The Afghan war logs

[earth_as_one]

Wikileaks released 90,000 documents regarding the Afghanistan war in what is being described as the biggest leak of classified information ever. The US government is not happy. They include details of many previously unknown and/or unreported incidents where Allies killed innocent civilians. Some incidents appear to be accidents, but others appear deliberate. You can judge them for yourself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/26/afghan-war-logs-david-leigh-webchat

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/afghanistan-the-war-logs

The Guardian, along with the New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, has today published a series of documents that give a detailed and often disturbing picture of the conflict in Afghanistan.

These disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers' website Wikileaks, in what has been described as one of the biggest leaks in US military history.

The three news organisations were given access to the Afghan war logs before publication to verify their authenticity and assess their significance. For the past few weeks, a team of investigative reporters, regional specialists and database experts has been working on the story.

Today at 1pm BST (8am ET, 2pm CET) the Guardian's investigations editor, will be taking part in a web chat about how the story was produced, and its significance. Please post your questions for David below.

 

[CDNBear]

Some incidents appear to be accidents, but others appear deliberate.

Is that your personal opinion? You've read all 91,000 documents and 200, 000 pages already? Or is that what you were spoon fed?

You can judge them for yourself.

I will, but it certainly won't be today, I have a lot of info to sift through. And I don't get spoon fed my opinion, like some.

Since we're on the subject, perhaps a link would be nice. I've been actively trying to acquire the files since wikileaks supposedly published them. I have as of yet, been unable to find a full copy anywhere on the net.

I can however find all manner of opinion on them, which is likely how you were spoon fed your assessment. Furthermore, the dedicated web site for the supposed documents, is about as useful as tits on a bull. Dead links, simple action reports, and so on. But I'm still looking.

ETA: I see you edited your post to include two links to Op/Ed pieces. Awesome, to say I'm unimpressed with your investigatory skills, would be an overstatement.

 

[earth_as_one]

WikiLeaks today released over 75,000 secret US military reports covering the war in Afghanistan.
The Afghan War Diary an extraordinary secret compendium of over 91,000 reports covering the war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010. The reports describe the majority of lethal military actions involving the United States military. They include the number of persons internally stated to be killed, wounded, or detained during each action, together with the precise geographical location of each event, and the military units involved and major weapon systems used....

wikileaks
Kabul War Diary


Normally I don't respond to people who are nasty and obnoxious. Usually I just ignore them as I probably should in this case.

I have read a few of the reports and some appear to document war crimes. The ones I read were second person accounts, not eye witness accounts. Still, they reveal quite a bit about how people think, what's going on, who did what to whom, the true nature of this war...

My first attempt at posting links was unsuccessful due to the way this forum cuts off quotes over a certain length, so edited my post and moved the links outside of the quote.

 

[CDNBear]

I have read a few of them and some appear to document war crimes.

The fact that you have a skewed idea of what a war crime is, aside, could you please post links to those documents in question.

And who's committing these war crimes?

The ones I read were second person accounts, not eye witness accounts. Still,

Full stop. "Still" nothing. This is the problem with people like yourself. All to willing to accept second and third party hearsay as evidence, and then run with it without fact checking. It's a pitiful example of the lacking in your investigatory skills and deductive reasoning.

they reveal quite a bit about how people think, what's going on, who did what to whom, the true nature of this war...

The true nature of war? It's ugly, people die. That's the true nature of war, get over it.

Normally I don't feed trolls or respond to people who are just plain nasty and obnoxious

More like you have difficulty having your ass handed to you on a regular basis, and calling me a troll, nasty or obnoxious, just makes it easier for you to ignore my posts.

Have at it, I see through the ignorant cowardice, as do most.

I'm going through the Green-Green, or friendly fire files now.

I haven't found anything that's remotely criminal yet. Except for IED's planted by the enemy killing civilians. If one were to objectively go through the "severity" sub group as I am now. One would find that the most severe actions, have been committed by the enemy. But then again, that doesn't bode well with some people. Especially those that have their opinions spoon fed to them. I wait with anticipation, for the mass postings of cut and pastes.

Maybe our resident authoritative commentator on war crimes can provide us with links to these supposed war crimes.

Here's an excellent article for you to read eao. It accurately describes how people like yourself react when confronted with facts.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=1

Usually I just ignore them as I probably should in this case.

Of course you should ignore them, as usual, you'll be getting your ass handed to you.

But thanx for proving I'm not on your iggy list...LMAO!!!

Normally I don't respond to people who are nasty and obnoxious.

I have read a few of the reports and some appear to document war crimes.

Cute edits after the fact, lmao!!!

And again I ask, can we have a link to these particular reports?

 

[Goober]

WikiLeaks today released over 75,000 secret US military reports covering the war in Afghanistan.
The Afghan War Diary an extraordinary secret compendium of over 91,000 reports covering the war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010. The reports describe the majority of lethal military actions involving the United States military. They include the number of persons internally stated to be killed, wounded, or detained during each action, together with the precise geographical location of each event, and the military units involved and major weapon systems used....

wikileaks
Kabul War Diary


Normally I don't respond to people who are nasty and obnoxious. Usually I just ignore them as I probably should in this case.

I have read a few of the reports and some appear to document war crimes. The ones I read were second person accounts, not eye witness accounts. Still, they reveal quite a bit about how people think, what's going on, who did what to whom, the true nature of this war...

My first attempt at posting links was unsuccessful due to the way this forum cuts off quotes over a certain length, so edited my post and moved the links outside of the quote.

EAO - Guess you should read what the founder of Wiki-Leaks stated -
Oh yes the link is good

Pakistani spy agency denounces leaked U.S. intelligence reports - The Globe and Mail

Mr. Assange told reporters Monday that “it is up to a court to decide really if something in the end is a crime. That said ... there does appear to be evidence of war crimes in this material.”
On Sunday, WikiLeaks posted some 91,000 leaked U.S. military records of six years of the war, including unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings and covert operations against Taliban figures. Both the White House and Downing Street have condemned the release.
Mr. Assange said the veracity of the material isn't in doubt. But he says “just like dealing with any source you should exercise some common sense. That doesn't mean you should close your eyes.”

 

[earth_as_one]

CB, People can judge your posts for themselves. Here's a definition of a web troll:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

I find your posts offensive, obnoxious and plain nasty, which is why I have you on my ignore list. You have little to add besides insults and name calling. More appropriate would be an expression of gratitude for sharing.

Back on topic.

This incident shows a callous disregard for civilians. Polish forces indiscriminately bombed a village while engaging the enemy, killing at least one man, three women and a baby who were attending a wedding.
Polish attack on village kills five, wounds several, including pregnant woman at wedding party | World news | guardian.co.uk

While some Polish soldiers were charged with crimes, none have been convicted. This incident was not widely reported by western media.

This war log confirms media reports about an incident where US forces killed about 60 civilians. Initially the military tried to claim all the dead were Taliban. Then they tried to claim they killed a number of Taliban leaders. They then tried to cast doubt on who was responsible for all the dead and wounded showing up at hospitals in the area.

Incident War Log:
56 civilians killed in Nato bombing | World news | guardian.co.uk

Military Statements regarding the incident:

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Many die in Afghan tanker blasts

International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) spokeswoman Lt Cdr Christine Sidenstricker said Afghan forces had reported the fuel trucks hijacked and Nato aircraft had spotted them on a river bank.

"After observing that only insurgents were in the area, the local Isaf commander ordered air strikes which destroyed the fuel trucks and killed a large number of insurgents," she said.

"The strike was against insurgents. That is who we believe was killed."

Later another spokesman, Brig Gen Eric Tremblay, was quoted by Reuters as saying: "It would appear that many civilian casualties are being evacuated and treated in the local hospitals.

"There is perhaps a direct link with the incident that has occurred around the two fuel trucks."

The war log shows the US military made a very questionable decision to bomb the fuel trucks knowing that they were surrounded by a crowd of people. They assumed the people near the trucks were hostile, when in fact they were all civilians. ( war log references 70 insurgents)

From the war log

Investigations ongoing.
NFI.56 Killed None(None) Insurgent

The war log indicates that US forces screwed up, quickly realized they screwed up and that there was a direct link between all the dead and wounded showing up at hospitals and their air strike, despite their statement to the contrary which cast doubt on how these dead and dying people found themselves at local hospitals. The war log even records all 56 dead as enemies. (I suppose because they were helping themselves to stolen fuel). The war log proves the military deliberately tried to spin this story in order minimize their responsibility and create a misperception that this screw up was some sort of military success.

The incident was not widely reported in our news at the time and war log more or less confirms a report by The Guardian at the time:
56 civilians killed in Nato bombing | World news | guardian.co.uk

Any attacks on civilians or civilian targets not justified by military necessity is a war crime. People can judge for themselves if the Polish or American actions above were war crimes. IMO, dropping mortars indiscriminately/randomly on a village is clearly a war crime. Bombing two fuel trucks stuck in the mud and surrounded by a crowd of people was at a minimum criminally negligent and possibly a war crime.

 

[CDNBear]

“just like dealing with any source you should exercise some common sense. That doesn't mean you should close your eyes.”

That doesn't usually get exercised in the crowd that will run with all manner of Op/Ed's on this.

CB, People can judge your posts for themselves. Here's a definition of a web troll:

Funny, I have a deffinition that describes a troll as someone who posts the same crap over and over, even when it's been proven false, time and time again.

I find your posts offensive, obnoxious and plain nasty,

Because I keep stumping you with facts or questions you just can't answer, lol.

which is why I have you on my ignore list.

No you don't, but I find your claims humourous as hell.

You have little to add besides insults and name calling.

Ya, I see this claim all the time, from people I stup, trump and otherwise hand their asses to.

It's the common copeout and excuse.

This incident shows a callous disregard for civilians. Polish forces indiscriminately bombed a village while engaging the enemy, killing at least one man, three woman and a baby who were attending a wedding.
Polish attack on village kills five, wounds several, including pregnant woman at wedding party | World news | guardian.co.uk

While some Polish soldiers were charged with crimes, none have been convicted.

This one confirms an incident where media reports that US forces killed about 60 civilians. Initially the military tried to claim the all the dead were Taliban. Then they tried to claim they killed a number of Taliban leaders. They then tried to cast doubt on who was responsible for all the dead and wounded showing up at hospitals in the area.

Incident War Log:
56 civilians killed in Nato bombing | World news | guardian.co.uk

Military Statement regarding the incident:


The war log shows the US military knew they screwed up and that there was a direct link between all the dead and wounded showing up at hospitals and their air strike.

The incident was not widely reported in our news and war log more or less confirms a report by The Guardian at the time:
56 civilians killed in Nato bombing | World news | guardian.co.uk

Thanx for answering my post that you can't see because I'm on your iggy list, LMAO!!!

I see you're still getting your info spoon fed to you. Have you read the actual documents?

Can you post links to the specific incidents from the actual documents? You remember your protesting about the Goldstone report, where you demanded we supply section page and paragraph numbers to prove we read it? LMAO!!! Not that it mattered, I did everything you asked and you still ignored my posts, that contained no name calling, or insults. Except for the insult of proving you wrong, LMAO!!!

BTW: Thanx for fulfilling my prediction of mass cut pastes. LOL.

While some Polish soldiers were charged with crimes, none have been convicted.

Because jurisprudence prevailed.

This war log confirms media reports about an incident where US forces killed about 60 civilians. Initially the military tried to claim the all the dead were Taliban. Then they tried to claim they killed a number of Taliban leaders. They then tried to cast doubt on who was responsible for all the dead and wounded showing up at hospitals in the area.

Incident War Log:
56 civilians killed in Nato bombing | World news | guardian.co.uk

Military Statements regarding the incident:
The war log shows the US military made a very questionable decision to bomb the fuel trucks knowing that they were surrounded by a crowd of people. They assumed the people near the trucks were hostile, when in fact they were all civilians. ( war log references 70 insurgents)

From the war log
The war log indicates that US forces screwed up, quickly realized they screwed up and that there was a direct link between all the dead and wounded showing up at hospitals and their air strike, despite their statement to the contrary which cast doubt on how these dead and dying people found themselves at local hospitals. The war log even records all 56 dead as enemies. (I suppose because they were helping themselves to stolen fuel). The war log proves the military deliberately tried to spin this story in order minimize their responsibility and create a misperception that this screw up was some sort of military success.

The incident was not widely reported in our news at the time and war log more or less confirms a report by The Guardian at the time:
56 civilians killed in Nato bombing | World news | guardian.co.uk

No, the Governor of Kunduz made that claim, hence its presence in the AAR. The Military later confirmed that he was incorrect and amended their AAR.

See what getting an opinion spoon fed to can do, it makes you look silly.

I can't wait to see all the armchair ideologues commenting on this. Not one of them has clue one what a SITREP, or AAR looks like, let alone how to read one. But that won't stop them from formulating a misinformed opinion and casting their judgment, lmao!!!

 

[DurkaDurka]

There doesn't seem to be anything "new" in these documents, most of it has been speculated, known for years/months. ie Pakistan's duel role in the Afghanistan, civilians being killed (sad, it is a war though, right?), special ops assassinating Taliban leaders etc.

 

[earth_as_one]

EAO - Guess you should read what the founder of Wiki-Leaks stated -
Oh yes the link is good

Pakistani spy agency denounces leaked U.S. intelligence reports - The Globe and Mail

Mr. Assange told reporters Monday that “it is up to a court to decide really if something in the end is a crime. That said ... there does appear to be evidence of war crimes in this material.”
On Sunday, WikiLeaks posted some 91,000 leaked U.S. military records of six years of the war, including unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings and covert operations against Taliban figures. Both the White House and Downing Street have condemned the release.
Mr. Assange said the veracity of the material isn't in doubt. But he says “just like dealing with any source you should exercise some common sense. That doesn't mean you should close your eyes.”

Also from your link:
Mr. Assange told reporters Monday that “it is up to a court to decide really if something in the end is a crime. That said ... there does appear to be evidence of war crimes in this material.”

 

[EagleSmack]

I knew this would be a hoot on this forum.

One thing for sure...this Army Specialist will most likely spend the rest of his days behind bars. I hope it was worth it for him.

 

[CDNBear]

Also from your link:
Mr. Assange told reporters Monday that “it is up to a court to decide really if something in the end is a crime. That said ... there does appear to be evidence of war crimes in this material.”

I'n still trying to find how the link you supplied to the Polich operation was a war crime. The material at the "Guardian" link your provided, looks nothing like the one at the wikileaks site, lol.

I know getting spoon fed makes it easy, but there's a reason why I don't do it.

D9 161413Z TF White Eagle MM(E)08-16D Civilian Casualties from TIC vic Wazi Khwa - Kabul War Diary

Compared to...

Polish attack on village kills five, wounds several, including pregnant woman at wedding party | World news | guardian.co.uk

I knew this would be a hoot on this forum.

As soon as I heard it was out, my heart skipped a beat. I just knew I would be inundated with mass cut and pastes, Op/Ed pieces and the uninformed opinions of people that haven't a clue what military acronyms look like, let alone the ability to translate them.

One thing for sure...this Army Specialist will most likely spend the rest of his days behind bars. I hope it was worth it for him.

I hope so. Do they still use Leavenworth for people like him?

 

[earth_as_one]

There doesn't seem to be anything "new" in these documents, most of it has been speculated, known for years/months. ie Pakistan's duel role in the Afghanistan, civilians being killed (sad, it is a war though, right?), special ops assassinating Taliban leaders etc.

The "new" part is the source. It comes from the US military. Unless this is some sort of giant hoax, they indicate that war crimes and screw ups have occurred and that the US military is well aware war crimes and screw ups have occurred. The war logs catalog a lot of stuff which indicate what the US military knew and when. As a result, if these war logs are accurate, they prove that many US military statements to the press were deliberately misleading and in some cases outright fabrications...

BTw, that's not news to me, but look at how the war criminal apologists are squirming (reference Goober and CB posts above which focus mainly on trying to discredit and attack the messenger). I admit to getting some satisfaction from seeing the truth come out. I have consistently called for holding people accountable for their actions. The war logs indicate that is not US military policy in Afghanistan. BTW, in some cases the war logs also exonerate people, or shows how people arrived at conclusions which led to consequences which appear on the surface to be war crimes but were instead the result of bad decision making and major screw ups.

 

[EagleSmack]

I hope so. Do they still use Leavenworth for people like him?

They sure do but he may end up at Marion IL. Leavenworth is typically used for members of the military that commit violent crimes from what I gather.

 

[CDNBear]

The "new" part is the source. It comes from the US military. Unless this is some sort of giant hoax, they indicate that war crimes and screw ups have occurred and that the US military is well aware war crimes and screw ups have occurred. The war logs catalog a lot of stuff which indicate what the US military knew and when. As a result, if these war logs are accurate, they prove that many US military statements to the press were deliberately misleading and in some cases outright fabrications...

Or that they were mislead, or ill-informed at the time. Which the amendments to the AAR's show.

But hey, if you want to get your info from Op/Ed pieces, have it, remained uninformed and misinformed.

BTw, that's not news to me, but look at how the war criminal apologists are squirming (reference Goober and CB posts above which focus mainly on trying to discredit and attack the messenger).

I thought you didn't call people names eao?

I admit to getting some satisfaction from seeing the truth come out.

So do I. I hope any service personnel that have committed any infraction in contrary to the RoE or the QSO, finds themselves in front of a Courts Martial.

I have consistently called for holding people accountable for their actions.

Unless they're Hamas.

The war logs indicate that is not US military policy in Afghanistan.

That's an opinion based on what? What you read at the Guardian?

You haven't cited one case from the actual documents yet.

BTW, in some cases the war logs also exonerate people, or shows how people arrived at conclusions which led to consequences which appear on the surface to be war crimes but were instead the result of bad decision making and major screw ups.

But that didn't stop you from saying this...

While some Polish soldiers were charged with crimes, none have been convicted. This incident was not widely reported by western media.

So what was your implication here?

 

[earth_as_one]

That doesn't usually get exercised in the crowd that will run with all manner of Op/Ed's on this.

Funny, I have a deffinition that describes a troll as someone who posts the same crap over and over, even when it's been proven false, time and time again.

Because I keep stumping you with facts or questions you just can't answer, lol.

No you don't, but I find your claims humourous as hell.

Ya, I see this claim all the time, from people I stup, trump and otherwise hand their asses to.

It's the common copeout and excuse.

Thanx for answering my post that you can't see because I'm on your iggy list, LMAO!!!

I see you're still getting your info spoon fed to you. Have you read the actual documents?

Can you post links to the specific incidents from the actual documents? You remember your protesting about the Goldstone report, where you demanded we supply section page and paragraph numbers to prove we read it? LMAO!!! Not that it mattered, I did everything you asked and you still ignored my posts, that contained no name calling, or insults. Except for the insult of proving you wrong, LMAO!!!

BTW: Thanx for fulfilling my prediction of mass cut pastes. LOL.

Because jurisprudence prevailed.

No, the Governor of Kunduz made that claim, hence its presence in the AAR. The Military later confirmed that he was incorrect and amended their AAR.

See what getting an opinion spoon fed to can do, it makes you look silly.

I can't wait to see all the armchair ideologues commenting on this. Not one of them has clue one what a SITREP, or AAR looks like, let alone how to read one. But that won't stop them from formulating a misinformed opinion and casting their judgment, lmao!!!

A troll is someone who adds nothing but insults and name calling.

Regarding that report on the fuel trucks. I suggest you read it again as you clearly didn't understand what you were reading.

Perhaps you can explain how I misinterpreted these statements:

...IT DISCOVERED THE TRUCKS AS WELL AS UP TO 70X INS...

UPDATE
...56 Killed None(None) Insurgent...

Enemy KIA: 56

56 civilians killed in Nato bombing | World news | guardian.co.uk

I interpreted INS as insurgents. Which shows that initially the US military identified the crowd as hostile. I interpreted the UPDATE as a realization that none of the dead were insurgents. I interpreted Enemy KIA as enemies killed in action, indicating that the US military classified all civilians killed as enemies.

It doesn't take a genius or an arrogant pretender to decode military acronyms. While most are pretty self evident, anyone can look them up here:
Afghanistan war logs: the glossary | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[Goober]

Also from your link:
Mr. Assange told reporters Monday that “it is up to a court to decide really if something in the end is a crime. That said ... there does appear to be evidence of war crimes in this material.”

Appear - Does not work in a Court of Law -
It appears that so and so committed murder - so for appearances sake he must be convicted as such - Otherwise it would appear we do not know what we do. And appearances must be maintained just for the sake of appearance or we will be lost to the uninformed masses.

Clearly appearance of this or that is more than enough to convict in your opinion-
Appearance for appearances sake. Now how does this appear to you.

As Bear states and I rephrase accordingly- you could not investigate your arse hole as you would not know upon which part of your body to begin. Is it your ass or your thinking, oh where will I start -
Can some please feed me, and do not forget the spoon when you do. Appearances by you are rife with misstatements, innuendo and fairy tales is an appropriate term as that is how you appear to me and others.
vultus gratia vultus

 

[petros]

Appear - Does not work in a Court of Law -
It appears that so and so committed murder - so for appearances sake he must be convicted as such - Otherwise it would appear we do not know what we do. And appearances must be maintained just for the sake of appearance or we will be lost to the uninformed masses.

Clearly appearance of this or that is more than enough to convict in your opinion-
Appearance for appearances sake. Now how does this appear to you.

As Bear states and I rephrase accordingly- you could not investigate your arse hole as you would not know upon which part of your body to begin. Is it your ass or your thinking, oh where will I start -
Can some please feed me, and do not forget the spoon when you do. Appearances by you are rife with misstatements, innuendo and fairy tales is an appropriate term as that is how you appear to me and others.
vultus gratia vultus

Watch the news sometime (especially FOX) and listen close to the first words they say during the opening lines to a story.

The majority of them start with; "Some people say...some researchers believe... It's been said by investigators" but you'll never find out the who, what, when, where and why.

Never facts, just innuendos and scenarios.

 

[CDNBear]

I guess your iggy list is something of a mystery.

A troll is someone who adds nothing but insults and name calling.

I agree, which is why my posts contain more then just that. I resort to name calling when it's applicable.

You've continuously called me an Israeli apologist, a war crimes apologist and so on. Whether you see it or not, that's just as bad as me stating the fact that you support a neo Nazi hate group, called Hamas.

Regarding that report on the fuel trucks. I suggest you read it again as you clearly didn't understand what you were reading.

I've written these things, perhaps you can explain it to me then, since you seem to think you know so much more then me.

Here, suck on this a minute while you come up with something else...

The Governor of KUNDUZ is commenting that most of the casualties were Taliban.
RC-N and PRT KDZ are gathering more facts.

After they investigated the incident, you see this in the report, which you acknowledge...

UPDATE
...56 Killed None(None) Insurgent...

Perhaps you can explain how I misinterpreted these statements:

How can I teach you anything, I've tried time and time again, you've ignored every attempt. You have a set opinion, as to what a war crime is. No matter of fact has ever guided you towards reality.

I interpreted INS as insurgents. Which shows that initially the US military identified the crowd as hostile. I interpreted the UPDATE as a realization that none of the dead were insurgents. I interpreted Enemy KIA as enemies killed in action, indicating that all the US military classified all civilians killed as enemies.

Because that was the intel at the time. Then confirmed by the Governor of the region, but during the after action investigation, they found it to be incorrect, which is why the last update stated such.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.

It doesn't take a genius or an arrogant pretender to decode military acronyms.

Speaking of attacking the messenger eh? So we're back to that game again eao? I know who I am, what I am and what I've been, whether or not you or anyone else out here believes me or not, means nothing to me. Grow up.

Why don't you post your full name, home address and your drivers license in this thread for all of us to see so we can prove you are who you are eao.

Until then this childish shtick is just that, a childish shtick you use to dismiss and denigrate me.

I thought you thought you were above such petty ignorance eao?

While most are pretty self evident, anyone can look them up here:
Afghanistan war logs: the glossary | World news | guardian.co.uk

You just love the Guardian eh?

Watch the news sometime (especially FOX) and listen close to the first words they say during the opening lines to a story.

The majority of them start with; "Some people say...some researchers believe... It's been said by investigators" but you'll never find out the who, what, when, where and why.

Never facts, just innuendos and scenarios.

Which is why getting your info from the news, any MSM news source, is just wrong!!!

The Guardian is the polar opposite of Faux news, the only thing they have in common are spin and lies.

 

[earth_as_one]

I have consistently called for holding people accountable for their actions.

...Unless they're Hamas...

Mar 22nd, 2010

I condemn all Palestinian war crimes.

List of all Palestinian war crimes:
1) Firing mortars and rockets at Israeli civilians. This war crime has resulted in 28 deaths over the past 10 years, some of whom were Israeli civilians. This war crime did not result in any deaths during the year preceding 2008/2009 Israeli slaughter of Palestinian civilians known as Operation Cast Lead and has caused only one death since then. I support bringing those responsible for this war crime to justice.

Any Israeli apologist wish to condemn all Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity as I have just condemned all Palestinian war crimes? They are listed and detailed in this UN report along with the above Palestinian war crime:
United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/i...al-israeli-apartheid-week-11.html#post1241508

wiki-definitions

Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Slander and Libel: In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.

 

[Goober]

Watch the news sometime (especially FOX) and listen close to the first words they say during the opening lines to a story.

The majority of them start with; "Some people say...some researchers believe... It's been said by investigators" but you'll never find out the who, what, when, where and why.

Never facts, just innuendos and scenarios.

Petros -
I watched Fox a long time ago and saw them for what they are - Tabloid news - slanted beyond any sense of credibility. NPR and CBC, Globe & Mail , Nat Post, London Times are some of the areas where I go.

As Fox Mulder states "The truth is out there"