leaks of classified military information in U.S. history, the release by Wikileaks of 92,000 reports on the war in Afghanistan hardly merits the hype offered by the Web site's founder. The archive is not comparable to the Pentagon Papers or the secret files of the East German Stasi secret police, as Julian Assange variously claimed on Sunday and Monday. Nor does it provide evidence for war crimes prosecutions -- though in making that assertion, Wikileaks' founder revealed his organization's antiwar agenda.

Rather, the Wikileaks material tends to fill out and confirm the narrative of Afghanistan between 2004 and 2009 that most Americans are already familiar with. The insurgency grew steadily stronger in those years, while U.S. and NATO forces suffered from insufficient resources. The Afghan government and army, and especially its police forces, were plagued with corruption. Pakistan's intelligence agency was suspected of maintaining links to the Taliban and even of supporting some terrorist attacks inside Afghanistan. And Afghan civilian casualties were a continual problem.

These were the main themes identified in the documents by the New York Times, the Guardian and Germany's Der Spiegel after weeks of review. They were also the main topics in media coverage of the war during that time, in congressional hearings and debate, and even in the accounts of the White House and the Pentagon. The archives, made up in large part of field reports about specific incidents, add detail and texture. But, as described by the news organizations, they hardly provide a secret history of the war or disclose previously unknown malfeasance.

The Times account of the documents focuses on reports of Pakistani contacts with the Taliban. But the Guardian's review concludes that much of that information is unreliable. The British newspaper in turn highlights what it says are 144 reported incidents in which Afghan civilians were killed or wounded by coalition forces. But the 195 deaths it counts in those episodes, though regrettable, do not constitute a shocking total for a four-year period.

And it's a lot safer to go after the ones that will show up in court if there is any evidence as opposed to trying to go after someone who will just hack your head off.

Show up in court??? A few token criminals maybe, but by and large, the US military or government protects their own crims so that they are never charged.

And it's a lot safer to go after the ones that will show up in court if there is any evidence as opposed to trying to go after someone who will just hack your head off.

Show up in court??? A few token criminals maybe, but by and large, the US military or government protects their own crims so that they are never charged.

I'd ask you for proof to back up your accusations based only on paranoia and your hate for the miltary but you don't have any so I won't bother.

And it's a lot safer to go after the ones that will show up in court if there is any evidence as opposed to trying to go after someone who will just hack your head off.

Show up in court??? A few token criminals maybe, but by and large, the US military or government protects their own crims so that they are never charged.

I'd ask you for proof to back up your accusations based only on paranoia and your hate for the miltary but you don't have any so I won't bother.

There's a term for that..... I can't recall it at the moment, but it carries connotations of "too pussy to confront directly", and "Tries to appear to have superior knowledge but is only bluff and bluster".

Having said that..... I do recall you saying something of me about how dishonourable flip-flopping is.

The Taliban has declared war on men women and children. We are engaging them in that war. In war you capture the enemy when he surrenders. If they do not surrender you kill them.

And it's a lot safer to go after the ones that will show up in court if there is any evidence as opposed to trying to go after someone who will just hack your head off.

Show up in court??? A few token criminals maybe, but by and large, the US military or government protects their own crims so that they are never charged.

I'd ask you for proof to back up your accusations based only on paranoia and your hate for the military but you don't have any so I won't bother.

There's a term for that..... I can't recall it at the moment, but it carries connotations of "too pussy to confront directly", and "Tries to appear to have superior knowledge but is only bluff and bluster".

He could do it your way and just make up things that you refuse to provide any proof for.

Show up in court??? A few token criminals maybe, but by and large, the US military or government protects their own crims so that they are never charged.

I'd ask you for proof to back up your accusations based only on paranoia and your hate for the military but you don't have any so I won't bother.

There's a term for that..... I can't recall it at the moment, but it carries connotations of "too pussy to confront directly", and "Tries to appear to have superior knowledge but is only bluff and bluster".

He could do it your way and just make up things that you refuse to provide any proof for.

Why make up stuff about Harcourt when the truth is whacky enough?

Here's something for that kiwi troll to nibble on...the US Military is often the one to bing the crime to light and press charges against their own soldiers in the first place.

The Taliban has declared war on men women and children. We are engaging them in that war. In war you capture the enemy when he surrenders. If they do not surrender you kill them.

...and that about sums it up. Very well put.

There's a term for that..... I can't recall it at the moment, but it carries connotations of "too pussy to confront directly", and "Tries to appear to have superior knowledge but is only bluff and bluster".

Having said that..... I do recall you saying something of me about how dishonourable flip-flopping is.

I do believe the term you are looking for is..."The Harcourt Condition".

You Musketeers of terror, are really ignorant of the facts right?

War crimes have been committed by liberation and nation building forces as they call themselves or have been designated.

You just prefer to call it: Incidents.

Yes I refer to Iraq and Afghanistan and looking back at history and a bunch of other countries.

What a <deleted> joke.

Alex

The joke is that you completely ignore any "incidents" by the other side. That is "ignorance".

The joke is that you completely ignore any "incidents" by the other side. That is "ignorance".

Yes, kind of funny how they never want to talk about incidents like this. http://news.yahoo.co...afghanistan_183

And no doubt, the Afghans would be better off with this guy leading their government. http://www.longwarjo...ar_orders_t.php

Yes, kind of funny how they never want to talk about incidents like this. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_183

I would think that the fact that incidents such as the one you point out are widely reported. Both in print & air wave media suggests they are not in fact ignored/talked about at all.

When it comes to war/policing action? crimes ...it too should be reported & penalized.

I do think that is the gist of this whole thing eh?

I do not think anyone....at least any thinking person would suggest some are allowed & some are not.

But for now all the US We can do is remove the mote from their our own eye. It is or should be their our job to police their our own. If they are found to be committing crimes they should be punished regardless if it is committed during service.

Constantly comparing our crimes to crimes committed by the other side only serves to declare both sides equally evil.....hmmm

But that's the problem with your arguments, you and the others hardly, if at all mention the actions of the Taliban. The point has been often made, the Taliban are only defending their country, how does blowing up a bus full of civilians accomplish that? Do you think there will be a reveiw and prosecution by the Taliban leadership? I don't think so, but at least similar incidents would be and are routinely investigated by the U.S. I would say the U.S. has made a serious effort to remove the mote, what about the Taliban?

And by ignore, I didn' mean the media, I meant your fellow posters who seem to set a double standard.

Hear hear.

This double standard should be tested.

Next time the coalition capture one of the Taliban leadership ( In fact to make it a fair comparison, just about any Afghan national off the street will do ) he should be brought blindfolded in front of the camera his cowardly body posted on U Tube and the boys holding him should shout " praise Jesus" as they attempt to hack his head off with a blunt knife.

If the same level of silence from the liberal majority is heard over this as when the Taliban cut off a western hostages head, I will say fair play, and will accept that the world is fair for all and the coalition should be brought to book for any act during the war that is considered a tad excessive.

How does that sound ? Terrible ? Rantings of a right wing fascist ?

Yes it does.

However, the terrible act which will have got your hackles up is perpetrated without such indignation from the liberal press, on a regular basis by the enemy. Of course we in the coalition wouldl not do such things, but please save the moral outrage spouted when a unit of brave men risk their lives to take out the leaders of such a dreadful organisation, for the next time one of the cowards beheads a civilian, gloating on film and singing the praises of his religion as he does it.

Wow, just 8 months ago other than myself and chuckd, this forum was populated with Taliban apologists as far as the eye coud read. Nice to see the tables have turned.

But that's the problem with your arguments, you and the others hardly, if at all mention the actions of the Taliban.

Please do post/quote me as to where you got that impression? Is this thread something other than the title suggests?

My posts have always said the same.....Never a Taliban apologist as Koheesti just added in another post.

My stance has always been along the lines of it is a useless exercise as it is designed now. All it is doing is helping bankrupt America.

As for the post I made that your responding to it clearly stated that we need to police our own & made no apologies for others action.

The problem with *your* group is that IT is in fact constantly using a straw man defense as in ...well they did this & that was worse so we should not be bothered with our own guilt. I wonder if you responded the same to German war crimes? Or is that somehow different?

Why would anyone need to mention the Taliban in a thread about leaked info on war crimes attributed to the other side?

It stands alone...None has said what the Taliban are reported to be doing is good deeds. Nor does it fit in this thread.

Your group has an odd tit for tat mentality that does not stand up to the light of day.

I say we pull our military out of every country and reserve the right to nuke the holy crap out of anyone, anywhere, anytime we see fit if we are attacked in any way, shape or form. who'll decide? ME. In other words,be careful if you want to go around vandalizing our radar stations.

FBI to help investigate leak of documents on Afghan war

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has called in the FBI to help with the inquiry into the leaking of more than 90,000 classified military records.

The documents, published online on Sunday, give details of the Afghan war.

Mr Gates said they were potentially dangerous for US troops and allies, and an "aggressive investigation" would determine how the leaks occurred.

The Wikileaks website, which posted the documents, said they had been compiled by a variety of US units in 2004-09.

"The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world," Mr Gates told reporters on Thursday.

He said intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics could "become known to our adversaries".

Mr Gates added that he had called FBI director Robert Mueller on Wednesday and "asked for the FBI's assistance in our investigation as a partner".

"It is important that we have all the resources we need to investigate and assess this breach of national security," he said.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is looking into a possible connection between soldier Bradley Manning and the new document leaks, according to a statement issued by the US Department of Defense.

Pfc Manning, an army intelligence analyst, was charged with leaking a video of a US helicopter attack in Iraq to Wikileaks last month.

The probe into the document leaks is an extension of the existing open investigation on Pfc Manning, Marine Corps Col Dave Lapan said in a statement.

Casualty numbers Wikileaks has said it tried hard to ensure that the release of the material "does not put innocents at harm", and held back about 15,000 reports.

One of the leaked reports, from 2007, suggests how civilian casualties could be underplayed.

This initial report makes no mention of civilian casualties as a marine convoy near Jalalabad opened fire while tearing back to base after being rammed by an explosives-filled van.

An update to the report states eight Afghan civilians were killed and 34 wounded. A later Afghan Human Rights Commission report into the incident found that 19 civilians had been killed as the marines drove down the highway firing their weapons.

Another leaked report claims members of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency had backed the Taliban in the war in Afghanistan - an accusation strongly denied by Islamabad.

My link

I say we pull our military out of every country and reserve the right to nuke the holy crap out of anyone, anywhere, anytime we see fit if we are attacked in any way, shape or form. who'll decide? ME. In other words,be careful if you want to go around vandalizing our radar stations.

Good idea. I'd go with that.......except for the sheer arrogance of " ...reserve the right to nuke the holy crap out of anyone, anywhere, anytime we see fit ....:."

You do anyway.

Did you ever consider that not many people would want to vandalize your radar stations if you pulled your hand out of where it's not wanted, and stuck your nose where it was wanted?

I say we pull our military out of every country and reserve the right to nuke the holy crap out of anyone, anywhere, anytime we see fit if we are attacked in any way, shape or form. who'll decide? ME. In other words,be careful if you want to go around vandalizing our radar stations.

Good idea. I'd go with that.......except for the sheer arrogance of " ...reserve the right to nuke the holy crap out of anyone, anywhere, anytime we see fit ....:."

You do anyway.

Did you ever consider that not many people would want to vandalize your radar stations if you pulled your hand out of where it's not wanted, and stuck your nose where it was wanted?

Now look who's being arrogant. A what gives the right to a few losers in Country A, to vandalize the property of Country B, because they don't like Country B's policy regarding other countries on the other side of the world?

How do you know our "hand isn't wanted"? You're home safe and secure in your nice relatively advanced country. Go to Iraq, Afghanistan and ask the person in the street if they want the USA to leave tomorrow. They will say NO. Because unlike you, they know what will happen to them afterwards. The violence and lawlessness will shoot through the roof. Even go to Germany and ask if they want our military to leave. You probably won't find many Germans who are actually living near the bases (except the single guys) that want the US to leave. They make their living off the US military and their families. When the Iraq War started I saw protests against the war, but never for the USA to pull out of Germany. In countries that have asked the USA to leave, the USA has left - France, Greece, Philippines to name a few. However the USA will not leave because some leftists around the globe don't agree with USA policy. To them, the USA is only in other countries in order to exploit them and "steal" their resources. These nuts (re: you and your friends here) don't even realize that the side you support has their own reasons which are to exploit in a much deadlier and oppresive way. That's why you carry the tag, "useful idiots".

"useful idiots".

I say we pull our military out of every country and reserve the right to nuke the holy crap out of anyone, anywhere, anytime we see fit if we are attacked in any way, shape or form. who'll decide? ME. In other words,be careful if you want to go around vandalizing our radar stations.

Good idea. I'd go with that.......except for the sheer arrogance of " ...reserve the right to nuke the holy crap out of anyone, anywhere, anytime we see fit ....:."

You do anyway.

Did you ever consider that not many people would want to vandalize your radar stations if you pulled your hand out of where it's not wanted, and stuck your nose where it was wanted?

Now look who's being arrogant. A what gives the right to a few losers in Country A, to vandalize the property of Country B, because they don't like Country B's policy regarding other countries on the other side of the world?

How do you know our "hand isn't wanted"? You're home safe and secure in your nice relatively advanced country. Go to Iraq, Afghanistan and ask the person in the street if they want the USA to leave tomorrow. They will say NO. Because unlike you, they know what will happen to them afterwards. The violence and lawlessness will shoot through the roof. Even go to Germany and ask if they want our military to leave. You probably won't find many Germans who are actually living near the bases (except the single guys) that want the US to leave. They make their living off the US military and their families. When the Iraq War started I saw protests against the war, but never for the USA to pull out of Germany. In countries that have asked the USA to leave, the USA has left - France, Greece, Philippines to name a few. However the USA will not leave because some leftists around the globe don't agree with USA policy. To them, the USA is only in other countries in order to exploit them and "steal" their resources. These nuts (re: you and your friends here) don't even realize that the side you support has their own reasons which are to exploit in a much deadlier and oppresive way. That's why you carry the tag, "useful idiots".

Can't you see the ridiculous irony of what you have just said in the your last two posts?

When you say you want the US military out of everywhere, but nuke anyone that touches your property, I said good, they won't want to touch your properety if you pulled out. You then respond with a defence of the US aggressors being everywhere!

I say we pull our military out of every country and reserve the right to nuke the holy crap out of anyone, anywhere, anytime we see fit if we are attacked in any way, shape or form. who'll decide? ME. In other words,be careful if you want to go around vandalizing our radar stations.

Good idea. I'd go with that.......except for the sheer arrogance of " ...reserve the right to nuke the holy crap out of anyone, anywhere, anytime we see fit ....:."

You do anyway.

Did you ever consider that not many people would want to vandalize your radar stations if you pulled your hand out of where it's not wanted, and stuck your nose where it was wanted?

Now look who's being arrogant. A what gives the right to a few losers in Country A, to vandalize the property of Country B, because they don't like Country B's policy regarding other countries on the other side of the world?

How do you know our "hand isn't wanted"? You're home safe and secure in your nice relatively advanced country. Go to Iraq, Afghanistan and ask the person in the street if they want the USA to leave tomorrow. They will say NO. Because unlike you, they know what will happen to them afterwards. The violence and lawlessness will shoot through the roof. Even go to Germany and ask if they want our military to leave. You probably won't find many Germans who are actually living near the bases (except the single guys) that want the US to leave. They make their living off the US military and their families. When the Iraq War started I saw protests against the war, but never for the USA to pull out of Germany. In countries that have asked the USA to leave, the USA has left - France, Greece, Philippines to name a few. However the USA will not leave because some leftists around the globe don't agree with USA policy. To them, the USA is only in other countries in order to exploit them and "steal" their resources. These nuts (re: you and your friends here) don't even realize that the side you support has their own reasons which are to exploit in a much deadlier and oppresive way. That's why you carry the tag, "useful idiots".

Can't you see the ridiculous irony of what you have just said in the your last two posts?

When you say you want the US military out of everywhere, but nuke anyone that touches your property, I said good, they won't want to touch your properety if you pulled out. You then respond with a defence of the US aggressors being everywhere!

One is obviously a joke - I wouldn't go around and nuke the world. The other, your point of view that you speak for the world, is also a joke. The difference is. I wasn't being serious and you are.

Koheesti:

Harcourt has a really difficult time determining when his chain is being pulled.

Any clear thinker realized your original "nuke" post was a joke. Not our intrepid Kiwi.

One is obviously a joke - I wouldn't go around and nuke the world. The other, your point of view that you speak for the world, is also a joke. The difference is. I wasn't being serious and you are.

The time to point out that you were supposedly joking would have been in your first response after the "joke".

Many a true word is spoken in jest.

From you're attitude, and from your blatant words, from your first posts in this OTB forum right until posts these days, it is easy to believe that you would love to nuke any country that harboured some hippy vandals that dmaged some US property. "Shock and Awe" them at the very least. And if those vandals happened to be in a Muslin country....shock and awe is probably not enough for you.

This I sincerely believe of you and some of your racist war-mongering countrymen.

One is obviously a joke - I wouldn't go around and nuke the world. The other, your point of view that you speak for the world, is also a joke. The difference is. I wasn't being serious and you are.

The time to point out that you were supposedly joking would have been in your first response after the "joke".

Many a true word is spoken in jest.

From you're attitude, and from your blatant words, from your first posts in this OTB forum right until posts these days, it is easy to believe that you would love to nuke any country that harboured some hippy vandals that dmaged some US property. "Shock and Awe" them at the very least. And if those vandals happened to be in a Muslin country....shock and awe is probably not enough for you.

This I sincerely believe of you and some of your racist war-mongering countrymen.

Trying to push a lot of buttons there all at once there aren't you troll? Please remind us all again why you wanted to go work in Afghanistan and rely on my "racist war-mongering countrymen" to keep you alive and safe? Or, were you planning to work for the other side? Now that would make sense.