american lies

coltpython3 · 24 Oct 2010 at 00:56

how on earth can america and the uk go on about human rights to countrys such as iran when they are the biggest human rights abuserss in the world?

i am obviously talking about the wikileaks document that was published today.

america and uk invade another country, force regime change on it, murder their people, imprison thousands upon thousands of iraqi people into secret prisons and dungeons, steal the country's resources and they talk about how iran is a threat to world peace.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...itish-soldier-killed-Iraqi-girl-8-played.html

just a few ideas of what american and british soilders have done

:mad:

i am absolutely digusted and angry.

Fenris · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:06

The thing I dislike about wikileaks is that it's basically a conspiracy theory forum that gives it's credibility by using the name "Wiki".

None of the information they have ever posted is posted with ANY credibility, other people have to do that for them AFTER the inevitable **** storm has already happened due to the uproar from people who just accept what they post as indisputable fact.

I'm not saying that all the information they make available is garbage, it's the way they do it that I dislike.

Biohazard · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:08

"'The tank stopped at the end of the street, she's there in her yellow dress, a rifleman pops up and blows her away.'"

I would like to hear the full story behind that.

However, I'm not suprised both governments are blowing the 'troop saftey' card. Who wants to admit to this stuff?

Even when in the main everyone's out of Iraq.

Or is this an admission that these illegal wars and actions actually contribute to to conlicts elsewhere, like Afghan?

I'm not angry anymore, that went away years ago. I'm dismayed and disgusted. Hopefully with our armed forces nuetered, we won't be doing this for a long time yet.

Biohazard · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:09

Fenris said:
The thing I dislike about wikileaks is that it's basically a conspiracy theory forum that gives it's credibility by using the name "Wiki".

None of the information they have ever posted is posted with ANY credibility, other people have to do that for them AFTER the inevitable **** storm has already happened due to the uproar from people who just accept what they post as indisputable fact.

I'm not saying that all the information they make available is garbage, it's the way they do it that I dislike.

"None of the information they have ever posted is posted with ANY credibility"

Yes you are.

I can't comment myself on their accuracy, however they have certainly brought a lot of stuff to light before.

That was correct, and that got repsonses from governments. They want it shut down, by natural reaction.

Fenris · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:10

Biohazard said:
"None of the information they have ever posted is posted with ANY credibility"

Yes you are.

I'm saying they don't add any credibility to their information when they post it, that doesn't have anything to do with it being true or not, unless I'm using the wrong words in which case I apologise.

unwashed potato! · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:13

Biohazard said:
"None of the information they have ever posted is posted with ANY credibility"

Yes you are.

no he isn't.

unwashed potato! · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:15

coltpython3 said:
america and uk invade another country, force regime change on it, murder their people, imprison thousands upon thousands of iraqi people into secret prisons and dungeons, steal the country's resources and they talk about how iran is a threat to world peace.

i'm sure it's that simple :rolleyes:

. are you suggestion that iran isn't a threat?

you should be disgusted with yourself if you get angry and emotional about this when it's still so fresh and is currently just something some random person said about something else.

coltpython3 · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:17

Mammalian said:
i'm sure it's that simple . are you suggestion that iran isn't a threat?

of course they arent. just a quick question 2 u. what has iran ever done to us?

d_brennen · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:20

coltpython3 said:
how on earth can america and the uk go on about human rights to countrys such as iran when they are the biggest human rights abuserss in the world?

i am obviously talking about the wikileaks document that was published today.

america and uk invade another country, force regime change on it, murder their people, imprison thousands upon thousands of iraqi people into secret prisons and dungeons, steal the country's resources and they talk about how iran is a threat to world peace.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...itish-soldier-killed-Iraqi-girl-8-played.html

just a few ideas of what american and british soilders have done

i am absolutely digusted and angry.

This is nothing new is it? The Americans are the new superpower on the block relatively, us British have been pwning foreigners for no good reason for centuries. Not saying its right, just the way it is.

Do you think armed conflict is in any way civilised? Clue: It isn't

coltpython3 · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:23

d_brennen said:
This is nothing new is it? The Americans are the new superpower on the block relatively, us British have been pwning foreigners for no good reason for centuries. Not saying its right, just the way it is.

Do you think armed conflict is in any way civilised? Clue: It isn't

is whipping someone with metal chains armed conflict 2 u?

and you say pwning foreigners as if it is a joke. we are talking about peoples lives and countrys here. you should be ashamed of yourself :mad:

Fenris · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:23

d_brennen said:
Do you think armed conflict is in any way civilised? Clue: It isn't

I think the problem most people will, or in fact do have, is that they expect that in this day and age even in war we would have some standards and morals, which if this information is in any way accurate, show that the above is pretty far from the case.

We expect conflicts to be messy and to cost lives, for our forces to "Do what needs to be done", we also expect them to be remain human, to follow some kind of moral compass and to treat their fellow man with some sort of respect within that conflict.

I guess it's a line in the sand matter, in conflict, the line is very fuzzy but there are some things that are very clearly on one side or the other.

Biohazard · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:26

Fenris said:
I'm saying they don't add any credibility to their information when they post it, that doesn't have anything to do with it being true or not, unless I'm using the wrong words in which case I apologise.

Oh I see, well I don't have that problem myself so much. I didn't know they were particularly tainted. I did read the history a while back, and I can see some doubts perhaps on a personal level but I can see the reasoning behing why someone would want to hold 'democracy' to account.

It's sickening to look at.

Tefal · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:26

coltpython3 said:
how on earth can america and the uk go on about human rights to countrys such as iran when they are the biggest human rights abuserss in the world?.

no they're not.

I don't see us cutting of the right hands of all men of fighting age in Iraq or Afghanistan, i don't see Cameron ordering the police to go rape and mutilate all the labour voters.

We're far from the worst.

Fenris · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:28

Biohazard said:
It's sickening to look at.

It is, to a point which it becomes hard to imagine that someone would make this kind of allegation without reason.

coltpython3 · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:28

Tefal said:
no they're not.

I don't see us cutting of the right hands of all men of fighting age in Iraq or Afghanistan, i don't see Cameron ordering the police to go rape and mutilate all the labour voters.

We're far from the worst.

and where exactly have you seen or heard this? give me an example of the two you have mentioned

Biohazard · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:28

Mammalian said:
i'm sure it's that simple . are you suggestion that iran isn't a threat?

you should be disgusted with yourself if you get angry and emotional about this when it's still so fresh and is currently just something some random person said about something else.

A threat to who?

Britain and America, 'us'?

d_brennen · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:29

coltpython3 said:
is whipping someone with metal chains armed conflict 2 u?

and you say pwning foreigners as if it is a joke. we are talking about peoples lives and countrys here. you should be ashamed of yourself

Maybe I should be ashamed but I am not. I'd apologise but that would be a lie. You may take my pwning comment as some kind of sick joke, it wasn't. Welcome to the real world, enjoy your stay.

ak22 · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:31

"Divide an Conquer" This is nothing new it has been happening for years, England and its Allys split up the middle east after the WW II, why do you think we have remained the superpower we are? Its the unfortunate truth.

Ahleckz · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:32

The things that Wikileaks have disclosed easily opens up the possibility of an investigation as mandated by international law, though it's difficult to determine who would be charged. The allegations are in direct breach of various international laws and should be treated as such with an investigation taking place. Though there is absolutely no chance of this happening though, unfortunately.

ak22 said:
"Divide an Conquer" This is nothing new it has been happening for years, England and its Allys split up the middle east after the WW II, why do you think we have remained the superpower we are? Its the unfortunate truth.

lol.

Biohazard · 24 Oct 2010 at 01:33

Fenris said:
It is, to a point which it becomes hard to imagine that someone would make this kind of allegation without reason.

Well, yes. And to parade out into press conference with. Again I don't know much about wikileaks reputation, but you've got to be somewhat sure of something like that before you risk the organisation I would have thought.

We can't really add much more to that until the report comes out, its authenticated and perhaps enquiry. Perhaps not.

But its a pretty bad sounding story, if the quote is accurate. It doesn't make sense, other than randomness/murder.