jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (21 posts)

66,000 Iraqi civilians killed by US Army - Wikileaks

  1. Rishy Rich profile image79
    Rishy Richposted 6 years ago

    "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..."

    - Wikileaks

    http://wikileaks.org/iraq/diarydig


    ***Your views on this please. Do you think its still better than having Saddam in power?***

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      When Saddam killed people over there it didn't cost us money and lives, did it?  Cruel I know, but the whole WMD thing and the "he's killing people" excuse is so lame.  Besides, at least he wasn't destroying the infrastructure of the country.

      This war made some people richer than their wildest dreams.  And they got away with it, apparently. 


      We supported Saddam for a time.  We eventually paraded him around in his underwear before executing him.  What a class act, huh?  And I don't believe for one minute the casualty figures are correct concerning the numbers killed in the war by us. 

      Am I to assume that of the entire number of bullets, bombs, missiles and all of the "shock and awe" attacks, etc. we only killed about 20 times the people a few terrorists killed using a few of our own commercial passenger jets?

      Sure, we would be better off to still be arguing with Saddam.

      1. Rishy Rich profile image79
        Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I really find it interesting that both Saddam & Osama used to be best friends with USA. Now both of them are doomed!!...by USA. USA created Osama, used him against Soviets & other enemies. At that time, he was titled a Freedom fighter, now a terrorist. Now one can hardly recall how close friends they were!!! Its really a shame that how media creates & destroys the image of a man at its will.

    2. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately, yes, it is still better except for one thing.  Our government was mostly responsible for doing it.  The better than part is that Suddam killed more people than that, believe it or not, and for no good reason, simply because they looked him in the eye, or their father was a scholar, or they were a woman who read.

      Wiki did not remind us of the chemical drop Suddam laid on his own people.  It would have been so much better if the CIA just went in and collected him.

      1. Rishy Rich profile image79
        Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        We dont have evidence confirming Saddam killing 60000 civilians. If US army had the evidence, it would have leaked long time ago. But we do have evidence what the US army did during the War. Besides, US government claimed many shi*ts against Saddam including WMD. Unfortunately, none of them are proved yet. No one found any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons so far. This makes US government a liar & reduces the reliability of other information provided by them against Saddam.

  2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Daniel Ellsberg calls it like it is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1pTl8KdREk

    He discusses how Barack Obama has carried out MORE prosecutions for leaks than any other president *put together*, despite his campaign promise of increasing transparency of government.

    In fact, apparently through Legislation, WE can be held accountable for having read this information! We have to "return the information" back to the government if we encounter it!! Or else we're federal criminals!!

    Obama's other promises, like closing guantanamo bay, are also lies.

    And, in this aspect, he's been worse than W!! He's prosecuting more leaks and holding more people accountable for freely expressing information!

    These Wikileaks show us all the absolute lies that we've been spoon fed by big-brother.

    Obama. Tyrant.

    1. Rishy Rich profile image79
      Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, at least Obama can not be held responsible for Iraq war.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        yes he can - he didn't end it.

        He's had 2 years to end it, and we're still in there. That's HIS fault.

        We're also bombing caves in Afghanistan, and launching predator missile strikes in Pakistan.

        These are OBAMA'S fault.

    2. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Evan, wouldn't that be considered unconstitutional according to First Amendment Free Speech?  Reading information would fall under protected speech and not unprotected speech since it did not originate with the reader.  I would love to see this come up before the Justices!

  3. aware profile image71
    awareposted 6 years ago

    war aint pretty its ugly as hell.civilians are always the highest death toll. fire bombing of japan . would it be better if we didnt fight that war?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Are you comparing WWII with Iraq?  Iraq didn't attack us, if you remember.

  4. aware profile image71
    awareposted 6 years ago

    and as to who is responsible . we are all of us. mankind must find a way to end warfare

  5. Anesidora profile image81
    Anesidoraposted 6 years ago

    Well, they ain't white, or American, or christian, so....

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What do you mean by this?  It's really difficult to understand sarcasm or inuendo.

  6. aware profile image71
    awareposted 6 years ago

    Im  talking civilian death tolls  .And as far as our attackers .They did not represent any nation . they misrepresented a faith. Islam  .

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If I take your meaning correctly, you are saying Iraq was attacked because of their faith?  Because they are predominately Islamic?  With respect, the majority of intelligence reports coming from the civilized nations all over the globe said the same thing - So Damn Insane had weapons of mass destruction.  The U.N. dragged their feet so long he had much time to dispose of incriminating evidence and he blocked U.N. officials from searching initially. 

      How anyone can defend that delusional lunatic is beyond my scope of comprehension.  I don't know where you live, but the U.S. does not, never has, and never will go to war against anyone because of their faith.

      1. Rishy Rich profile image79
        Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        True, US never goes to war against anyone because of their faith. They do it for OIL.

  7. lrohner profile image85
    lrohnerposted 6 years ago

    Did I just crawl out from under a rock? I saw this title "66,000 Iraqi civilians killed by US Army - Wikileaks" and was kind of confused. I thought the docs that were leaked were the US Army's documentation of things they saw in Iraq--not things they did. I thought it was the Iraqi police, et.al. that caused the deaths and the Americans just witnessed it?

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Consider the WIKI source.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Good advice.

  8. Shadesbreath profile image89
    Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago

    They should find out who leaked the information and execute them as traitors.  If Wikileaks conspirators disappear too, well, that's what happens when you get in bed with traitors. It's all fine and dandy if someone wants to be the pacifist hero, but they should be ready to take the consequences.  This action of theirs is going to get a lot more people killed, soldier and civilian alike.  Reprisals, honor killings, greater recruitment for terrorist groups... the cycle gets ramped up, the war machine gets more funding... etc, etc.  This is great big can of gas dumping on an already jacked up situation, and whoever did it is an idiot--just like the Wikileaks people are idiots.

    War is horrible and always has been horrible.  Every time it has ever happened in the history of humanity it has been so.  This leak will only make this one more horrible.

 
working