It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation

page: 19
160
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
www.cbsnews.com...


Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.

One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

"The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans," a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry told The Times on condition of anonymity. "The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."


Glad to see wikileaks rooting out the traitorous Afghans. Don't you agree?




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


I have the file downloaded, but can't open it due to size. It is 70+MB and Apples Numbers doesn't like it. After reading this I wanted to see for myself what exactly was said, but need to find a way of opening the file first. Pesky .csv and Numbers!

Has anyone else searched for themselves?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Birddog26

Originally posted by JohnJasper

Originally posted by Birddog26
Just started reading this porst and I don't think anyone understands how the COK (Capture or Kill) list is applied or how they go about hitting these targets. The COK list is signed of by the President, Sec at DOD, Dirt CIA, gang of 8 in Congress. In target and anyone on the COK if you are a field CO you go through a number of checks that determines the identity, then through JAG officers to make sure it is legal, then through a target mitigation process to reduce collaterial damage, then final approval. From exprience I would say that less than 1 in 7 targets are hit due to known collateral damage.


And how do you know this? What "experience" do you have in the targetted drone attack business?
...


John, I am and Army officer who has spent the best part of my life in Afghanistan since 9/11. I have been in a number of G2 and G3 positions with units. My most recent tour was on the J3 staff for JSOC. As to understanding the application of "pattern of life intel" to tracking I am very familar with this. This a tool that is used for tracking and predicting movements but is no where even near the only intel used in the go-no go of strikes.


Thanks, Birddog26. That answers my question. You might know my brother who spent last year out there.

I'm sure that the people behind the drone attacks and other high-explosive weapons in use in Afghanistan and Pakistan seriously believe that they're defending the nation and not causing undue harm. That doesn't mean that they're right. After watching the chopper attack footage some months ago, I saw for myself how human beings in the vicinity are either seen as acceptable collateral damage or just not seen at all. No real thought is given to challenging targets before annihilation nor consideration for anyone else in the building. Just Fire! - Boom! - Aah nice mushroom cloud!

I suggest that you stay with it for a while longer so you can enjoy the change of scenery. Fancy a tour to Iran or North Korea?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by JohnJasper
 



I keep hearing about this pipeline as reason we invaded Afghanistan......Well it's been almost a decade.....where's the dang pipeline?? You'd think if it was such a high reason to invade we would have already built it and started sucking up all the resources for our benefit.



There seems to be a snag in the works. Something to do with a war going on in the country. (I keep getting confused and thinking that it's an OIL pipeline but it's natural GAS instead.)



A Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement, signed by representatives of the four participating nations on April 25, 2008 in Islamabad, envisaged construction to start in 2010, supplying gas by 2015. The announced 1,000-mile route would follow the ancient trading route from Central to South Asia, extending from the Dauletabad gas field in Turkmenistan along the highway through Herat, Helmand and Kandahar in Afghanistan, to Quetta and Multan in Pakistan, and on to Fazilka in India. Participating countries have held numerous high-level planning meetings during the past eight years, with Asian Development Bank (ADB) sponsorship and multilateral support. When construction will start is uncertain because security in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan remains a problem.

Afghanistan, the TAPI Pipeline, and Energy Geopolitics



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by pavil
 


No, no pipeline. They seem to be the flavor of the month. Ostensibly, Afghanistan was a war against al-Qaeda, but that organization has set up camp in a number of other countries. My honest opinion, we went to war because we could. Initially, it was revenge and this has lasted a long time. The Taliban aren't our enemy and were never the reason for conflict.


Keep repeating this mantra to yourself -

It was Al-Queda. No it was the Taliban. No, it was the drug trade.
It was Al-Queda. No it was the Taliban. No, it was the drug trade.
It was Al-Queda. No it was the Taliban. No, it was the drug trade.

It'll stop you from seriously considering the facts!



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I do not like the sound of these consequences of the leak.

War against Iran more likely — thanks to Wikileaks




Cooperation among Iran, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremist groups is more extensive than previously known to the public, according to details buried in the tens of thousands of military intelligence documents released by an independent group Sunday.

U.S. officials and Middle East analysts said some of the most explosive information contained in the WikiLeaks documents detail Iran’s alleged ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the facilitating role Tehran may have played in providing arms from sources as varied as North Korea and Algeria.

The officials have for years received reports of Iran smuggling arms to the Taliban. The WikiLeaks documents, however, appear to give new evidence of direct contacts between Iranian officials and the Taliban’s and al Qaeda’s senior leadership. It also outlines Iran’s alleged role in brokering arms deals between North Korea and Pakistan-based militants, particularly militant leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and al Qaeda.


warincontext.org...

I think it a fair point made by the OP. I think we are all aware that the Neo cons, Israeli slaves in the senate and basically the majority of the Republican Party and some of the Democrats are looking for any bit of 'evidence' they can use to sale an attack against Iran to the American public and rest of the world.

And nothing will work better with the American public than claiming/showing that Iran is directly complicit in the deaths of American military personal.

When the real sale begins they can use this coupled with Iran's supposed nuclear programme, support of Hamas and Hezbollah to ram down the throats of the American public the 'neccesity' of taking out Iran.

This worries me.





[edit on 28-7-2010 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by andronaconda
 
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, You hit the nail on the head, it all part of the ELITISTS greed. The whole ordeal. It sickens me. i agree 100%. thumbs up for you.




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


YEAH, more truth, it all leaking out of the smelly old trash can. We can now put it all together and see the real truth behind the lies and truth that is being put out these days. We can see how the framework works WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS, by the way. MONEY, GREEDY people in control. EXPOSE MORE.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 
I have said this , some posts back. WIKILEAKS , was done for a means to INVADE IRAN. I also stated that i told my brothers children not to go into the service for they will be going to war with IRAN. so they have a choice to go or no go. I also stated, that IRAN is now surrounded by forces on almost all sides. I also stated that we currently have venezuella in check so that when we strike IRAN, venezuella will think twice before helping IRAN. I also stated, NORTH KOREA is also in check, so that they think twice of helping IRAN. The 30000 more troops will be used in afghanistan, plus the ones that are there, for ground invasion of IRAN. All the ships deployed are ready for action. We all know where they are right now. This could get UGLY. REAL UGLY.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nite owl
 


I don't see how this leak of low-grade intelligence was performed to facilitate an attack on Iran. I have downloaded the records and put them into a database. It makes for interesting reading in regards to the brutal truth of war, but in no way can the information be construed as a precursor to an attack on Iran. Unless, somehow I have misread your post?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Numerous PSYOPS initiatives are listed in the database, but no detail is listed against the records. It continually states: See attachment. Very extensive record details are made throughout, but the PSYOPS information must have remained in attachments sent to the recipients of the database. It's an interesting point.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


I opened it in Word. Not sure if all 77,000 messages made it in, but you can search for keywords.

As a CSV in Excel, rows are limited to 66,000 or so, converted to xls, its only 16,000.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
While going through these documents, I will post some of the records that pique my interest and one such data entry goes back to June of 2007, when intelligence was picked up to suggest the Taliban and al-Qaeda were planning on intercepting food convoys to inject the supplies with an unknown chemical.

Wkikileaks entry:



AL-QAEDA AND TALIBAN PLAN TO COMMANDEER THE FOOD SUPPLY TRUCKS OF COALITION FORCES AND INJECT THEM WITH CHEMICALS. COMMANDEER THE FOOD SUPPLY TRUCKS OF COALITION FORCES. THE TRUCKS CARRY SUPPLIES TO INCLUDE WATER AND DRY GOODS. THE PLAN IS TO INJECT THE BOTTLES OR THE PACKAGES OF FOOD WITH UNIDENTIFIED CHEMICALS, OR RECREATE THE SAME TYPE OF PACKAGES WITH CONTAMINATED VERSIONS OF THE SAME PRODUCT. COMMENTS: (U). (FIELD COMMENTS)-1. (U) SOURCE PROVIDED NO FURTHER INFORMATION AND IS AVAILABLE FOR RECONTACT. 2. (U) THIS IIR CORRESPONDS TO THT REPORT DIIR-THT08-0049-07.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
I do not like the sound of these consequences of the leak.

War against Iran more likely — thanks to Wikileaks



This worries me.


Hmmm....and maybe the person that leaked all of this info should have thought about that PRIOR to leaking it??

Still think he's a hero, after the US decides to go to war with Iran and thousands of people die??



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


If the US decides to escalate their ALREADY EXISTING PLANS TO WAR ON IRAN because of Wikileaks leaking data, and mucking up their timeline, how do you see this as Wikileaks, or Assange's fault?

Assange is hoping people take this information and rise up politically and demand we stop now. Not that we take this information and sit around with our thumbs up our butts while the PTB rush to meet their goals before we decide we should do or say something to stop it.

We need to stop blaming other people for our own laziness, inaction, political apathy, and cowardice.

Assange is trying to give us the proof we need to see that our leaders are lying to us, acting in ways that run contrary to our best interests, and presumably, the things we care about. (Such as slaughtering civilians in wars over resources.)

Assanges only fault lies in the fact that he thinks we actually care. That we would actually protest, or vote these jerks out. He probably believed that if we knew the truth we would demand change.

He was wrong. We are as bad as the people who lead us, only lazier.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
If the US decides to escalate their ALREADY EXISTING PLANS TO WAR ON IRAN because of Wikileaks leaking data, and mucking up their timeline, how do you see this as Wikileaks, or Assange's fault?


Sorry, we can "what if" this to death.

What if the US decided, "Nah, screw it. Going to war with Iran isn't worth the trouble, we'll just rattle their cage another way." Yet because of the leaks, the US says, "Well, might as well launch the bombers."

And guess what? The US has always had existing plans to go to war with Iran. And China. And Russia. And probably just about every other country out there. Probably even Lichtenstein.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Yeah, right. You are building a case for the idea that the possibility that the US would suddenly leave Iran alone, after they have been casebuilding for an attack for 10 years or so now, (or more) is as likely as the possibility that they planned to attack it no matter what.

Its not as likely. Just like the US had been planning to attack Iraq for at least a decade or so before we did. (H.W. Bush, Clinton, then Jr.) the attack on Iran is inevitable unless we the people act to make it politically dangerous for them to do so.

But we wont. So stop trying to make it sound as if what our government does is Assanges fault. It isnt. Its ours.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Yeah, right. You are building a case for the idea that the possibility that the US would suddenly leave Iran alone, after they have been casebuilding for an attack for 10 years or so now, (or more) is as likely as the possibility that they planned to attack it no matter what.

Its not as likely. Just like the US had been planning to attack Iraq for at least a decade or so before we did. (H.W. Bush, Clinton, then Jr.) the attack on Iran is inevitable unless we the people act to make it politically dangerous for them to do so.


You'll never know now, will you?


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
But we wont. So stop trying to make it sound as if what our government does is Assanges fault. It isnt. Its ours.


Tell that to the Afghans that were helping US forces that are probably now being hunted down due to the leaks. I guess the blood isn't on Assanges hands now, is it?



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


In all honesty, I have only been able to find one data entry that lists an informants name and this goes back to 2007. I am not sure where people are getting 'hundreds' of names from. There is another mention of a double agent, but the intelligence details suggest this individual was more Taliban than coalition.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
In all honesty, I have only been able to find one data entry that lists an informants name and this goes back to 2007. I am not sure where people are getting 'hundreds' of names from. There is another mention of a double agent, but the intelligence details suggest this individual was more Taliban than coalition.


I'm thinking somewhere between 1 and 100 is the actual answer. Who knows? All I'm thinking that one Afghan or US troop getting killed because someone leaked info is wrong. Some people just don't see it that way.



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join