committing atrocities in the name of freedom....war logs

gimmesometruth27

watch the video on the linked page. it is only 7 minutes long, and you will be angered by it...

Iraq war logs: US turned over captives to Iraqi torture squadsNick Clegg calls for answers to 'extremely serious' abuse reports, but says it is up to US to answer for its own forces


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... qi-torture

Fresh evidence that US soldiers handed over detainees to a notorious Iraqi torture squad has emerged in army logs published by WikiLeaks.

The 400,000 field reports published by the whistleblowing website at the weekend contain an official account of deliberate threats by a military interrogator to turn his captive over to the Iraqi "Wolf Brigade".

The interrogator told the prisoner in explicit terms that: "He would be subject to all the pain and agony that the Wolf battalion is known to exact upon its detainees."

The evidence emerged as the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said the allegations of killings, torture and abuse in Iraq were "extremely serious" and "needed to be looked at".

Clegg, speaking on BBC1's Andrew Marr Show, did not rule out an inquiry into the actions of British forces in Iraq, but said it was up to the US administration to answer for the actions of its forces. His comments contrasted with a statement from the Ministry of Defence today, which warned that the posting of classified US military logs on the WikiLeaks website could endanger the lives of British forces.

Clegg said: "We can bemoan how these leaks occurred, but I think the nature of the allegations made are extraordinarily serious. They are distressing to read about and they are very serious. I am assuming the US administration will want to provide its own answer. It's not for us to tell them how to do that."

Asked if there should be an inquiry into the role of British troops, he said: "I think anything that suggests that basic rules of war, conflict and engagement have been broken or that torture has been in any way condoned are extremely serious and need to be looked at.

"People will want to hear what the answer is to what are very, very serious allegations of a nature which I think everybody will find quite shocking."

A Channel 4 Dispatches programme tomorrow night is expected to add further details based on the logs of alleged abuse directly by coalition forces. Only two cases of alleged involvement of British troops have so far been mentioned.

Within the huge leaked archive is contained a batch of secret field reports from the town of Samarra. They corroborate previous allegations that the US military turned over many prisoners to the Wolf Brigade, the feared 2nd battalion of the interior ministry's special commandos.

In Samarra, the series of log entries in 2004 and 2005 describe repeated raids by US infantry, who then handed their captives over to the Wolf Brigade for "further questioning". Typical entries read: "All 5 detainees were turned over to Ministry of Interior for further questioning" (from 29 November 2004) and "The detainee was then turned over to the 2nd Ministry of Interior Commando Battalion for further questioning" (30 November 2004).

The field reports chime with allegations made by New York Times writer Peter Maass, who was in Samarra at the time. He told Guardian Films : "US soldiers, US advisers, were standing aside and doing nothing," while members of the Wolf Brigade beat and tortured prisoners. The interior ministry commandos took over the public library in Samarra, and turned it into a detention centre, he said.

Maass's 2005 interview at the improvised prison with the Wolf Brigade's US military adviser, Col James Steele, had been interrupted by the terrified screams of a prisoner outside, he said. Steele was reportedly previously employed as an adviser to help crush an insurgency in El Salvador.

The Wolf Brigade was created and supported by the US in an attempt to re-employ elements of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard, this time to terrorise insurgents. Members typically wore red berets, sunglasses and balaclavas, and drove out on raids in convoys of Toyota Landcruisers. They were accused by Iraqis of beating prisoners, torturing them with electric drills and sometimes executing suspects. The then interior minister in charge of them was alleged to have been a former member of the Shia Badr militia.
It is unclear which US unit filed the report of complaint that detainees were being specifically threatened with being turned over to the Wolf Brigade. The entry describes the capture of prisoners near the town of Falluja, west of Baghdad.

It is headed "Alleged detainee abuse by interrogators", and reads: "On 14 December 2005, a raid was conducted whereby five individuals were detained for suspicion of emplacement of IEDs [improvised explosive devices] as a result of a pid [positive identification]. "During the interrogation process the RO [ranking officer] threatened the subject detainee that he would never see his family again and would be sent to the 'Wolf Battalion' where he would be subject to all the pain and agony that the 'Wolf Battalion' is known to exact upon its detainees."

The war logs also disclose that Wolf Brigade members were themselves at risk of reprisals. In January 2007, US soldiers reported a gruesome discovery in a street near Baghdad: "Only the severed head was found.

A wire was run through the ear with the corpse's ID attached to the wire. 3rd bn commander identified the remains as Ahdel Abu Hussain, he was an officer in the NP [national police] Wolf Brigade."

Lawyers said the reports may embroil British as well as US forces in an alleged culture of abuse and extrajudicial killings. Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, appearing alongside the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, at a press conference in London, said some of the deaths may have involved British forces and could now go through the UK courts.

JR8805

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

ONCE DEVIDED

More than 15,000 civilians died in previously unknown incidents. US and UK officials have insisted that no official record of civilian casualties exists but the logs record 66,081 non-combatant deaths out of a total of 109,000 fatalities.
66,081 Non combatants out of 109,000
Thats 60.62 percent of all killed were civilians. NON COMBATANTS
Thats not shamefull, thats an atrocity. Every country involved should be held to account.
Thats fucking disgusting.

I knew there wasnt any WMD's in that country. How the fuck does a Dumbarsed storeman in newcastle Australia fucking know that the crap that was fed to us to get involved in Iraq was bullshit,
All those who supported this war
GIVE YOURSELF A FUCKING UPPERCUT.
No wait a minute beat yourself to a pulp. you fucking deserve it

BLAIR AND BUSH, howard as well should all face punishment

sorry for my language and feelings but this was and is fucked

gimmesometruth27

five grand to care for and raise the kids that we made orphans???

"that is all we can do"....god help us...

Iraq war logs: Apache attack's child victims speak out

Cockpit video of gunship attack that killed 19 and gravely injured two children was first major leak of Iraq war material

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... -civilians

On a hot July day in 2007, taxi driver Salah Mutasher Toman swept his two young children into the passenger seat of his white minivan. He bade his brother, Sabah Toman, farewell and started making his way home, a short drive across the neighbourhood, through militia-held territory.


The area had echoed with explosions that morning. A fight had been brewing. But that was nothing new in Baghdad during that particular bloody summer. Salah planned on bunkering down with his family for the day to ride out the routine of heat and violence. He didn't get further than 400 metres before his van was blown apart by a hovering American helicopter. Salah died, along with six other people in his van. His son Sajad and daughter Duah were gravely wounded.


The events were all filmed by the helicopter that shot at them. The footage was among the first significant leaks from classified military materials in nearly eight years of war in Iraq. It was seen as lifting the lid on an iron-clad secrecy surrounding the US military campaign that had pitched the fighting as a black and white clash between liberators and insurgents. The civilian toll had been difficult to document and until then, impossible to film, let alone broadcast.


As the attack helicopter circled, with its cameras rolling, Salah's van entered the aftermath of an attack launched minutes earlier by the same hovering pilots. They asked for and received permission to fire, then the helicopter's guns pulverised Salah's van. Minutes later, an American patrol arrived on the scene. They approached the wrecked van and found the two children alive. They carried them straight to medics, who drove them to a nearby hospital.


"I remember them carrying me," said Duah, who was aged 4 that day and is now 7. "I was very scared and my stomach hurt a lot."


Her brother Sajad, 12, lifted up his shirt to reveal his scars. "They carried me away as well. I was terrified to be in the arms of an American soldier. But I didn't know what had just happened. And I didn't know where my sister was."


A total of 19 people, their father among them, had just been killed by the helicopter's heavy gun. Eleven had been loitering on a corner, including a Reuters cameraman. The helicopter had been circling in support of a US military operation taking place below. US troops were about to confront a militia they believed was active in the area. The helicopter pilots believed they saw some of the men armed with Kalashnikovs and another with a rocket-propelled grenades.


As rounds from the heavy guns thundered into the bitumen, the unsuspecting men standing below seemed to disintegrate. One survived and attempted to crawl until he was finished off with a second burst. Salah's minivan was on the scene around two minutes later.


His brother, Sabah Saleh Toman, had heard the first series of explosions just as has brother had pulled away from his house. "Then I heard the second [explosions]," he said. "I knew it involved him.


"My brother was only trying to help and they shot at him. They killed him. His children are almost orphans to this day, because their mother is still too [traumatised] to care for them. All day she is either in her room, or in the hospital."


Audio from the helicopter suggests the pilots had mistaken Salah's minivan for reinforcements rushing to the battle. After their initial attack on the van, a mortally wounded man was seen crawling away.


"Come on buddy, all you gotta do is reach for a weapon," one of the pilots said. Sabah and his brother's two children, whom he now cares for, have seen the footage of the attack. Parts of the footage received saturation coverage on Iraqi television channels in June.


"It was shocking to see," says Sabah. "Shocking to see how violent they were and the lack of understanding they showed. My brother arrived to help them. Anyone in this culture would have done the same."


Asked whether there were militias operating in the area that day, Sabah said simply: "Yes." He would not elaborate, but replied with another "yes" when asked whether the militia was the Mehdi Army, a key Shia lslamic player in the sectarian war that was ravaging Baghdad at the time.


In the days following the attack, Sabah looked through all hospitals in east Baghdad for his brother, niece and nephew. He quickly found his brother at the morgue, but could not locate the children. They were in a hospital in the fortified Green Zone. Duah had at least 12 bullet or shrapnel wounds al over her body. She faces more surgery and still complains of stomach pain. Sajad was just as badly wounded. When Sabah had picked up the ruins of his family, he approached the nearby US base. A colonel agreed to see him. "He took me inside and apologised," he said. "They gave me $5,000 and said that is all they could do."

polaris_x

these logs should have ZERO impact on anything ... why? ... because for the most part people are either ignorant or they just don't care ...

it was OBVIOUS from the get-go to anyone who cared enough to actually read up on it that iraq was based on greed and exploitation ... if those who didn't get it then, haven't gotten it over the last decade - this document won't change their minds ...

this all falls squarely on the folks that continue to support a political system that has long been corrupt ... yes - if you vote for your typical partisan hacks (in the states that means Democrat or Republican, britain - labour or conservatives) wherever ... you are mostly to blame ... these guys have been governing in the interests of large corporations for decades ... and Iraq was most definitely a decision based on pure greed ... nothing else ... the evil in this world are primarily old guys in suits ...

cajunkiwi

I wonder how much of the lack of an outcry here is because a lot of people just assumed this all along, and this new round of leaks has people saying, "Yeah, that's about what I figured."

gimmesometruth27

polaris_x wrote:

these logs should have ZERO impact on anything ... why? ... because for the most part people are either ignorant or they just don't care ...

it was OBVIOUS from the get-go to anyone who cared enough to actually read up on it that iraq was based on greed and exploitation ... if those who didn't get it then, haven't gotten it over the last decade - this document won't change their minds ...

this all falls squarely on the folks that continue to support a political system that has long been corrupt ... yes - if you vote for your typical partisan hacks (in the states that means Democrat or Republican, britain - labour or conservatives) wherever ... you are mostly to blame ... these guys have been governing in the interests of large corporations for decades ... and Iraq was most definitely a decision based on pure greed ... nothing else ... the evil in this world are primarily old guys in suits ...

i think you nailed it on the head in the part i underlined. these documents SHOULD open people's eyes and trigger them to make sure that is has an impact at the level as high as the policymakers. but it is apparent that people don't give a shit. they just don't. they can't be bothered.

i guess nobody feels much like discussing any of this. how boring and pointless this debate has become.. :(

these wars have bankrupted our country, both morally and financially, and the people of our country do not care. as long as they have their flatscreen tvs and their handy little diversions from cold hard reality, they are fine with it...i guarantee if fox news and other networks actually covered these stories people would be more knowlegible and feel differently about it. most people are too content with the news they get on cable to look at other sources like the guardian for any facts or insight into what is really going on..

cajunkiwi

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

these logs should have ZERO impact on anything ... why? ... because for the most part people are either ignorant or they just don't care ...

it was OBVIOUS from the get-go to anyone who cared enough to actually read up on it that iraq was based on greed and exploitation ... if those who didn't get it then, haven't gotten it over the last decade - this document won't change their minds ...

this all falls squarely on the folks that continue to support a political system that has long been corrupt ... yes - if you vote for your typical partisan hacks (in the states that means Democrat or Republican, britain - labour or conservatives) wherever ... you are mostly to blame ... these guys have been governing in the interests of large corporations for decades ... and Iraq was most definitely a decision based on pure greed ... nothing else ... the evil in this world are primarily old guys in suits ...

i think you nailed it on the head in the part i underlined. these documents SHOULD open people's eyes and trigger them to make sure that is has an impact at the level as high as the policymakers. but it is apparent that people don't give a shit. they just don't. they can't be bothered.

i guess nobody feels much like discussing any of this. how boring and pointless this debate has become.. :(

these wars have bankrupted our country, both morally and financially, and the people of our country do not care. as long as they have their flatscreen tvs and their handy little diversions from cold hard reality, they are fine with it...i guarantee if fox news and other networks actually covered these stories people would be more knowlegible and feel differently about it. most people are too content with the news they get on cable to look at other sources like the guardian for any facts or insight into what is really going on..

I was actually thinking that last week, when someone (in a discussion about the Tea Party) asked what happened to the liberal anti-war protesters who were so vocal during the Bush administration. The media, by and large, just doesn't cover it anymore. I wonder just how many people out there actually realize the US is still actively fighting in Afghanistan?

polaris_x

there's no money to be made on guilt ...

gimmesometruth27

the results of survey gives me very little hope that things will ever get better, and that people will not be more aware of current events...it just shows that the fascination with entertainment and tabloid journalism is dumbing down the entire population...i knew all of this stuff before age 12...

Kids name Buzz Lightyear as first man on moon

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/810163 ... an-on-moon

A large number of British children believe Buzz Lightyear was the first person to walk on the moon and that Darth Vader's Deathstar from Star Wars is the furthest planet from Earth.

A survey of 2000 children aged 6-12 years in the UK revealed most youngsters have trouble distinguishing between fact and fiction, and lacked basic knowledge of key events in history, London's Telegraph newspaper reports.

One in five children believed Toy Story’s Buzz Lightyear was the first person to set foot on the moon and one in six said the Deathstar was the most distant planet from Earth.

One- third of the children surveyed also did not know that Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, with nine percent giving credit to Deal or No Deal host Noel Edmonds.

One in six children incorrectly identified US President Barack Obama as either Mr T from the A-Team, F1 driver Lewis Hamilton or Nelson Mandela.

But while their knowledge of history was somewhat muddled, the children proved to be far more aware of what was happening in the lives of celebrities.

Close to 65 percent of the children knew Britney Spears had shaved her head and two-thirds identified malaria as the illness suffered by X Factor judge Cheryl Cole.

Children's author Christopher Lloyd told the Telegraph there was a lot of confusion among children about historical events.

''Young people have little or no context when it comes to knowledge about the past," Mr Lloyd said.

"Often they know a great deal about a few topics, but seldom do they have any idea of the big picture - Neil Armstrong would not be happy to learn a plastic action figure is getting the credit for first man to step on the moon."

Jason P

cajunkiwi wrote:

I was actually thinking that last week, when someone (in a discussion about the Tea Party) asked what happened to the liberal anti-war protesters who were so vocal during the Bush administration. The media, by and large, just doesn't cover it anymore. I wonder just how many people out there actually realize the US is still actively fighting in Afghanistan?

I think it is a demonstration of how many people are tied into a 2 party system. The democrats were using the anti-war fever to help pull in votes in the 2008 elections but now that they are effectively running the show while the war rages on, it's a topic that both the republicans and democrats would prefer to sweep under the carpet.

The media more-or-less needs a catalyst to make a news story popular. Every politician is avoiding the issue for obvious reasons. I don't know why the anti-war crowd became silent, but I think it is because their guy is running the show and they are afraid to be vocal about criticism.

cajunkiwi

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

the results of survey gives me very little hope that things will ever get better, and that people will not be more aware of current events...it just shows that the fascination with entertainment and tabloid journalism is dumbing down the entire population...i knew all of this stuff before age 12...

Kids name Buzz Lightyear as first man on moon

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/810163 ... an-on-moon

A large number of British children believe Buzz Lightyear was the first person to walk on the moon and that Darth Vader's Deathstar from Star Wars is the furthest planet from Earth.

A survey of 2000 children aged 6-12 years in the UK revealed most youngsters have trouble distinguishing between fact and fiction, and lacked basic knowledge of key events in history, London's Telegraph newspaper reports.

One in five children believed Toy Story’s Buzz Lightyear was the first person to set foot on the moon and one in six said the Deathstar was the most distant planet from Earth.

One- third of the children surveyed also did not know that Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, with nine percent giving credit to Deal or No Deal host Noel Edmonds.

One in six children incorrectly identified US President Barack Obama as either Mr T from the A-Team, F1 driver Lewis Hamilton or Nelson Mandela.

But while their knowledge of history was somewhat muddled, the children proved to be far more aware of what was happening in the lives of celebrities.

Close to 65 percent of the children knew Britney Spears had shaved her head and two-thirds identified malaria as the illness suffered by X Factor judge Cheryl Cole.

Children's author Christopher Lloyd told the Telegraph there was a lot of confusion among children about historical events.

''Young people have little or no context when it comes to knowledge about the past," Mr Lloyd said.

"Often they know a great deal about a few topics, but seldom do they have any idea of the big picture - Neil Armstrong would not be happy to learn a plastic action figure is getting the credit for first man to step on the moon."

I seem to remember quite a few years back, a survey was done that showed a percentage of Americans thought Jed Bartlett from the West Wing was actually the president.

While this is taking the discussion further away from your original post (and for that I apologize - I haven't had much time to actually take a look at the leaked items so my knowledge doesn't extend much further than the number of dead being substantially higher than was reported), the emergency number in New Zealand is 111. Always has been. We got the show Rescue 911 on TV for a while (only the best foreign programming for us!), and ended up having to add an extra emergency number - 911 - because so many Kiwis just assumed that 911 was our number. Despite the fact that IT HAD ALWAYS BEEN 111. They ended up renaming the show Rescue 111 in NZ, but it was too late and the damage had been done.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

cajunkiwi wrote:

I was actually thinking that last week, when someone (in a discussion about the Tea Party) asked what happened to the liberal anti-war protesters who were so vocal during the Bush administration. The media, by and large, just doesn't cover it anymore. I wonder just how many people out there actually realize the US is still actively fighting in Afghanistan?

I think it is a demonstration of how many people are tied into a 2 party system. The democrats were using the anti-war fever to help pull in votes in the 2008 elections but now that they are effectively running the show while the war rages on, it's a topic that both the republicans and democrats would prefer to sweep under the carpet.

The media more-or-less needs a catalyst to make a news story popular. Every politician is avoiding the issue for obvious reasons. I don't know why the anti-war crowd became silent, but I think it is because their guy is running the show and they are afraid to be vocal about criticism.

i think that the part that i made large is not true at all. i think we are completely discouraged because he said he would end the fighting in iraq, which he has done, but now we are escalating in afghanistan which was not part of the deal. i have been out there protesting all along, and you know what my local news covered as the lead story the day of the largest protest here? britney fucking spears flashing her snatch to the paparazzi...

and you can not pin all of it on obama. we did our best to get him elected and he did not keep his promise. if you look at the dates on the wikileaks, they went up until january 2010, where obama had been in office for 11.5 months. the rest of it, and the most egregious of the atrocites was under bush's watch. both bush and obama share blame, but the majority of it falls on bush for getting us into those wars with no plan for getting out and for committing so many atrocites in the name of the american public.

catefrances

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

...One in six children incorrectly identified US President Barack Obama as either Mr T from the A-Team, F1 driver Lewis Hamilton or Nelson Mandela.
...

i often get nelson mandela and morgan freeman mixed up.

Pepe Silvia

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

cajunkiwi wrote:

I was actually thinking that last week, when someone (in a discussion about the Tea Party) asked what happened to the liberal anti-war protesters who were so vocal during the Bush administration. The media, by and large, just doesn't cover it anymore. I wonder just how many people out there actually realize the US is still actively fighting in Afghanistan?

I think it is a demonstration of how many people are tied into a 2 party system. The democrats were using the anti-war fever to help pull in votes in the 2008 elections but now that they are effectively running the show while the war rages on, it's a topic that both the republicans and democrats would prefer to sweep under the carpet.

The media more-or-less needs a catalyst to make a news story popular. Every politician is avoiding the issue for obvious reasons. I don't know why the anti-war crowd became silent, but I think it is because their guy is running the show and they are afraid to be vocal about criticism.

i think that the part that i made large is not true at all. i think we are completely discouraged because he said he would end the fighting in iraq, which he has done, but now we are escalating in afghanistan which was not part of the deal. i have been out there protesting all along, and you know what my local news covered as the lead story the day of the largest protest here? britney fucking spears flashing her snatch to the paparazzi...

and you can not pin all of it on obama. we did our best to get him elected and he did not keep his promise. if you look at the dates on the wikileaks, they went up until january 2010, where obama had been in office for 11.5 months. the rest of it, and the most egregious of the atrocites was under bush's watch. both bush and obama share blame, but the majority of it falls on bush for getting us into those wars with no plan for getting out and for committing so many atrocites in the name of the american public.

actually that was always part of the deal, his campaign website always said troops would be redeployed from iraq to afghanistan

plus 50,000 or so troops are staying in iraq not to mention he's roughly doubling the amount of mercenaries there.

also, didn't bush already end combat operations? wasn't that the point to him landing on that aircraft carrier with the mission accomplished banner?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85777,00.html

WASHINGTON — Hours after making an historic landing aboard a moving aircraft carrier, President Bush told sailors manning the USS Abraham Lincoln Thursday that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

Commy

Jason P wrote:

cajunkiwi wrote:

I was actually thinking that last week, when someone (in a discussion about the Tea Party) asked what happened to the liberal anti-war protesters who were so vocal during the Bush administration. The media, by and large, just doesn't cover it anymore. I wonder just how many people out there actually realize the US is still actively fighting in Afghanistan?

I think it is a demonstration of how many people are tied into a 2 party system. The democrats were using the anti-war fever to help pull in votes in the 2008 elections but now that they are effectively running the show while the war rages on, it's a topic that both the republicans and democrats would prefer to sweep under the carpet.

The media more-or-less needs a catalyst to make a news story popular. Every politician is avoiding the issue for obvious reasons. I don't know why the anti-war crowd became silent, but I think it is because their guy is running the show and they are afraid to be vocal about criticism.

what about the 10 million people around the world who protested the iraq war before it started? were they democrats too?

Jason P

Commy wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I think it is a demonstration of how many people are tied into a 2 party system. The democrats were using the anti-war fever to help pull in votes in the 2008 elections but now that they are effectively running the show while the war rages on, it's a topic that both the republicans and democrats would prefer to sweep under the carpet.

The media more-or-less needs a catalyst to make a news story popular. Every politician is avoiding the issue for obvious reasons. I don't know why the anti-war crowd became silent, but I think it is because their guy is running the show and they are afraid to be vocal about criticism.

what about the 10 million people around the world who protested the iraq war before it started? were they democrats too?

I would have to do a census to determine their political affiliation. :ugeek:

I don't see as many celebrities and musicians protesting as much either since the elections. Has anyone listened to all the boots from PJ's last tour? I have only listened to a few but I would be curious on how much anti-war rhetoric Ed added in. If anyone can provide input I would be interested. I see that the song No More was played sixteen times prior to the general elections and since then it has only been played twice.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

Commy wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I think it is a demonstration of how many people are tied into a 2 party system. The democrats were using the anti-war fever to help pull in votes in the 2008 elections but now that they are effectively running the show while the war rages on, it's a topic that both the republicans and democrats would prefer to sweep under the carpet.

The media more-or-less needs a catalyst to make a news story popular. Every politician is avoiding the issue for obvious reasons. I don't know why the anti-war crowd became silent, but I think it is because their guy is running the show and they are afraid to be vocal about criticism.

what about the 10 million people around the world who protested the iraq war before it started? were they democrats too?

I would have to do a census to determine their political affiliation. :ugeek:

I don't see as many celebrities and musicians protesting as much either since the elections. Has anyone listened to all the boots from PJ's last tour? I have only listened to a few but I would be curious on how much anti-war rhetoric Ed added in. If anyone can provide input I would be interested. I see that the song No More was played sixteen times prior to the general elections and since then it has only been played twice.

i don't think you can gauge an entire movement based on the fact that less celebrities are speaking out and that ed has only played a certain song twice since the elections. when is the last time ed wore a "pro-choice" t-shirt or wrote it on his arm with a black magic marker? that would be like saying the pro-choice line of thinking is dead because fewer celebrities are speaking out about it. it is faulty logic because the last time i checked REAL change begins with normal ordinary people like the protesters in Selma and MLK. they were not celebrities beforehand, but they were leaders who cultivated a movement. just like abby hoffman. if the college age generation were actually engaged in current events there would still be protests. and if therre were still a draft, you would have high school and college age kids who might have to go rioting in the streets...my thoughts on the wars have not changed, but i feel like i have been sold out by those that i voted for. i think apathy has become the real issue in the anti war movement....

OnTheEdge

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

cajunkiwi wrote:

I was actually thinking that last week, when someone (in a discussion about the Tea Party) asked what happened to the liberal anti-war protesters who were so vocal during the Bush administration. The media, by and large, just doesn't cover it anymore. I wonder just how many people out there actually realize the US is still actively fighting in Afghanistan?

I think it is a demonstration of how many people are tied into a 2 party system. The democrats were using the anti-war fever to help pull in votes in the 2008 elections but now that they are effectively running the show while the war rages on, it's a topic that both the republicans and democrats would prefer to sweep under the carpet.

The media more-or-less needs a catalyst to make a news story popular. Every politician is avoiding the issue for obvious reasons. I don't know why the anti-war crowd became silent, but I think it is because their guy is running the show and they are afraid to be vocal about criticism.

i think that the part that i made large is not true at all. i think we are completely discouraged because he said he would end the fighting in iraq, which he has done, but now we are escalating in afghanistan which was not part of the deal. i have been out there protesting all along, and you know what my local news covered as the lead story the day of the largest protest here? britney fucking spears flashing her snatch to the paparazzi...

and you can not pin all of it on obama. we did our best to get him elected and he did not keep his promise. if you look at the dates on the wikileaks, they went up until january 2010, where obama had been in office for 11.5 months. the rest of it, and the most egregious of the atrocites was under bush's watch. both bush and obama share blame, but the majority of it falls on bush for getting us into those wars with no plan for getting out and for committing so many atrocites in the name of the american public.

sooooo....ummmm......you got a link to Britneys snatch? :think:

josevolution

We as a society have become totally numb