Wikileaks ‘confirms’ it has video of US massacre in Afghanistan

[Lynx]

America's war image can't sink any lower. Even if some of that is exaggerated or fabricated there just really isn't any way out of this.

Hate to sound cliche but War is hell.

 

[Ramadhan]

America's war image can't sink any lower. Even if some of that is exaggerated or fabricated there just really isn't any way out of this.

I think the american government will find a way to spin this.
Remember, it is still the same government (despite different president etc) that created such blatant lies to invade Iraq, and the public believed in them.
As long as they've got the media on their side, which they still do (eg. with the combination of NY Times and Fox), they'll brush it off under the rug.
It was a democratic country with the most advanced society that allowed such horrible things to happen, and the same democratic country with same most advanced society are still letting horrible things happening caused by their own countrymen.
(Obama has not pulled out all military from iraq and Afghanistan, has he?)

 

[titus]

I think the american government will find a way to spin this.

Possibly, but maybe at least some form of justice can come out of these leaks for any Americans that personally were a part of the abuse or that allowed others to be abused by the Iraqis.

 

[Trumble]

I've seen it on Aljazeera english....the worst thing is Iraqi on Iraqi abuse......why inflict pain on your brother when your country is occupied.....

Because the 'brothers' hated each other far more than the Americans both before and after the 'occupation'. The only difference is that some of those who had previously been the victims (of the Saddam regime) took their chance for revenge by becoming the perpetrators.

 

[purple]

Nothing new. Just confirming what we all knew. The war in Iraq and Afgahanistan is vile. And no i dont support the taliban either.

 

[purple]

They should just pull out completely.

 

[جوري]

Because the 'brothers' hated each other far more than the Americans both before and after the 'occupation'.

That is an Iraqi problem to settle isn't it? whether the 'brothers' as you put it hated each other or not, it isn't really an American or a British problem.. and it certainly isn't a carte Blanche for foreign invaders to come and cause more if not far worse carnage!

all the best

 

[Trumble]

That is an Iraqi problem to settle isn't it? whether the 'brothers' as you put it hated each other or not, it isn't really an American or a British problem.. and it certainly isn't a carte Blanche for foreign invaders to come and cause more if not far worse carnage!

I took no position on whose 'problem' it was, I was merely answering Abdullahii's question. It should be mentioned though that while Saddam was in power popular methods for solving this little internal problem included such things as feeding people alive into meat-mincers and killing thousands of citizens with chemical weapons. Without using that fact as justification for any foreign involvement, it should inform Abdullahii as to why a conception of happy Iraqi 'brothers' fighting the evil occupiers isn't exactly an accurate version of the history.

 

[Lynx]

I think the american government will find a way to spin this.
Remember, it is still the same government (despite different president etc) that created such blatant lies to invade Iraq, and the public believed in them.
As long as they've got the media on their side, which they still do (eg. with the combination of NY Times and Fox), they'll brush it off under the rug.
It was a democratic country with the most advanced society that allowed such horrible things to happen, and the same democratic country with same most advanced society are still letting horrible things happening caused by their own countrymen.
(Obama has not pulled out all military from iraq and Afghanistan, has he?)

I don't see the media trying to make the war effort look good anymore though I don't watch the news very often. The consensus from what I've seen is that the war was bad, it cost the Republicans the election etc. So I doubt there's going to be a huge effort to spin this if any at all. Let's not forget the source is not the most credible one so not everything that might come out is going to necessarily be true.

 

[Argamemnon]

I don't see why because someone doesn't like the taliban they must immediately be a big supporter of America.

Because you usually hate whom your government and media tells you to hate. Western media is dominant throughout the world that independent voices are never heard.

I took no position on whose 'problem' it was, I was merely answering Abdullahii's question. It should be mentioned though that while Saddam was in power popular methods for solving this little internal problem included such things as feeding people alive into meat-mincers and killing thousands of citizens with chemical weapons. Without using that fact as justification for any foreign involvement, it should inform Abdullahii as to why a conception of happy Iraqi 'brothers' fighting the evil occupiers isn't exactly an accurate version of the history.

Who supplied Saddam with those chemical weapons?

"Indeed, the U.S. had no problem backing the rule of Saddam Hussein until 1990. As one former Reagan administration official put it, "Hussein is a *******. But at the time he was our *******." The U.S. even helped turn the eight-year Iran-Iraq War in Iraq's favor-knowing that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran, yet supplying a wide range of arms to Iraq while preventing arms from reaching Iran. Nor was the U.S. deterred when, in March 1980, Saddam Hussein launched mustard- and nerve-gas attacks against Kurds in Halabja. As Geoff Simons wrote,

In the months following the Halabja massacre the U.S. government issued licenses for the delivery of biological products to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency. for the delivery of electronics equipment and machine tools to an Iraqi missile design center, a bomb plant, a missile factory, defense electronics factories and a weapons manufacturing complex. In July Bechtel secured a $1 billion deal m provide Iraq with a petrochemicals complex that the Iraqis intended to use in the production of mustard gas weapons, fuel-air explosives and rocket propellants.

The Reagan administration also opposed the introduction of sanctions against Iraq after the scale of the Halabja atrocity became public. After the Halabja massacres, the U.S. granted licenses for dual-use technology exports at a rate 50 percent greater than before, including missile technology and chemical-biological agents. Between 1985 and 1989, the U.S. approved 17 licenses for exports of bacterial and fungal cultures to Iraq (anthrax among them)."

More: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Targeting_Iraq.html

 

[Argamemnon]

Because the 'brothers' hated each other far more than the Americans both before and after the 'occupation'. The only difference is that some of those who had previously been the victims (of the Saddam regime) took their chance for revenge by becoming the perpetrators.

Yes, Iraqis are evil hence the US had the right to flatten the entire country....

 

[Argamemnon]

That is an Iraqi problem to settle isn't it? whether the 'brothers' as you put it hated each other or not, it isn't really an American or a British problem.. and it certainly isn't a carte Blanche for foreign invaders to come and cause more if not far worse carnage!

all the best

I wonder why non-Muslims - WESTERNERS in particular - are always bringing up INTERNAL ISSUES in Muslim countries. It almost seems as though intervention in other countries and meddling in other countries affairs is ingrained in their genes !

 

[جوري]

I wonder why non-Muslims - WESTERNERS in particular - are always bringing up INTERNAL ISSUES in Muslim countries. It almost seems as though intervention in other countries and meddling in other countries affairs is ingrained in their genes !

wherever there is something to be gained from the exploitation of others you can bet a deal of them will be there.. animals like to prey, and there is no moral compass to keep them from doing so..

 

[Trumble]

Yes, Iraqis are evil hence the US had the right to flatten the entire country....

Please read my subsequent reply to Lily, exercising your comprehension skills to the fullest. As to being 'evil' (which I neither said nor implied, with the exception of one individual in particular, now deceased), considering what the Saddam regime had done to some of them I can understand, if not condone. What would you be sorely tempted to do to the guy who tortured your brother to death if you got the chance?

I wonder why non-Muslims - WESTERNERS in particular - are always bringing up INTERNAL ISSUES in Muslim countries.

Please re-read if still necessary. Let me save you the trouble of clicking a mouse button with some highlighting to assist you further.

I took no position on whose 'problem' it was, I was merely answering Abdullahii's question. It should be mentioned though that while Saddam was in power popular methods for solving this little internal problem included such things as feeding people alive into meat-mincers and killing thousands of citizens with chemical weapons. Without using that fact as justification for any foreign involvement, it should inform Abdullahii as to why a conception of happy Iraqi 'brothers' fighting the evil occupiers isn't exactly an accurate version of the history.

Abdullahii wished to know why the Iraqis were so keen to inflict unpleasantness on each other rather than all teaming up to fight the US and allied 'occupiers'. I told him. If either of you dispute what I have said, please explain why. You are of course quite free to speculate, however selectively, about how that situation arose and to blame who you like for supplying whatever and supporting whoever, but the fact remains it did arise.