Wikileaks reveals identity of Afgan informants

[Myrddraal]

In the times, but I can't get the online article. I found this instead:

Leaked details put informant lives in danger (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/leaked-details-put-informant-lives-in-danger/story-e6frg6so-1225898206990)

Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/27/leaked-afghan-war-files-expose-identities-informants/)


In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with handing intelligence to US forces. Their villages are given for identification and, in many cases, their fathers' names.

US officers recorded detailed logs of the information fed to them by named local informants, particularly tribal elders. Julian Assange, the Australian WikiLeaks founder, claimed all the files released through his organisation had been checked for named informants and that 15,000 such documents had been held back.

More in the link. So, has wikileaks gone too far? Is there anything which can/should be done?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yup, it's as I suspected actually (from the helicopter video, the story about the guy who got turned over by a hacker, and from an interview I saw with the assange guy). The assange guy is basically an idiot. I'm not good enough with words to put it better than that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395500694117006.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Julian Assange, the editor of the WikiLeaks website that on Monday released some 92,000 classified military documents, has told the German newsweekly Der Spiegel that he "loved crushing bastards."

:rolleyes:

[Beskar]

I doubt the Taliban have access to the Internet, luckily.

[Incongruous]

Mr. Assange is an odd and dangerous man, his claim to have "weeded out" these types of documents has been proven terribly false, the consequence? Send him to Afghanistan where he can leak information from the front lines. The stupid man.

[PanzerJaeger]

I doubt the Taliban have access to the Internet, luckily.

They do.


In any event, this information is highly damaging to the NATO war effort and the lives of thousands of Afghan informants, who in many cases just wanted to build a better society.

I could understand leaking such information if it was of the caliber of the Pentagon Papers - high level policy discussions that revealed huge public deception on the part of multiple administrations. However, the only real new information revealed so far is that the Taliban has, on occassion, used surface to air missiles with rather unreliable success rates, a fact that NATO has categorically denied until now. However, I can understand their reluctance to divulge such information, as the story - in relation to the Soviet narrative - would likely have more impact on the war effort than the actual missiles. Anyone following the war already knew that the Karzai government is highly ineffective, Pakistan is playing a double game, and that the CIA and military special ops teams are assassinating Taliban and AQ leaders.

Other than that, the information does little but endanger NATO allies in the region. Great work Julian! I hope he is enjoying his fame while he can as something gives me the impression the NSA is developing a very special freak accident for him. He has now become a threat to national security.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah. His idea of 'crushing bastards' is giving to the Taliban the means to hunt down and kill everyone who's helped the US. And probably their families too.

Before this I was somewhat fond of wikileaks. Now I'd rather that coward is sent to Afghanistan and the Taliban told he's a western spy.

CR

[Fragony]

I doubt the Taliban have access to the Internet, luckily.

Oh they do

I hope these guys realise people are going to die. Family comes first chapeau

Taliban was even so kind to congratulate the Labour party for letting the government fall over the Nato effort, the only consideration being to not be swept away at the local elections here. How very cynical. Even more cynical than putting our troops in danger by inventing torture stories, but that was last elections. People need jobs alright.

[HoreTore]

Be a man, release the last documents too. We have every right to know what our forces are doing down there, and how our troops are killing innocent civillians, among plenty of other stuff.

Since our governments won't tell us, measures like this is needed. Too bad for the informants, but hey, risks of the trade. National security? HAH!

EDIT: I do, however, find it fascinating to see how many here who are willing to limit free speech... Because during the cartoon-thingy, most people went on about how "free speech is absolute" and such.... Just lies, eh?

[Fragony]

Pakistani friend of mine kinda has an opinion on you and yours. What's up with you lately

[HoreTore]

Pakistani friend of mine kinda has an opinion on you and yours. What's up with you lately

Yes, I know there are a lot of people in the world with free speech issues, I'm not surprised that some of your friends are among them; some of mine are as well....

EDIT: for those who are wondering what the fuzz is about, here (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010) is the link to the actual files on wikileaks. Start readin'!

[Skullheadhq]

In the Netherlands our minister of Justice just released a draft of a law that prohibits Dutchmen from copying anything from Wikileaks. This law is severely restricting freedom. Not only ar you prohibited of copying or publishing classified information, the Attorney Generaal (Openbaar Aanklager) can remove things from the internet at his whim (Pirate Bay?). This is bad, very bad. Sadly the ordinary people don't care for freedom as long as Holland Got Talent is on tv :(. For the Dutch/Belgians among us: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2010/07/28/wetsvoorstel-versterking-bestrijding-computercriminaliteit.html

[Fragony]

You should be glad, he's a vassal of the crown spying to find undesirable thoughts, it's what you wanted don't complain now.

[Skullheadhq]

You should be glad, he's a vassal of the crown spying to find undesirable thoughts, it's what you wanted don't complain now.

With a bit of luck Hirsch Stalin is gone in a few weeks, on the scrapheap of history, or is this wishful thinking?
And are you implying that a right -wing cabinet would stop this. VVD (Fred Teeven), CDA (Hirsch Stalin) and PVV (Geert Wilders) will only destroy the last bits of internet freedom and privacy. Please read the draft, you'll be shocked!

[Fragony]

With a bit of luck Hirsch Stalin is gone in a few weeks, on the scrapheap of history, or is this wishful thinking?
And are you implying that a right -wing cabinet would stop this. VVD (Fred Teeven), CDA (Hirsch Stalin) and PVV (Geert Wilders) will only destroy the last bits of internet freedom and privacy. Please read the draft, you'll be shocked!

I know what's in it. You thought it was a good idea to enpower the government with such means if it would halt the rise of the right, well there you have it. Christians and leftists don't respect privacy capice they feel they have the right to peel you like an onion, for the sake of harmony.

And yes.

[Skullheadhq]

I know what's in it. You thought it was a good idea to enpower the government with such means if it would halt the rise of the right.

I have NEVER said anything like that.


Christians and leftists don't respect privacy capice
And Wilders and Teeven do respect freedom or privacy? If it was up to them Netherlands would be a police state already. They would curtail Wikileaks as eagerly as Hirsch Stalin.

[Fragony]

I have NEVER said anything like that.


And Wilders and Teeven do respect freedom or privacy? If it was up to them Netherlands would be a police state already. They would curtail Wikileaks as eagerly as Hirsch Stalin.

I prefer to call him Hirschbollah. Again it's what you wanted, the comfortable bliss that is an ideal society isn't free of charge. Creepy no?

[Skullheadhq]

Again it's what you wanted.
No, where did I ever say I wanted this? Hirsch Stalin or Hirschbollah wanted to outlaw games a few weeks ago, this man is crazy! I still hope for a cabinet without the CDA and Fred Teeven.


Creepy no?
Creepy isn't a strong enough word to describe this law.

[Fragony]

No, where did I ever say I wanted this?

Your were glad Beatricks put her foot down to stop Wilders, making it possible for her to overrule parlement as she pleases. You aplauded that so don't complain when they construct ways to get to you as well.

[Skullheadhq]

Your were glad Beatricks put her foot down to stop Wilders, making it possible for her to overrule parlement as she pleases. You aplauded that so don't complain when they construct ways to get to you as well.

The queen appoints 'informanten' since she's on the throne, why bother now. If there is someone with experience, it's her. Parliament doesn't appoint them, so there's no overruling, and Wilders would destroy freedom and privacy anyway, constructing the Netherlands to his own Utopia, Israel.

And no, the queen doing her job and a nutcase of a Hirsch Stalin trying to outlaw games and freedom of press and freedom of information is not the same.

[Furunculus]

In the times, but I can't get the online article. I found this instead:

Leaked details put informant lives in danger (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/leaked-details-put-informant-lives-in-danger/story-e6frg6so-1225898206990)

Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/27/leaked-afghan-war-files-expose-identities-informants/)



More in the link. So, has wikileaks gone too far? Is there anything which can/should be done?

yes, they have gone too far. releasing informant names is a death sentence.

[Andres]

Yup, it's as I suspected actually (from the helicopter video, the story about the guy who got turned over by a hacker, and from an interview I saw with the assange guy). The assange guy is basically an idiot. I'm not good enough with words to put it better than that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395500694117006.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



:rolleyes:

Makes you wonder if he left those names in it on purpose.

One can disagree with the war in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean you have to bring the lives of those people in danger.

[Andres]

EDIT: I do, however, find it fascinating to see how many here who are willing to limit free speech... Because during the cartoon-thingy, most people went on about how "free speech is absolute" and such.... Just lies, eh?

Apples and oranges.

Making a drawing doesn't bring other peoples' lives in danger... Even the most fervent supporter of free speech knows there are limits. It's nothing more than common sense, really.

[Skullheadhq]

Even the most fervent supporter of free speech knows there are limits.
A limited freedom is no freedom. And who is to judge what you can say and can't? The censorship committee?

[Furunculus]

A limited freedom is no freedom. And who is to judge what you can say and can't? The censorship committee?

nice rhetoric, sounds a bit empty to me when i think of johnny taliban paying a midnight visit to someone listed in those files.

[Skullheadhq]

nice rhetoric, sounds a bit empty to me when i think of johnny taliban paying a midnight visit to someone listed in those files.

That's part of the job when you're informer. Just as the risk of getting shot is part of your job when you're soldier. Informer is not the same as construction worker or merchant, something which they could have become as well. Don't get me wrong, I am the last to want them dead, but to curtail freedom for them goes way to far.
And if the west is so worried about them, why not bring them and their families to somewhere safe?

[Fragony]

And no, the queen doing her job and a nutcase of a Hirsch Stalin trying to outlaw games and freedom of press and freedom of information is not the same.

Yes it is, the OM is to judge what is allowed content or not with this law, not the judge. In the purple setup you wanted her travesty would decide, not the parlement. We have a trias politica for a reason, to keep meddling of interests to a minimum.

[Skullheadhq]

Yes it is, the OM is to judge what is allowed content or not with this law, not the judge. In the purple setup you wanted her travesty would decide, not the parlement. We have a trias politica for a reason, to keep meddling of interests to a minimum.

No Montesquieu in the Netherlands, if you want him you can always go to Belgium. The OM is part of the state, the OM can censor the internet so the state can censor the internet if they deem it 'unfit' without the possibility of a Parliamentary intervention. It's that simple. Luckily I know how to work with proxies, but people who want information but can't most possibly don't know how to work with proxies.

[Furunculus]

That's part of the job when you're informer. Just as the risk of getting shot is part of your job when you're soldier. Informer is not the same as construction worker or merchant, something which they could have become as well. Don't get me wrong, I am the last to want them dead, but to curtail freedom for them goes way to far.
And if the west is so worried about them, why not bring them and their families to somewhere safe?

all i would argue is that america has a duty of care to its informants, and by releasing that information without redacting names and identifying information Wikileaks has assumed that duty of care, and thus a part of the liability.

[Fragony]

No Montesquieu in the Netherlands, if you want him you can always go to Belgium. The OM is part of the state, the OM can censor the internet so the state can censor the internet if they deem it 'unfit' without the possibility of a Parliamentary intervention. It's that simple. Luckily I know how to work with proxies, but people who want information but can't most possibly don't know how to work with proxies.

The OM is part of the state indeed, judges are in theory not but they are all appointed by her travesty, but most of them don't screw Colombian whores on Aruba at the various orgy's that are organised for them so that is mostly fine, not THAT corrupt really.

[Skullheadhq]

So, you're arguing that the state should be given the power to censor the web because some judges are corrupt? That's rediculous!
Here is some more info in Dutch: https://www.bof.nl/2010/07/28/wetsvoorstel-om-krijgt-aanuit-knop-voor-websites/

[Andres]

A limited freedom is no freedom. And who is to judge what you can say and can't? The censorship committee?

What has publishing of the names of non public figures got to do with freedom of speech?

How about privacy?

Is it ok to publish an article about your masturbation habits with your real name mentioned in it? I'm sure you wouldn't mind, freedom of speech being absolute and all that...

Besides, apart from publishing the names of those informants having nothing to do with freedom of speech, all freedoms come with limitations. There is no such thing as absolute freedom.

[Fragony]

So, you're arguing that the state should be given the power to censor the web because some judges are corrupt? That's rediculous!
Here is some more info in Dutch: https://www.bof.nl/2010/07/28/wetsvoorstel-om-krijgt-aanuit-knop-voor-websites/

Nope I'm arguing that you are getting exactly what you wanted, can't cherry-pick here. Government is repression, always.

[HoreTore]

nice rhetoric, sounds a bit empty to me when i think of johnny taliban paying a midnight visit to someone listed in those files.

If NATO had been completely open about their operations, then there would be no need for documents like this.

But because they try to cover it up when they screw up and don't give the full, unbiased story when civilians are killed, for example, actions like this is needed. NATO is to blame if any of their informants are whacked because of this. "National security" is nothing but a codeword for "military or political screw-up". It has been corrupted to a degree where there is very little of what is classified that is actually a threat to anything but the careers of military and political officials. Screw 'em.

In order for us to do our democratic duty, we need to know all the facts about what our armed forces are doing. Since they are unwilling to divulge such information themselves, it is fortunate that organizations like Wikileaks exists.

@Andres: Funny, I seem to remember a few embassy's going up in smoke.... But nah, I agree, terrorists have never killed anyone!

Neither Wikileaks nor Jyllandsposten killed anyone, but people may die because of their actions. I still believe that both had the right to do what they did, however. Free speech is free speech, I want no restrictions on it at all.

[Andres]

@Andres: Funny, I seem to remember a few embassy's going up in smoke.... But nah, I agree, terrorists have never killed anyone!

Neither Wikileaks nor Jyllandsposten killed anyone, but people may die because of their actions. I still believe that both had the right to do what they did, however. Free speech is free speech, I want no restrictions on it at all.

What nonsense. Clearly you can see the difference between publishing a drawing and publishing the names of persons who risked their lives and are still in a war zone risking their lives and who will now probably be killed, for the glory of some attention whore news publisher.

The stuff Wikileaks has published will directly lead to the deaths of the people mentioned in it.

The cartoons was something completely different. Some religious nutjobs reacting in the most ridiculous way on some drawings that were meant as provocation.

Comparing those two is as ridiculous as it gets.

Don't get me wrong, though, I do agree that we have the right to know the truth about what's going on in Afghanistan; but we could have been informed about the truth without risking the lives of those people. It was not necessary to bring those people in danger. If those names would have been replaced by "X", we would still have known what we needed to know.

[Skullheadhq]

Is it ok to publish an article about your masturbation habits with your real name mentioned in it? I'm sure you wouldn't mind, freedom of speech being absolute and all that...
This is an interesting point. Of course, I wouldn't like it, but should it be banned and you locked up for publishing it? Of course not!
That being said, no-one is really interested in these kinds of 'reports'.


Nope I'm arguing that you are getting exactly what you wanted, can't cherry-pick here. Government is repression, always.
I can't remember advocating internet censorship or me creating the government, can you?

[HoreTore]

It was not necessary to bring those people in danger. If those names would have been replaced by "X", we would still have known what we needed to know.

Put your blame where it is due; if NATO had released these documents themselves they could've replace those names with an "x" easily, and their informants would remain hidden.

But why so protective of these 20-something informants? How many days of civilian casaulties is that, really?

EDIT: And let's not act like we have abandoned the asylum institution. What's problematic about bringing them here? If their lives are in danger, that's exactly the kind of situation our asylum laws are designed for.


Is it ok to publish an article about your masturbation habits with your real name mentioned in it? I'm sure you wouldn't mind, freedom of speech being absolute and all that...

If it is relevant to public life; no.

Free speech has nothing to do with things that are not relevant to the public discussion. So yeah, if I'm a PM and someone decides to publish my masturbation history; sure, go ahead. If I'm just me, a nobody from Norway, then no, it has no relevance to public discussion and as such it has nothing to do with free speech, but is instead banned by privacy laws.

[Andres]

This is an interesting point. Of course, I wouldn't like it, but should it be banned and you locked up for publishing it? Of course not!

But of course :rolleyes:

And you certainly wouldn't want me to face consequences for publishing your name and address in an article about how you had sex with the daugther of John the Titan, a 2 meter tall 250 kg lifting martial arts champion who just got released out of jail where he served a sentence for butchering and eating the last guy who had sex with his daughter.

:rolleyes:



I can't remember advocating internet censorship or me creating the government, can you?


You've got your quote tags wrong... Fragony posted that, not me.

[Andres]

Put your blame where it is due; if NATO had released these documents themselves they could've replace those names with an "x" easily, and their informants would remain hidden.

But why so protective of these 20-something informants? How many days of civilian casaulties is that, really?

Oh yes, and in the primitive days of July 2010 without computers and programs like Word, it was an impossible task for a humble and poor news publisher to replace those names with X himself.

[Fragony]

Put your blame where it is due; if NATO had released these documents themselves they could've replace those names with an "x" easily, and their informants would remain hidden.

With a probable certainty that someone in the region knows more about mr X, torture time!

Man Horetore, you don't have to like planet Earth for a realistic aproach on how it spins

[HoreTore]

Oh yes, and in the primitive days of July 2010 without computers and programs like Word, it was an impossible task for a humble and poor news publisher to replace those names with X himself.

When did it become Wikileaks responsibility to protect the lives of NATO troops and their allies?

[Andres]

Free speech has nothing to do with things that are not relevant to the public discussion.

That's my point exactly, HoreTore.

It wasn't necessary to publish those names to inform the public. They could have published it as evidence that we were being told lies, without mentioning those names. Because he didn't replace those names with X, these people are now unnecessarily in danger.

[Andres]

When did it become Wikileaks responsibility to protect the lives of NATO troops and their allies?

When did it become their duty to bring them at grave risk of being tortured and killed?

Their duty is to inform the public, not to bring named individuals in danger.

With freedom comes responsibility.

[HoreTore]

That's my point exactly, HoreTore.

It wasn't necessary to publish those names to inform the public. They could have published it as evidence that we were being told lies, without mentioning those names. Because he didn't replace those names with X, these people are now unnecessarily in danger.

Who we use as our informants in a war is something I see as highly relevant to public discussion. Kinda like who we are allied to is highly relevant information. I demand to know whether my potential PM sees Sweden as a friend or foe, and I demand to know just which drug-trafficking murderous warlords we ally ourselves with in Afghanistan.

What if one of them was named "Osama Bin Laden"? NATO would have some explaining to do...

[Skullheadhq]

But of course :rolleyes:

And you certainly wouldn't want me to face consequences for publishing your name and address in an article about how you had sex with the daugther of John the Titan, a 2 meter tall 250 kg lifting martial arts champion who just got released out of jail where he served a sentence for butchering and eating the last guy who had sex with his daughter.

:rolleyes:

I'm shocked and stunned by this amazing story!


It wasn't necessary to publish those names to inform the public. They could have published it as evidence that we were being told lies, without mentioning those names. Because he didn't replace those names with X, these people are now unnecessarily in danger.

And then the White House would say it's all edited and forged, show the X's as proof and that brings back Wikileaks credibility to 0.

[HoreTore]

When did it become their duty to bring them at grave risk of being tortured and killed?

Their duty is to inform the public, not to bring named individuals in danger.

With freedom comes responsibility.

The informants safety is NATO's responsibility.

The rest of us are under no obligation to give a crap.

[Vladimir]

When did it become Wikileaks responsibility to protect the lives of NATO troops and their allies?

The same time one assumes responsibility for other people's lives when driving a car. The same time when one assumes responsibility for a child. The same time your actions can lead to the deaths of others.

[HoreTore]

The same time one assumes responsibility for other people's lives when driving a car. The same time when one assumes responsibility for a child. The same time your actions can lead to the deaths of others.

So, it is NATO's responsibility after all; they took on that responsibility the moment they decided to invade.

Why is anyone bringing wikileaks into this then? Or did WikiLeaks make it with all the informants moms?

EDIT: And you actually don't assume responsibility for people in your car, except minors....

[Skullheadhq]

The rest of us are under no obligation to give a crap.

That's true, there is no European law protecting those innocent informers against the evil European taxpayers

[Fragony]

I'm shocked and stunned by this amazing story!

Rich kids are from a different planet, these people are now in mortal danger, what leftist rich kids think is just will never be more than a hobby. Why so egocentrical, as if this is just merely a difference of armchair-cosmopolitist opinion, these people are dead and so are their family.

[HoreTore]

these people are dead and so are their family.

Yes, because it's completely impossible to ship them over here...........

[seireikhaan]

What's the purpose of a site such as wikileaks? What's the origin of its function? My impression is that the function of "whistleblowing" derives from an ethical standard- the concept that accountability breeds more responsible behavior. To say they(and by extension other citizens) have a duty to keep governments and their respective military responsible is to imply an ethical standard. To publish, not just the names, but the families, of informants is exceedingly likely to lead to their deaths. Did these informants accept risk as a part of their job? Yes. Did the families accept this responsibility? Did their grandmother, or daughter, or son, or wife? I'm with Andres- there was no need to name names. At best, it was grossly negligent, and at worst, it was outright malicious. Given the comments to Dierspiegle, I'd venture to say the latter.


And then the White House would say it's all edited and forged, show it as proof and brings back Wikileaks credibility to 0.
They have lost their credibility, at least to me. Their job is one rooted in ethical conduct. And they gave a death sentence to innocent people.

[Skullheadhq]

Rich kids are from a different planet, these people are now in mortal danger, what leftist rich kids think is just will never be more than a hobby. Why so egocentrical, as if this is just merely a difference of armchair-cosmopolitist opinion, these people are dead and so are their family.

I was refering to 250 kilo John who eats humans, and I'm not a rich kid *sips his champaign*

[HoreTore]

What's the purpose of a site such as wikileaks? What's the origin of its function?

It was created to be a place where journalists and others living in dictatorships in east asia could publish their reports without risking their lives.


Did these informants accept risk as a part of their job? Yes. Did the families accept this responsibility? Did their grandmother, or daughter, or son, or wife?

So, NATO should stop using informants alltogether then? Informants are killed all the time, and so are their families, who never accepted that responsibility. So.... NATO is being irresponsible and unethical then? Well, wouldn't be the first time...

[Myrddraal]

Why so egocentrical, as if this is just merely a difference of armchair-cosmopolitist opinion, these people are dead and so are their family.

I agree. I'm stunned that some members here are so callous. You are condoning the deaths of people here, with a cheery grin and a 'I just dare you to contradict me' attitude. :no:

No freedom is limitless. Consider that philosophical point for more than five minutes and you'll realise that you're talking absolute :daisy: when you talk about absolute freedom.

[Fragony]

Yes, because it's completely impossible to ship them over here...........

I guess that makes sense in the sphere of moral superiority, thank you for taking the time whining for all our sins.

[Skullheadhq]

You are condoning the deaths of people here.

I don't, all those who kill people should be punished severely, you will never see me advocating or condoning murder or any other crime that hurts others. This goes for the Taliban and the NATO forces who, according to "the Death sentence", don't mind innocents dying at their hands.

And Fragony, you're constantly hammering about the safety of the informants, but when HoreTore mentions the possibility of shipping them over, you talk about 'our sins' as if you already left them there.

[HoreTore]

I agree. I'm stunned that some members here are so callous. You are condoning the deaths of people here, with a cheery grin and a 'I just dare you to contradict me' attitude. :no:

Civilians are killed or wounded by NATO forces all the time; that's okay, but I'm supposed to be all tear-up because 20-something informants are in danger of dying(unless they're already dead or they escape)? Puh-lease.

And might I note that people are also calling for the murder of the people working for WikiLeaks.... But that's okay too, right?


I guess that makes sense in the sphere of moral superiority, thank you for taking the time whining for all our sins.

People who work for one side in a conflict all know that it's very likely that they will have to flee at some point. Gawd, that's a basic fact of life, and something they must have considered when they chose to help NATO. As they still wanted to help NATO, it must mean that they would not object to relocating to another country.

[seireikhaan]

Civilians are killed or wounded by NATO forces all the time; that's okay, but I'm supposed to be all tear-up because 20-something informants are in danger of dying(unless they're already dead or they escape)? Puh-lease.

And might I note that people are also calling for the murder of the people working for WikiLeaks.... But that's okay too, right?
So informants and their families are killed all the time but I'm supposed to be all tear-up because some no name 20-something Afghani ventured to the wrong village?

Either you're soulless or a hypocrite who just came to the thread to vent and hate on teh evil west.

[HoreTore]

So informants and their families are killed all the time but I'm supposed to be all tear-up because some no name 20-something Afghani ventured to the wrong village?

When I said "20-something", I was referring to number, not age. Or in other words; you accept the death of 2000 but object to the death of 20.


Either you're soulless or a hypocrite who just came to the thread to vent and hate on teh evil west.

Hah!

doesn't this count as flame-baiting or something?

[Skullheadhq]

When I said "20-something", I was referring to number, not age. Or in other words; you accept the death of 2000 but object to the death of 20.
According to some 20 informants do outweight 2000 innocents including children and women, and if you disagree you're soulless.


doesn't this count as flame-baiting or something?

You're soulless and I'm a rich kid from another planet, we're such a good duo. We should form a team, you can be my sidekick.

[Myrddraal]

Civilians are killed or wounded by NATO forces all the time; that's okay, but I'm supposed to be all tear-up because 20-something informants are in danger of dying(unless they're already dead or they escape)? Puh-lease.

And might I note that people are also calling for the murder of the people working for WikiLeaks.... But that's okay too, right?

You're supposed to at least show some regret when anyone looses their life. It's not okay for civilians to be killed by NATO forces. It's not okay to murder WikiLeaks people. You know this, but you are being disgracefully callous with the lives of others.

[seireikhaan]

When I said "20-something", I was referring to number, not age. Or in other words; you accept the death of 2000 but object to the death of 20.
That's nice of you to sum up my views of afghanistan and its people for me


Hah!

doesn't this count as flame-baiting or something?
I'm not the one who's, at least, heavily implying that certain people's and their family's deaths would be less tragic than others.

[Andres]

Civilians are killed or wounded by NATO forces all the time; that's okay, but I'm supposed to be all tear-up because 20-something informants are in danger of dying(unless they're already dead or they escape)? Puh-lease.

Ok, so you don't give a damn about an additional 20 victims, not including their families. Fine.


And might I note that people are also calling for the murder of the people working for WikiLeaks.... But that's okay too, right?

Not me. I'm not calling for anyone's dead. But mister Wikileaks deserves a serious spanking.


People who work for one side in a conflict all know that it's very likely that they will have to flee at some point. Gawd, that's a basic fact of life, and something they must have considered when they chose to help NATO. As they still wanted to help NATO, it must mean that they would not object to relocating to another country.

Ehm, are you seriously thinking that the their enemies will now sit and wait for a couple of weeks to give these people and their families a fair chance to flee the country? For all we know, they're already dead as we speak.

[HoreTore]

Also; why is it a given that these people are going to die?

There are thousands and thousands of afghanis working for NATO, why are these people moved to the top of Talibans hit-list, above the governor who supports the troops, the truck driver bringing supplies, the police officer, et etc?

And why is it a given that the Taliban will actually succeed in killing these, as the governor, truck driver and police officer are all still alive?

[Fragony]

And Fragony, you're constantly hammering about the safety of the informants, but when HoreTore mentions the possibility of shipping them over, you talk about 'our sins' as if you already left them there.

Why do you assume they want to be here? Maybe they want to live where they do? Maybe they have a good reason to not like the fundi's? What are the odds of that, someone who doesn't want a flatscreen, call out the hounds a sheep is confused.

[Skullheadhq]

Also; why is it a given that these people are going to die?

There are thousands and thousands of afghanis working for NATO, why are these people moved to the top of Talibans hit-list, above the governor who supports the troops, the truck driver bringing supplies, the police officer, et etc?

And why is it a given that the Taliban will actually succeed in killing these, as the governor, truck driver and police officer are all still alive?

The White House said it, it must be true, they never lied! Not even that time in Iraq, after all they did find WMDs and Saddam worked with Osama, it is proven!



Why do you assume they want to be here?

Because their life is in danger, you said it yourself!

[Andres]

Because their life is in danger, you said it yourself!

Thnx to your glorious absolute freedom of speech, they are now very much in danger indeed.

Not that publishing the names of these people has anything to do with freedom of speech, but let's not start nitpicking...

[Skullheadhq]

Thnx to your glorious absolute freedom of speech, they are now very much in danger indeed.

I should have posted it in brackets, but go ahead, limit freedom. But any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

[Furunculus]

If NATO had been completely open about their operations, then there would be no need for documents like this.

But because they try to cover it up when they screw up and don't give the full, unbiased story when civilians are killed, for example, actions like this is needed. NATO is to blame if any of their informants are whacked because of this. "National security" is nothing but a codeword for "military or political screw-up". It has been corrupted to a degree where there is very little of what is classified that is actually a threat to anything but the careers of military and political officials. Screw 'em.

In order for us to do our democratic duty, we need to know all the facts about what our armed forces are doing. Since they are unwilling to divulge such information themselves, it is fortunate that organizations like Wikileaks exists.

@Andres: Funny, I seem to remember a few embassy's going up in smoke.... But nah, I agree, terrorists have never killed anyone!

Neither Wikileaks nor Jyllandsposten killed anyone, but people may die because of their actions. I still believe that both had the right to do what they did, however. Free speech is free speech, I want no restrictions on it at all.
disagreed, by failing to redact the names and identifying information of these informants wikileaks assumed the duty of care for them......... and the consequent liability.

[Skullheadhq]

I just read that Julian Assange (Wikileaks 'leader') is in hiding since the 'Collateral Murder' video, America the land of the free my ***.


Wikileaks founder in hiding, fearful of arrest
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has gone into hiding, fearful of arrest by U.S. authorities, an Icelandic parliamentarian confirmed Friday.

“He’s just been following events in the U.S., and State Department press conferences and so forth, and they have been trying to get hold of him," Birgitta Jonsdottir, a close supporter of Assange in the Icelandic Parliament, said. “And obviously Julian Assange does not necessarily want to have a chapter written about any leaks.”

Authorities are interested in locating Assange following reports that an Army intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, recently transferred a huge volume of classified files to Wikileaks. Manning is now in military custody.

Meanwhile, Assange's whereabouts are “a mystery,” Jonsdottir told ABC World News for a segment to be broadcast Friday night, “but we’re in touch every day.”

Asked whether the Wikileaks founder was fearful of arrest, Jonsdottir said, “Yes, very much so.”

Jonsdottir also added to widespread speculation in recent days that Wikileaks was about to release a new video, this once showing an alleged “massacre” of Afghan civilians in a U.S. airstrike.

She called it “worse than the Iraqi one,” referencing the video Wikileaks previously released showing a U.S. helicopter attack on Iraqi citizens that caused an international uproar.

“Hopefully” it will be released “very soon,” Jonsdottir said. “But for security reasons we choose not to give the exact time when we expect to publish it.”

“We’ll see what happens,” she said, “but something’s coming soon.”

In a recent e-mail to supporters, Assange said “the Garani massacre, which we are still working on, killed over 100 people, mostly children.”

Jonsdottir said the Icelandic Parliament last night “unanimously” passed legislation that would create an “international safe haven” for national security whistleblowers.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/06/new_wikileaks_massacre_video_i.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7845420/Wikileaks-founder-Julian-Assange-emerges-from-hiding.html

[seireikhaan]

Also; why is it a given that these people are going to die?

There are thousands and thousands of afghanis working for NATO, why are these people moved to the top of Talibans hit-list, above the governor who supports the troops, the truck driver bringing supplies, the police officer, et etc?

And why is it a given that the Taliban will actually succeed in killing these, as the governor, truck driver and police officer are all still alive?
Because these informants are, in many cases, regular afghans who don't like the taliban, or taliban defectors. One example (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html).

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.
Informants are either regular folks or turncoats. They live in small villages, big towns, all sorts of places. They don't live in the military camp, or behind the security guards. They live out, in the open. That's how being an informant works. The point is to blend in, be the last person you'd expect to be working for NATO.NATO doesn't send Johnny American as a spy against the Taliban- that'd just succeed in getting him shot on sight.

So, if you really do care about the lives of Afghans, you'd be quite concerned about this report. IMO.

[Fragony]

I should have posted it in brackets, but go ahead, limit freedom. But any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Freedom of speech is simply protection from the government, so there is none of it here as the Amsterdam court decided to prosecute Wilders (and Nekschot). They will have to answer for it but not now.

[Skullheadhq]

Freedom of speech is simply protection from the government, so there is none of it here as the Amsterdam court decided to prosecute Wilders (and Nekschot). They will have to answer for it but not now.

Wilders shouldn't be prosecuted as well, discrimination is not an exception to freedom of speech and Article 1 should be removed, I only don't agree with the substitute Wilders has, that the Judeo-Christian culture is dominant. That is almost as abstract and worthless as the current.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What's the purpose of a site such as wikileaks? What's the origin of its function? My impression is that the function of "whistleblowing" derives from an ethical standard- the concept that accountability breeds more responsible behavior. To say they(and by extension other citizens) have a duty to keep governments and their respective military responsible is to imply an ethical standard. To publish, not just the names, but the families, of informants is exceedingly likely to lead to their deaths. Did these informants accept risk as a part of their job? Yes. Did the families accept this responsibility? Did their grandmother, or daughter, or son, or wife? I'm with Andres- there was no need to name names. At best, it was grossly negligent, and at worst, it was outright malicious. Given the comments to Dierspiegle, I'd venture to say the latter.


They have lost their credibility, at least to me. Their job is one rooted in ethical conduct. And they gave a death sentence to innocent people.

We need a wiki-leaks for wiki-leaks. They oughtta release their files--at least their informants will just be arrested :beam:

[miotas]

How did he get the information in the first place? If the military has lax security and lets out sensitive information, aren't they just as much to blame? This Julian bloke is just a journalist who got hold of a good story.

[Vladimir]

How did he get the information in the first place? If the military has lax security and lets out sensitive information, aren't they just as much to blame? This Julian bloke is just a journalist who got hold of a good story.

The military is as much to blame as is the law enforcement agency that has someone killed under its jurisdiction.

Think it through.

[Fragony]

Wilders shouldn't be prosecuted as well, discrimination is not an exception to freedom of speech and Article 1 should be removed, I only don't agree with the substitute Wilders has, that the Judeo-Christian culture is dominant. That is almost as abstract and worthless as the current.

It doesn't really matter what you think, enough playtime pappa is very tired.

[Skullheadhq]

The military is as much to blame as is the law enforcement agency that has someone killed under its jurisdiction.

Think it through.

That's bull**** and you know it, it is the same as the military having a crappy security system and your employees leak classified info to an Australian journalist who is almost placed on par with the Taliban in the backroom.



It doesn't really matter what you think, enough playtime pappa is very tired.

What is the Judeo-Christian culture? But keep believing in the trash your blond prophet throws around, you almost use as much ad-hominems as your blond prophet, I guess he's proud now.
Even Glenn Beck (!!!) calls him a fascist, when that happens you're truely a Mussolini, not a good sign for him.

[Andres]

How did he get the information in the first place? If the military has lax security and lets out sensitive information, aren't they just as much to blame? This Julian bloke is just a journalist who got hold of a good story.

Even journalists should take some responsibility, like blotting out names before publishing them so that people and their families don't get killed.

Of course, the military has a leak and that's not good. Of course, a journalist has every right to take advantage of it to publish a good story and to bring out "the truth". But he has to do so with responsibility. That is all. His neglect (or did he do it on purpose? It's not that hard to replace a name with X. And it doesn't take more than 2 brain cells to realise that publishing those names might bring those people in danger.) brings the lives of people in danger.

And he doesn't even say "sorry". Au contraire...

:thumbsdown:

[miotas]

The military is as much to blame as is the law enforcement agency that has someone killed under its jurisdiction.

Think it through.

The informant situation is probably more like if the police have an informant :wink: but they let it get out and the informant is killed. Who's to blame?


Even journalists should take some responsibility, like blotting out names before publishing them so that people and their families don't get killed.

Of course, the military has a leak and that's not good. Of course, a journalist has every right to take advantage of it to publish a good story and to bring out "the truth". But he has to do so with responsibility. That is all. His neglect (or did he do it on purpose? It's not that hard to replace a name with X. And it doesn't take more than 2 brain cells to realise that publishing those names might bring those people in danger.) brings the lives of people in danger.

And he doesn't even say "sorry". Au contraire...

:thumbsdown:

:shrug: Just passing the buck, if anyone is to blame I say it is the original source, not the end result. The government is pissed and they want a scapegoat.

[Skullheadhq]

The informant situation is probably more like if the police have an informant :wink: but they let it get out and the informant is killed. Who's to blame?

Wikileaks of course!

[Andres]

The informant situation is probably more like if the police have an informant :wink: but they let it get out and the informant is killed. Who's to blame?

Your analogy doesn't work. It would be better if you said "a police officer told the story to a journalist. The journalist then published a very juicy story, but he forgot to leave out the name of the informant, who is now dead."

Who's to blame? The police officer leaking the information? Yes, he carries part of the blame. But is the journalist innocent? He could have published his juicy story without publishing the name of the informant who is now dead. Don't you agree that he carries at least part of the blame?

Surely, it's not too difficult to understand where exactly wikileaks made a mistake?

[Skullheadhq]

Surely, it's not too difficult to understand where exactly wikileaks made a mistake?

The part where they didn't went through 91000(!) pages to blot out all the name while not releasing 15000 (!) where there are more names.
The documents are benificial for society who was served lies and propaganda about the Afghanistan War since 2001, a few more days and the Netherlands is out of the ****hole that is Afghanistan. This sheds a whole new light to our national political debate where we can debate about the facts instead of about the lies from Washington. Luckily that Dutch Labour part let the cabinet fall for this massacre that is Afganistan, and now we finally know it was justified.

[Andres]

:shrug: Just passing the buck, if anyone is to blame I say it is the original source, not the end result. The government is pissed and they want a scapegoat.

Fair enough.

Both are to blame.

[Andres]

The part where they didn't went through 91000(!) pages to blot out all the name while not releasing 15000 (!) where there are more names.

How did they know what was in those documents if they didn't read it themselves first?

~:confused:

Aren't journalists supposed to read the information they gather before publishing it, let alone writing conclusions based on the information they gathered?

EDIT: so, if I would give wikileaks a list of my groceries and tell them it's evidence that there have never been men on the moon, they would publish a big conspiracy story with my grocery list in attachement as "evidence"?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The documents are benificial for society who was served lies and propaganda about the Afghanistan War since 2001, a few more days and the Netherlands is out of the ****hole that is Afghanistan. This sheds a whole new light to our national political debate where we can debate about the facts instead of about the lies from Washington.

What did you learn from the documents that wasn't available elsewhere? How many have you read so far?

[Skullheadhq]

What did you learn from the documents that wasn't available elsewhere? How many have you read so far?

That Dutch soldiers shot down 12 civilians and killed 4, that's what has been found so far. Don't forget that they are there for an 'Opbouwmissie (Constuctionmission)' for aid to the country, we're not at war, and this debunks this.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That Dutch soldiers shot down 12 civilians and killed 4, that's what has been found so far. Don't forget that they are there for an 'Opbouwmissie (Constuctionmission)' for aid to the country, we're not at war, and this debunks this.

from a quick check of wiki:


Since NATO-ISAF took over command of the south on 31 July 2006, British, Dutch, Canadian and Danish ISAF soldiers in the provinces of Helmand, Uruzgan and Kandahar have come under almost daily attack. British commanders say the fighting for them is the fiercest since the Korean War, fifty years ago. BBC reporter Alistair Leithead, embedded with the British forces, called it in an article "Deployed to Afghanistan's hell"[20]

Because of the security situation in the south, NATO-ISAF commanders have asked member countries to send more troops. On 19 October, for example, the Dutch government decided to send more troops, because of the many attacks by suspected Taliban on their Task Force Uruzgan, which makes it very difficult to complete the reconstruction work they came to accomplish.

...

Dutch ISAF forces have, for example, used military force to protect eradication units that came under attack.


During June 2007 a Taliban offensive and a Dutch counterattack proved to be the heaviest fighting in Uruzgan province since ISAF extended its Area of Responsibility to the south of Afghanistan. A large part of Task Force Uruzgan's battlegroup took part in the Battle of Chora.


So, what did you learn from the documents that wasn't available elsewhere? How many have you read so far?

[Skullheadhq]

It was common knowledge it wasn't a reconstruction mission but a military intervention, only the politicians desperatly clinged on that they were constructing, doing good! The fact that they murdered 4 civilians will only increase political opposition so next sunday we'll be out, permanently.

The Dutch army (Landmacht and KNIL) has a huge track record of killing civilians, only this time they couldn't outsource it to the Serbs.

[Andres]

That Dutch soldiers shot down 12 civilians and killed 4, that's what has been found so far. Don't forget that they are there for an 'Opbouwmissie (Constuctionmission)' for aid to the country, we're not at war, and this debunks this.


a) To inform the Dutch people about that event, was it necessary to publish the names of the Afghan informants and bring their lives in danger?

b) my previous question: did wikileaks read their own information before publishing it or not?

- if the answer is yes, then they brought the lives of those people in danger on purpose. Nobody in his sane mind believes they "forgot" to blot those names out before publishing or that they "were not aware of the possible danger" this could cause for the individuals involved;

- if the answer is no, then wikileaks' credibility is worth zero. No journalist worthy of the name journalist publishes stuff he hasn't checked and doublechecked for himself first.

[Skullheadhq]

a) To inform the Dutch people about that event, was it necessary to publish the names of the Afghan informants and bring their lives in danger?

No



b) my previous question: did wikileaks read their own information before publishing it or not?

Partially, and no-one in any government has claimed that the info or the reports are false, so what value you give to their credibility doesn't matter, not even the governments doubt it , and it is their info.

[Jolt]

I am scoping out wikileaks. I absolutely love it, and have learned a ton of things which will be immensely valuable for my personal and professional life.

Such as reading the US Special Forces Advisor Guide, especifically on negotiations Modus Operandi. They break down to cultural groups and on how each cultural group reacts throughout the negotiations, and strategies to cope with such.

Wikileaks will probably be my summer school.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Horetore:

You ask what responsibility wikileaks bears in this, what NATO bears, etc.


Clearly, whatever system NATO had in place to protect these materials was insufficient. Obviously security over like materials needs to be made more effective. It is also a good idea to punish the leaker(s) involved so as to generate whatever deterrent effect may thereby be obtained.

Wikileaks is engaged in a journalist enterprise -- whistleblowing/forcing truth from the powers that be. This is a time-honored role for the 4th estate and a hallmark of free speech. However, professional ethicists in journalism have consistently held that journalists should make every effort to protect their sources and wherever possible to protect the "innocents" in their stories. In short, hammering the decision-makers for bad policies or malfeasance is okay, but you protect your sources and blot out the names of those who aren't the legitimate decision-maker targets involved.

The only valid reason for leaving the names in, under that professional rubric, would be if wikileaks actively wished to support the defeat of NATO's efforts in Afghanistan by providing information that would lead to the removal of local "assets" by the opposition and engender a chilling effect on the development of other HUMINT sources.

So which do you think it was, sloppy journalism or active support for the enemy?

[Jolt]

So which do you think it was, sloppy journalism or active support for the enemy?

I think they are on a "All the truth and nothing but the truth, everything revealed. Nothing hidden away."

It has its advantages and disadvantages.

EDIT: Like Buddha said "Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."

[Crazed Rabbit]

This isn't freedom of speech. That's being able to say whatever you want.

Stealing thousands of secret documents relating to national security is not free speech.

This doesn't have anything to do with exposing a coverup; it's clear the prime aim is to simply reveal all the secrets of the US.

The complete lack of compassion some on the left have is on spectacular display here. Oh, they'll claim to be horrified by human deaths caused by the US. But the people who die because a man wants to stick it to the US and reveal national security secrets? They're not worth caring about.

CR

[Vladimir]

Oh Seamus,

He knows and likely just relishes in the attention. Don't try to reason with someone on either an emotional or unnatural high.

[drone]

[crowded theatre]


FIRE!

[/crowded theatre]

[HoreTore]

Thnx to your glorious absolute freedom of speech, they are now very much in danger indeed.

Not that publishing the names of these people has anything to do with freedom of speech, but let's not start nitpicking...

If the Taliban was the kind of superduper swat team you're proposing they are, they would've won the war years ago.

But no. 99.99% of all those who cooperate with the enemy(NATO) doesn't get killed. And see absolutely NO reason why on earth these particular collaborators should die, when the thousands of others do not.


Informants are either regular folks or turncoats. They live in small villages, big towns, all sorts of places. They don't live in the military camp, or behind the security guards. They live out, in the open. That's how being an informant works. The point is to blend in, be the last person you'd expect to be working for NATO.NATO doesn't send Johnny American as a spy against the Taliban- that'd just succeed in getting him shot on sight.

.....In other words, these informants are exactly the same as the thousands of truck drivers supplying NATO whom the Taliban has said a billion times that they will kill. The Taliban knows exactly who they are, and yet they still live; I wonder why?

[Skullheadhq]

active support for the enemy?

This is very interesting, what would happen if Wikileaks released it to weaken the position of the NATO is Afghanistan, what would happen?

[HoreTore]

This is very interesting, what would happen if Wikileaks released it to weaken the position of the NATO is Afghanistan, what would happen?

Are we not allowed to vote for the withdrawal of all our troops from Afghanistan too? I believe it is well within our democratic rights to weaken NATO's position. Patriotism is fortunately not mandatory.

BTW, this (http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/event/2007/05/AFG20070516n706.html) is the kind of stuff I for one find very interesting... And since the US government won't play with an open hand, I love WikiLeaks.

[Skullheadhq]

Are we not allowed to vote for the withdrawal of all our troops from Afghanistan too? I believe it is well within our democratic rights to weaken NATO's position. Patriotism is fortunately not mandatory.

I know, but America wouldn't be too happy about it.

[HoreTore]

I know, but America wouldn't be too happy about it.

Luckily, there are plenty of anti-war demonstrations in the US.

[Fragony]

I know, but America wouldn't be too happy about it.

Wut we just did it, not that I agree but Uruzgan was just handed over to the yanks/ozzies.

[Skullheadhq]

Wut we just did it, not that I agree but Uruzgan was just handed over to the yanks/ozzies.

Party Time! What had the Netherlands to win with going to the 'Graveyard of Empires' to begin with except to please our American overlords anyway?

[Beskar]

In this spirit of openness. I believe HoreTore should post his name, date of birth, his account number, bank sorting code, the number on the card, the name on the card, his address, and the last 3 digits of the cards security number.

Afterall, if you don't, you must be hiding something, like your funding of terrorist groups, and your subscription to "Maths is Sexy".

Freedom of Information, there is surely no negative consequences of you posting this information.

[Skullheadhq]

In this spirit of openness. I believe HoreTore should post his name, date of birth, his account number, bank sorting code, the number on the card, the name on the card, his address, and the last 3 digits of the cards security number.

Afterall, if you don't, you must be hiding something, like your funding of terrorist groups, and your subscription to "Maths is Sexy".

Freedom of Information, there is surely no negative consequences of you posting this information.

This is so terribly on the person.

[Brenus]

Is this information true? Because from “nothing new on these documents we didn’t know yet” it became “oh, the horrible traitor gave secret intelligence to the enemies” thing.

The one I read was just a Operational Report on a successful ambush by the Taliban against a Franco-US-Afghan operation, where the French being spare head suffered heavy casualties… Nothing really special…

Now, I watch numerous documentaries on Afghanistan and the faces of the Allies interlocutors are shown without any problems (not the translators) or the ones of the Afghan Army.
Doctors treating elderly, women, children, all of them are shown…

So, what make the eventual link of names different?

[Vladimir]

So, what make the eventual link of names different?

How about names, name of the father, village they live in...?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is this information true? Because from “nothing new on these documents we didn’t know yet” it became “oh, the horrible traitor gave secret intelligence to the enemies” thing.

The one I read was just a Operational Report on a successful ambush by the Taliban against a Franco-US-Afghan operation, where the French being spare head suffered heavy casualties… Nothing really special…

Now, I watch numerous documentaries on Afghanistan and the faces of the Allies interlocutors are shown without any problems (not the translators) or the ones of the Afghan Army.
Doctors treating elderly, women, children, all of them are shown…

So, what make the eventual link of names different?

Most of the documents will probably be boring after action report stuff. Even with tens of thousands of released documents, the number of names/identifying characteristics divulged will be relatively small.

Horetore:

You'll note that my critique never said they didn't have a right to publish or a right to critique the policy. Both are fundamental to freedom of speech and the role of the 4th estate as a watchdog.

My critique said that 1) NATO has to do a better job of protecting such information, and 2) that I believe wikileaks failed to properly excise the names/characteristics of locals involved with NATO. The latter constitutes, in my mind, either very sloppy journalism (most likely answer here) or an active effort to support the enemy.

The press may well have a duty to oppose policies it believes are against the best interests of its readership or of humanity in general, and to be both active and vociferous in its efforts to expose "cover-ups" and present its viewers with the truth. It does NOT have the duty to aid and abet the enemy at whom the policy is aimed in order to combat that policy. All of our societies have accepted means of peacefully persuading our politicos to do something different -- including the influence of a free press on public opinion. THAT is the appropriate venue for wikileaks efforts.

You, to all appearances, oppose the conflict in Afghanistan. You are free to lobby your government by any legal means to withdraw Norwegian participation in the NATO effort there. If you feel strongly about the issue, it may well be your moral DUTY to do so. Were you to send money to support Taliban fighters in their struggle against NATO forces, you would have gone beyond the pale and acted criminally.

[Brenus]

“How about names, name of the father, village they live in...?”
I haven’t all the documents but I understood it was SITREP, Report on Situation.
So, I can’t imagine somebody giving this kind on info on this kind of communication.

I don’t think it is wise to give this kind of information (if they were published) but the newspapers have to do their jobs. As far I understood, the raw documents were sold to 3 main newspapers, so it is up to the journalists to publish and to do what they want to do.

In another hand, I doubt the Taliban being so powerful than they can retaliate with so much efficiency. If they are, it is time to bring the boys back home, man.

[Centurion1]

Some of you make me sick

[Major Robert Dump]

I doubt the Taliban have access to the Internet, luckily.

You are kidding, right?

[Major Robert Dump]

HORETORE:

They get their trucks RPGd on a daily basis, and frequently kidnapped.

Teachers who take a government paycheck are kidnapped and executed. Men on construction road crews are kidnapped and executed.

Anyone who is seen as "cooperating," which can also be actively unwilling to fight NATO or join the Taliban, is a target.

The Taliban doesn't kill more because many of these victims fight back, and because NATO limits their freedom of movement.

[Fragony]

Not to mention the hanging of a 5 year old spy. What planet are some of you from and how did you get here. I keep underestimating the lack of empathy of the left why that gleeful delight, love humanity hate the people huh.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I doubt the Taliban have access to the Internet, luckily.My usual comment applies: the world has changed.


We are not talking about people with a kalashnikov and a mule or a camel anymore. The entire world has got a mobile phone and a laptop. Do you know there are more mobile phone subscriptions in Africa than there are people in Europe? Africans are not starving people with flies on their faces. They busy themselves text messaging each other over Didier Drogba's shot that went just wide. We passed the five billion mobile phone subscriptions mark earlier this month.

There are a million Islamist websites, in any language you like. One can even buy a ringtone of your favourite Islamist group.

If only I had a time machine to 1967, I would make a futuristic movie entitled '2010' that would blow the audience away! What a world, what times we live in!


Direct Taliban websites are under constant attack, so most of them are dowm most of the time. Try here: http://milnewsca.wordpress.com/tag/www-alemarah-info/.

[PanzerJaeger]

So, what did you learn from the documents that wasn't available elsewhere? How many have you read so far?

Indeed, it is quite amazing to me just how transparent NATO has been, considering this is a war and all. Out of more than 90,000 reports, there is precious little information to be found that wasn't already available. Of course, to some here who are predisposed to anti-American and/or anti-military sentiments, it will never be enough.



HORETORE:

They get their trucks RPGd on a daily basis, and frequently kidnapped.

Teachers who take a government paycheck are kidnapped and executed. Men on construction road crews are kidnapped and executed.

Anyone who is seen as "cooperating," which can also be actively unwilling to fight NATO or join the Taliban, is a target.

The Taliban doesn't kill more because many of these victims fight back, and because NATO limits their freedom of movement.

God help those poor people when we pack it in next year. :shame:

[Louis VI the Fat]

God help those poor people when we pack it in next year. :shame:Indeed. The Taliban have announced their new policy is to kill all informants.


One of the Taleban's favourite website seems to be a specialised American War blog, where both sides get a lot of their information from: http://www.longwarjournal.org/


When the Pakistani Taliban claimed credit for the failed Times Square bombing, they did it via an American terrorism blog. John Avlon talks to the guy who both the U.S. military and the terrorists get their news from.

The scoop came straight from the Taliban to a house in southern New Jersey at 2 a.m., where Bill Roggio—the founder of LongWarJournal.org—was sleeping with his wife and three children.

The subject header read: “Qari Hussain Mehsud from Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan accepts the responsibility of recent Attack on Times Square Newyork USA.”
Hours later, a second email was sent from a Gmail account—the text was oddly cordial, even complimentary, in its clipped English introduction to the chilling video clips attached:
“hi
you’re again the first one to see it
share it with as many as you can
I appreciate your site, only few things are confusing to you, rest is clear”

And so Roggio received the first claim of credit for the attempted Times Square bombing, which had been foiled less than four hours before.

“I just was sort of blown away,” Roggio told me two days later. “It was surreal and shocking… like, ‘Why the hell are they contacting me?’ I was just very confused, and almost concerned that it was fake.” But a quick check of sources confirmed the email was authentic. Roggio linked to the video on YouTube early Sunday morning, affirming the Pakistani Taliban’s role in at least training the would-be bomber in the attack and establishing that Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud was not dead, as previously reported. While journalists and agents scrambled for information in the hours after the bomb-laden Nissan Pathfinder was found smoking in Times Square, the donation-supported Long War Journal had scooped mainstream news—and even gotten ahead of the U.S. government—because of its Taliban fans.

The radically anti-modern Taliban, it seems, follow their own exploits on Western websites that chronicle the U.S. military’s fight against radical Islam like B-movie actresses scour the gossip page.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-06/the-talibans-favorite-website/

[Fragony]

Sometimes you just know you live in a Monthy Pyton sketch

[Brenus]

“They get their trucks RPGd on a daily basis, and frequently kidnapped.
Teachers who take a government paycheck are kidnapped and executed. Men on construction road crews are kidnapped and executed.
Anyone who is seen as "cooperating," which can also be actively unwilling to fight NATO or join the Taliban, is a target.”
So, the Taliban don’t need a list of names. They just watch who do what then kill.

In short, the out rage against Wikileaks seems really build to me. As Major Robert Dump mentioned Taliban don't need Wikileaks to do their killing.

“Out of more than 90,000 reports, there is precious little information to be found that wasn't already available”
I think it good material for future historians.
In term of military intelligence, to know the time of incoming shelves from artillery support or helicopters won’t help the Taliban much as it change each time and they are able to do the count by themselves.

I don’t like the idea of military documents leak to the public without proper time frame.
But the hysteria I see in some comments is out of proportion. Nothing I heard was new to me or others interested in the conflicts.
The implication of Pakistani Secret Service in the development then support of the Taliban is known from the 1980, and was never really questioned and you would be very naïve if you didn’t know the involvement of Special Forces even if only reading regular newspapers (e.g. 2 French KIA of last years were from the 13 Regiment de Dragons Parachutistes, specialised in Long Range Patrols and Deep Recon/Spying/killing (Chuteurs Operationels)).
And this was printed in local newspapers.

In short, as mentioned by Panzer who can’t be suspected of Anti-Americanism or Anti-Patriotism, nothing really damaging for the NATO forces…
So, until somebody come-up with proof that names of very vulnerable informants were leak out of the usual norms used by all (French, Canadian, US or English) documentaries I saw on TV, I will be sceptic of the reality of these leaks.

In my opinion, the documentaries of the Canadian Army Training before to go to Afghanistan was more damaging for NATO forces than 90.000 documents very boring to read.
Of course, Taliban al ready knew it, so it was not really something new…

So, as we say in French, some should dismount from the big horses and use their brain.
Basic training in history teaches to question who, when and why (backgrounds) documents or information are given to the Public.
I know for Wikileaks.
And I think I know for the contra-fire…

“God help those poor people when we pack it in next year”: Yeah. Like the poor former President Daoud, taken from the UN Embassy and hanged, in the World general Indifference

[HoreTore]

HORETORE:

They get their trucks RPGd on a daily basis, and frequently kidnapped.

Teachers who take a government paycheck are kidnapped and executed. Men on construction road crews are kidnapped and executed.

Anyone who is seen as "cooperating," which can also be actively unwilling to fight NATO or join the Taliban, is a target.

The Taliban doesn't kill more because many of these victims fight back, and because NATO limits their freedom of movement.

Yes, of course I bloody well know that. That kinda fits in with my point, you know.

They are now a target. 20 new targets among one million previous targets. I see no reason why they should get top priority on Talibans hit-list, and at any rate, if they are killed, then the Taliban will have to use resources to kill them that they will otherwise have used to kill a construction worker or something.

1-1


In short, the out rage against Wikileaks seems really build to me. As Major Robert Dump mentioned Taliban don't need Wikileaks to do their killing.

With two sentences in his first post, Brenus neatly sums up the point I've tried/failed to convey over dozens of post...

You do realize that I will have to kill you now, right?

[Fragony]

Flawed argument as getting to these guy's families is the best way to discourage others. Of course that means being exceptionally cruel.

[PanzerJaeger]

Indeed. The Taliban have announced their new policy is to kill all informants.


Yep. It was at the top of google news this morning.

Wikileaks Afghanistan: Taliban 'hunting down informants' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html)


The Taliban has issued a warning to Afghans whose names might appear on the leaked Afghanistan war logs as informers for the Nato-led coalition.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”

The warning came as the US military's top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen said that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, may already have blood on his hands following the leak of 92,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan by his website.

How can he sleep at night?

[Fragony]

Yep. It was at the top of google news this morning.

Wikileaks Afghanistan: Taliban 'hunting down informants' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html)

Of course they wiill, and they will make a point out of doing it. Can they outdo slowly burning someone? Hanging a 5 year old kid? An acid bath? Horetore also has a point though, a very very important one I guess.

[Beskar]

The Dutch army (Landmacht and KNIL) has a huge track record of killing civilians, only this time they couldn't outsource it to the Serbs.

Not entirely true. I know a Dutch soldier who was there, and he spoke of the horrors, and the gangs of civilians from rag-tag militia, fighting each other, and killing women and children. Even stories of orphans being rescued from the rag-tag militia, who would have raped and killed them, because they from on the 'otherside'.

It isn't a total war game where soldiers are clearly marked and "innocent civilians" are no where to be seen. War is a dirty business.

[Skullheadhq]

We should have send construction workers instead of soldiers, it's a construction mission after all, and guns don't build schools.

[Husar]

They are now a target. 20 new targets among one million previous targets. I see no reason why they should get top priority on Talibans hit-list, and at any rate, if they are killed, then the Taliban will have to use resources to kill them that they will otherwise have used to kill a construction worker or something.

Uhm, yes, like they will have to use a bullet and that will set them back a year financially.
Informant doesn't sound like random road worker to me though, it sounds like someone close to the Taliban who knows more than someone who puts tar onto the ground and tries to stay away from the Taliban.
And that would make them higher priority targets for the Taliban as these people might know about Taliban hideouts etc., quite unlike your common road worker.

[Ser Clegane]

We should have send construction workers instead of soldiers, it's a construction mission after all, and guns don't build schools.

Would you volunteer to go as a construction worker without the soldiers being there as well?

[Skullheadhq]

Would you volunteer to go as a construction worker without the soldiers being there as well?

Don't call it a construction mission then...

[Louis VI the Fat]

We should have send construction workers instead of soldiers, it's a construction mission after all, and guns don't build schools.The 'construction' does not mean erecting buildings. It means building a country. That is, to establish law and order, democracy, a civil society, peace, human rights, and the necessary infrastructure.

When trying to establish law and order, one does not send in lawyers. When trying to buil a civil society, one does not send random civilians. When trying to establish human rights, one does not send in rightwing voters.

And one does not send in construction workers for a construction mission.

[gaelic cowboy]

We should have send construction workers instead of soldiers, it's a construction mission after all, and guns don't build schools.



Actually what they should have done is nuke the place from the safety of the USA declared the war over on telly and everyone could get on with watching Big Brother

[Skullheadhq]

Actually what they should have done is nuke the place from the safety of the USA declared the war over on telly and everyone could get on with watching Big Brother

Modern Warfare ;)

[Ser Clegane]

Don't call it a construction mission then...

In addition to what Louis already pointed out - actual construction is being done.

[rory_20_uk]

The 'construction' does not mean erecting buildings. It means building a country. That is, to establish law and order, democracy, a civil society, peace, human rights, and the necessary infrastructure.

When trying to establish law and order, one does not send in lawyers. When trying to buil a civil society, one does not send random civilians. When trying to establish human rights, one does not send in rightwing voters.

And one does not send in construction workers for a construction mission.

True, but ocnstruction implies that there is a foundation to build on, for example Germany or Japan after WW2.

Afghanistan is a swamp. Build in a swamp and the structure sinks slowly beneath the surface without any evidence that it once was there.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

True, but ocnstruction implies that there is a foundation to build on, for example Germany or Japan after WW2.

Afghanistan is a swamp. Build in a swamp and the structure sinks slowly beneath the surface without any evidence that it once was there.

~:smoking:

German foundations : http://www.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1680&bih=843&q=german+bomb+damage&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Japanese foundations: http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1680&bih=843&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=japanese+bomb+damage&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

No. They pretty much started from scratch.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

True, but ocnstruction implies that there is a foundation to build on, for example Germany or Japan after WW2.

Afghanistan is a swamp. Build in a swamp and the structure sinks slowly beneath the surface without any evidence that it once was there.

~:smoking:

".....but the fourth castle."

-- M. Python

[Major Robert Dump]

No, but you have to have guns in order to get schools built. Ignorance, poverty and desolation is what the Taliban needs in order to project itself as a viable governing body. They fear nothing more than people, especially females, who can read, write and make their own decisions. The Taliban and HAqqani attacking workers has a lot less to do with them "working for infidels" than it does with trying to stop improvements in people's qaulity of life.

[rory_20_uk]

German foundations : http://www.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1680&bih=843&q=german+bomb+damage&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Japanese foundations: http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1680&bih=843&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=japanese+bomb+damage&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

No. They pretty much started from scratch.

It's got sod all to do with buildings, but the mentality of the people. In Japan and germany the people immediately worked like ants to rebuild their society. They all knew what they were aiming for and hence reconstruction was possible. Bpth had very similar aspirations to the Allies - the Japanese had modelled many aspects of their culture on the British for example (clearly not all). Aid and expertise was quickly welcomed and resistance was limited at best.

Afghanistan is a place based on Tribes and violence which we are trying to change almost every aspect of without even asking if they want it! The ones that do accept it in the same way anyone accepts vast sums of money which they can trim or employ members of their family - all they have to do is pay the Westerners lip service at the odd meal.

Killing informants might be morally wrong to us, but the locals would still rather be alive.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

No, but you have to have guns in order to get schools built. Ignorance, poverty and desolation is what the Taliban needs in order to project itself as a viable governing body. They fear nothing more than people, especially females, who can read, write and make their own decisions. The Taliban and HAqqani attacking workers has a lot less to do with them "working for infidels" than it does with trying to stop improvements in people's qaulity of life.

Yes the taliban might "fear" these readers and writers, and like all societies before them faced with this problem they'll round them up and kill them if need be. Probably after the first few the rest will get the message.

Own decisions? The village / clan leader makes the decisions. That's the way it always has been. Taliban or not this would continue.

~:smoking:

[Major Robert Dump]

The system of elders is already falling apart in more densely populated area. Elders often also own the water karezes and the property where the school, market, etc is. Build people wells and they don't need the elders any more.

In cities, little of what you said regarding clans applies.

Deferring decisions to clan leaders is almost wholly rejected by university students.

Can you not make your own decisions even though you have others representing you in city and state government? Believe me, there are plenty of elders who don't want female education, water wells that circumvent their water monopoly, or paved roads, as it will bust up their little frat party.


Afghanistan is a place based on Tribes and violence which we are trying to change almost every aspect of without even asking if they want it
While I agree that people take money and provide lip service for the sake of a golden egg, from my day to day (literally) dealings with people in Afghanistan, we don't have to ask because they are telling us and asking us. PRTs and ADTs don't just show up and build stuff. There is most certainly a "gotta get mine" attitude of getting while the getting is good. If it means more schools, more people who can run a proper farm and less kids dying from stupid hygiene snafus -- I could care less the means of getting there

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not defending the Afghani way of all power in the hands of a few, but that's the reality of it. Educated Afghans are more likely to leave the country than stay and fix it. Hell, so would I.

Cities are small and dispersed. The number of wars lost with a "hold the cities" approach is rather long. So would this one if not for constant support bolstering the area.

If the idea is the best result for the money, then don't start with Afghanistan. India has vast numbers requiring health and infrastructure that could be bolstered. The levels of waste in Afghanistan are far too high. I don't pay taxes to possibly sort of maybe help sort out a country 1/2 way round the globe when there are areas of London where kids carry knives routinely.

~:smoking:

[Ice]

Don't call it a construction mission then...

What? As it has been said, actual construction is being done. What's wrong with having security in such a dangerous part of the world?

By the way, give credit when you quote a founding father.

[Fragony]

What? As it has been said, actual construction is being done. What's wrong with having security in such a dangerous part of the world?

By the way, give credit when you quote a founding father.

National politics, we officialy don't do combat missions, Uruzgan obviously was one but they kept selling it otherwise so Skull does have a reason to complain.

[Brenus]

Taliban “hunting down informants”: And you all go for it…
Do you really think the war is lost? That the Taliban can do want they want to whom they want?
I give credit to the Taliban this: their PR is excellent. And thanks to people like some here, they spread the idea of their invincibility and their power even if they never de facto won a war.

“How can he sleep at night?” You can see how when you read: “may already have blood”…
Dramatisation is an art in Propaganda war.

As far I know these documents are not high secret, but the first level secret. So I doubt you would have the name of the 2nd in command of the 9th Taliban Military Zone who is in fact a Secret Agent informing NATO…

I read a second document concerning the French: The first document was showing a possibility of war crime at maximum and bloody blunder at minimum in French troops shooting in a bus full of children (The Guardian : "French convoy shoots 8 children on bus" 02/10/2008).
Thanks to Wikileak we now know it was 2 mini buses, which integrated themselves in the military convoy against all rules, ignored the visual signals from the Troops so the French soldiers shoot in the air then at the ground and a ricochet injured 1 child.

We learn that one helicopter was hot down by missile, missile apparently sent few years ago by the US during the Soviet War. Fact that our media didn’t mentioned but hardly a surprise for who follow the conflict and had even a little knowledge of the Russian War thanks to Osprey books.

“So, what did you learn from the documents that wasn't available elsewhere? How many have you read so far?”
That is the point. Operation Hard Wake UP conducted by the 13 RDP (French Special Forces Regiment) and Gendarmerie was publicised by the French Army itself (even the Special Forces are officially not in Afghanistan as the French are supposed only train the Local Army and Police…. Right…).

I am sorry but I see in these attacks only a massive artillery barrage (smoke and explosive) against Wikileak on alleged moral grounds (he gives the name of the future victims) but fortunately and hopefully baseless just an attempt to have the site close.
Now, these attitude and comments are playing in the Taliban hands.
It gives them nice tools to discourage any collaboration with the Allies Forces as we (Allies) will give the names and they will be killed.
Taliban commanders are seeing this with glee… I would if I would be one of them. Like in Vietnam, the defeat of my enemy will come when I will succeed to convince him he lost.
And comments like the ones I read here tell me they are not far to reach this level.

As noticed but Andres and previously point out, these documents were sold to 3 major media. Not available to every body. So the Taliban won’t be able to see the names if there are some…

[Vladimir]

I believe they're freely available on the Wikileaks website; if that's true than they're available to everyone. "Secret" is the second highest level of classification in the U.S. government. "A few years ago" is ~1989 at the latest; Stinger's don't have a shelf-life of 20 years.

That's just a quick scan of your post.

[Brenus]

"Stinger's don't have a shelf-life of 20 years" Yeap, probably why only one succeed by chance or luck depending your side.

"I believe they're freely available on the Wikileaks website" Not what I read on the news

[Don Corleone]

So I haven't followed this story all this closely, but I do have one serious question.

The WikiLeaks guy.... on the surface, he's claiming he's leaking all of this information because he expects intelligence and military organizations to practice full, unfettered disclosure any information, no matter how sensitive, at all times, and its his right to disclose when they choose not to.

If that's true, why isn't he posting any information on Taliban or Pakastani plans? When you leak secret information from only one side, it sort of makes you complacent with the other side, no?

Seriously... if the guy wants to "walk the walk" to his bu%!sh@^ story ehr, talk, he should publish some material the Taliban has tried to conceal and find damaging. Until he does, I think there's a strong case to be made that he's working for the Taliban.

And to really prove he's a man of his convictions, he should provide his local address & personal phone number on his website, let the rest of the world get some 'free speech' opportunities.

[Lemur]

"Secret" is the second highest level of classification in the U.S. government.
That's sort of true but sort of not as well. There are many, many classifications that are better protected than "classified" or "top secret." A lot of them are subject- or project-specific, and you need to be "read" into them.

As a broad category? Sure, "secret" is a step up from "confidential." But the "second highest level of classification"? Only from a very narrow, specific perspective.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue--and thoroughly immoral--doctrine that 'violence never solves anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The Ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more disputes in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.

- Robert Heinlein

PFC Manning, Mr. Assange, and those that published this information will have blood on their hands. They're pretty cavalier about putting U.S. soldiers and our allies at risk. Perhaps the various countries that host WikiLeaks' servers can provide these informers and their entire families with refugee status now that their lives are in jeopardy. :no:

[Skullheadhq]

will have blood on their hands.

And NATO has not? But it's okay, the NATO only kills evil terrorists that want to destroy our freedom (or what's left of it) and they kill innocent soldiers and that is sooo sad because they have done nothing wrong.

[Ice]

And NATO has not? But it's okay, the NATO only kills evil terrorists that want to destroy our freedom (or what's left of it) and they kill innocent soldiers and that is sooo sad because they have done nothing wrong.

Where did you come from? Between you and the blonde haired guy from Scandanavia, I've had my fill out outlandish comments for the month.

[Fragony]

And NATO has not? But it's okay, the NATO only kills evil terrorists that want to destroy our freedom (or what's left of it) and they kill innocent soldiers and that is sooo sad because they have done nothing wrong.

I am going to blame this on the one indoctrinating you

[Skullheadhq]

I am going to blame this on the one indoctrinating you

What's the difference between one innocent death and the other? That one killer wears a turban and one wears an uniform doesn't really matter for the family, now does it?

[Fragony]

What's the difference between one innocent death and the other? That one killer wears a turban and one wears an uniform doesn't really matter for the family, now does it?

You are asking me

[Myrddraal]

And NATO has not? But it's okay, the NATO only kills evil terrorists that want to destroy our freedom (or what's left of it) and they kill innocent soldiers and that is sooo sad because they have done nothing wrong.

This statement is childish on every level. Take a step back and look at the :daisy: you're posting.


What's the difference between one innocent death and the other? That one killer wears a turban and one wears an uniform doesn't really matter for the family, now does it?

Certainly not, and by the same standard, one innocent death does not justify another.

[Skullheadhq]

Certainly not, and by the same standard, one innocent death does not justify another.

kuch...9/11...kuch

[Myrddraal]

What? What are you trying to do, provoke me? You have no idea what my opinions are on 9/11, but I'll give you a hint, you're barking up the wrong tree, try something else. What on earth does 9/11 have to do with wikileaks? Are you saying that 9/11 justifies the release of informants details?

[Husar]

I think he's trying to say that the Afghanistan and Iraq war are justified by 9/11 so we justify the deaths of innocents in those wars by the deaths of innocents in 9/11.

I do however disagree since the deaths of innocents are not the point of the wars and are usually not justified by 9/11 but apologized for by the people causing them, noone goes there and says it's okay to kill a few innocents because of 9/11.

[Hax]

I think he's trying to say that the Afghanistan and Iraq war are justified by 9/11 so we justify the deaths of innocents in those wars by the deaths of innocents in 9/11.

I think he's being ironic (or trying to at least). How one would connect Iraq and 9/11 is something of a mystery to me.

[Skullheadhq]

How one would connect Iraq and 9/11 is something of a mystery to me.

But yet some stupids did, with devastating consequences.


President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming [...] We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found." [....] In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."


But anyway, back to topic.

[Centurion1]

And there's the requisite bush bash of the thread.

Carry on everybody.

[Jolt]

I think he's being ironic (or trying to at least). How one would connect Iraq and 9/11 is something of a mystery to me.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXDMIVYbJgs

[Furunculus]

ah look, there we go again.

anyone noticed how bush looks like hitler?

................ oops, Godwin alert! :dunce:

[Ice]

:focus:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Skully:

One of the regrettable truths of combat is that defeating an opponent often requires you to emulate some of the characteristics of that opponent. We are opposed by an enemy that specifically targets non-combatants in order to generate the highest possible number of casualties for the least use of resources. Setting aside the utter imorality/evil of the 9-11 attacks, it was brilliantly efficient. Resources were stolen from the target and used against that same target with much damage and loss of life resulting. Less than two dozen lives were lost by the attackers and surprisingly little was spent to fund the attack.

The US does not and will not specifically target non-combatants. Regrettably, quite a few of them get killed by the USA as a by-product of attacks on legitimate targets. In addition, some die as a result of mistaken targetting. Each of these lives is a tragic loss, and each tends to make a few enemies. Unfortunately, waging war without such "collateral damage" is virtually impossible.

So, if your argument boils down to "the USA is no better than Al Queda because they both kill the innocent," then I submit that your argument fails to address both the intentions of US violence and the efforts made to minimize the death of the innocent. Asserting a moral equivalence is not justified.

If your argument boils down to "all violence is bad, so just stop it." then I submit that your argument is naive. Violence should not be the first choice for resolving conflict, but if violence is used against you than a violent response is justified. In fact, if one side willingly employes violence and the other does not, the violent ones have a horrific advantage in the conflict.

If your argument is working on a deeper level, I was unable to discern it.

[rory_20_uk]

The USA on a governmental level might not specifically target civilians, but the grunts on the ground have shown on more than one occasion to take what could be charitably described as a "pragmatic" approach and gun down everyone who gets to close to be on the safe side.

The concept of minimising deaths is of course a relative thing. Propping up a regime and blowing up the enemies of the regime from afar is causing a lot more deaths than leaving the area well alone. Relying on drones and intel rather than eyeballing a target also increases the odds of killing civilians.

We speak of our returning heroes / corpses and their tragic loss, but what is this achieving exactly?

Ground is captured - guerillas never fight to keep ground
Troops are killed - never that many and the Taliban's best recruitment is the Christian Invaders killing women and children from Afar.
Leaders are killed - again, never that many to destroy the group which after all is an idea and it's difficult to kill ideas.

There's not the commitment to systemically root out the Taliban (the nigh on impossible task of dividing the country up with check points and clearing each part - with the fact that the Taliban don't wear uniforms and many Afghans have guns...) and the fact that after the Allies leave there's a good chance the governors will either join with or become warlords and use their police / military as their army.

It's one thing to back a power and help them win, another to create a power and expect it to survive after you leave.

~:smoking:

[Skullheadhq]

I saw some interviews on NOVA (Dutch news programme) where they interviewed a squadron that returned from Iraq years ago and they admitted killing civilians on purpose because they didn't see Iraqis as human anymore because their sergeant was killed.

[Myrddraal]

I'm a bit flummoxed. What has any of this got to do with the wikileaks revelations?

[Vladimir]

I'm a bit flummoxed. What has any of this got to do with the wikileaks revelations?

Everything I'm afraid. It appears to be at least one of the issues at the heart of the matter.

[Myrddraal]

Ok, because I'm failing to see it, could somebody make the link for me?

Do the civilian deaths in Afganistan somehow justify more civillian deaths?

[Vladimir]

Ok, because I'm failing to see it, could somebody make the link for me?

Do the civilian deaths in Afganistan somehow justify more civillian deaths?

No. But because of the many deaths caused by evil coalition forces it's OK if a few dirty rats die because one of our guys.





It's a sort of moral equivalence and one of the more disturbing aspects of human psychology.

[Myrddraal]

So you mean to say that those defending Wikileaks are entirely partisan supporters of the Taliban, and that because Afgan informers help the Coalition, they deserve to die? I find it hard to believe that we have supporters of the Taliban posting in this topic. Is that the only way in which discussions of 9/11 and civilian casualties are relevant to the topic?

[Andres]

Meh, I think people are bringing in all kind of irrelevant stuff into this topic, while the issue at hand is pretty simple.

a) military has a leak;
b) wikileaks guy gets information;
c) information is evidence that government(s)/NATO/whatever lied/misinformed/kept things secret;
d) information also contains names of people who will be in danger if their names are made public, publishing those names is not necessary to point out that the information is evidence of c);
e) wikileaks publishes evidence, but "forgets" to blot out names of people who will be in danger or did not read all the stuff they threw out in public themselves;

wikileaks has made a terrible mistake by publishing these names and there are no excuses for it. They could have published their evidence without bringing people in danger. Since it is crystal clear that wikileaks has no way to justify their stupidity, all kinds of irrelevant stuff is brought up.

That's the issue at hand. wikileaks screwed up and they have no excuses and nobody or nothing to hide behind.

The questions whether the war in Afhganistan is just or not, if Iraq was a mistake or not, if the Taleban are evil or not, if the US is evil or not, if anti-militarism is naive or not, if Bush looks more like Hitler than like Woody Woodpecker are attempts to divert attention away from the naked truth (oh, the irony) that wikileaks made an unforgivable mistake, are completely irrelevant and belong in seperate threads.

[rory_20_uk]

I view threads as having a life of their own and should be allowed to go off on tangents.

If wikileaks is trying to get rid of censoring that might be why they didn't censor the material. Perhaps they view unfettered information is more important than a few deaths.

~:smoking:

[Don Corleone]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'd again like to ask.... If Wikileaks is to be believed, that they abhor secrecy and that their leak of massive numbers of classified documents was not done to weaken the NATO position, but to lead to openness in government....

1) Where is any hint of divulgence of information the Taleban might find harmful?
2) Why did they attempt to protect the identity of their source?

It seems to me the height of hypocricy to use "unnamed sources" to attempt to get more openness and disclosure in anything...

[Vladimir]

So you mean to say that those defending Wikileaks are entirely partisan supporters of the Taliban, and that because Afgan informers help the Coalition, they deserve to die? I find it hard to believe that we have supporters of the Taliban posting in this topic. Is that the only way in which discussions of 9/11 and civilian casualties are relevant to the topic?

Good morning boys and girls. The word for today is:

Hyperbole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole)


At the risk of repeating myself, I'd again like to ask.... If Wikileaks is to be believed, that they abhor secrecy and that their leak of massive numbers of classified documents was not done to weaken the NATO position, but to lead to openness in government....

1) Where is any hint of divulgence of information the Taleban might find harmful?
2) Why did they attempt to protect the identity of their source?

It seems to me the height of hypocricy to use "unnamed sources" to attempt to get more openness and disclosure in anything...

Maybe truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies? I can see them making a similar argument.

[Myrddraal]

So you mean to say that those defending Wikileaks are entirely partisan supporters of the Taliban, and that because Afgan informers help the Coalition, they deserve to die? I find it hard to believe that we have supporters of the Taliban posting in this topic. Is that the only way in which discussions of 9/11 and civilian casualties are relevant to the topic?

Ok, so you mean that, but said less provocatively. :wink: I honestly don't see the link between civilian casualties and the revelation of informants names, unless you mean as some kind of justification, which is partisan.


That's the issue at hand. wikileaks screwed up and they have no excuses and nobody or nothing to hide behind.

The questions whether the war in Afhganistan is just or not, if Iraq was a mistake or not, if the Taleban are evil or not, if the US is evil or not, if anti-militarism is naive or not, if Bush looks more like Hitler than like Woody Woodpecker are attempts to divert attention away from the naked truth (oh, the irony) that wikileaks made an unforgivable mistake, are completely irrelevant and belong in seperate threads.

You just summed up the last three pages of text.

[Husar]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'd again like to ask.... If Wikileaks is to be believed, that they abhor secrecy and that their leak of massive numbers of classified documents was not done to weaken the NATO position, but to lead to openness in government....

1) Where is any hint of divulgence of information the Taleban might find harmful?
2) Why did they attempt to protect the identity of their source?

It seems to me the height of hypocricy to use "unnamed sources" to attempt to get more openness and disclosure in anything...

2 seems like a valid point to me, 1 however may just be because the Taliban don't take records of everything they do and/or there is no crazy whacko jihadist who is willing to sacrifice his 72 virgins in order to provide wikileaks with the secret hello kitty diary of Osama bin Laden...

[Moros]

Why has no organisation actually killed the site already? If I was running secret services I had those servers hacked and blocked from the start...

[Beskar]

2 seems like a valid point to me, 1 however may just be because the Taliban don't take records of everything they do and/or there is no crazy whacko jihadist who is willing to sacrifice his 72 virgins in order to provide wikileaks with the secret hello kitty diary of Osama bin Laden...

Though, that is unless Obama Bin Laden has got access to the best medical services money can buy, very hard to do, since we was pretty much already dying with cancer before the war on terror.

There has always been the referenced report of:
"On Dec. 8, 1998, NBC News reported that bin Laden had only 'months to live,' explaining that he was suffering from heart problems and possibly cancer"

Perhaps the USA has been chasing ghosts while in reality, he is dead and buried in some random unmarked grave?

[Brenus]

“wikileaks has made a terrible mistake by publishing these names and there are no excuses for it. They could have published their evidence without bringing people in danger. Since it is crystal clear that wikileaks has no way to justify their stupidity, all kinds of irrelevant stuff is brought up.”
I still didn’t find any evidence of names published. And again, exclusivity was given to 3 major media and apparently only one newspaper found this leaks, and this is relayed by a US general with the good moral tone that this betrayal deserved…

As this affair doesn’t do any front page even in the most conservative newspapers I think it was a hoax to discredit the site…

The problem I have with these Crusaders Searching For the True Truth is they have access to only one source…
As in Vietnam where they never saw one Assassination Committee, journalist and Reporters are able to report only the Allies side, for the bad. The Taliban will give interview after a successful ambush but will hardly invited journalists in preparing an IED or the slaughters of alleged informants.

I don’t think the Talibans are so powerful. I don’t think they have one chance to win the war on the front. They even weren’t able to defeat the Masoud’s Northern Alliances.
As very well explain by Major Robert Dump, a lot of people don’t see with a good eye progress and development to come in their villages, as they will loose their power…
If the Allies don’t make the mistake done by the USSR when they withdraw (and there is no reason they should as the “mistake” was do to the collapse of the USSR), the Talibans are finished.
In fact, military speaking the Allies have just to go outside and wait for the Talibans leaders to show-up and eliminate them…

I still think that the men who are actually crediting the Talibans of powers they haven’t and spreading this history of names given are de facto playing in the Talibans’ hands.

[spmetla]

Why has no organisation actually killed the site already? If I was running secret services I had those servers hacked and blocked from the start...

Probably because the US is not the police state many claim it is. Besides, they've done the fine job of finding holes in our intelligence services which allows the US to find and punish those responsible. I imagine it's usually difficult to find out what information 'spies' can access so as to try and fix those security holes.

To add to the discussion here's a link to The Economist's articles Son of SAM (http://www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2010/07/wikileaks_war_afghanistan) and Don't go back (http://www.economist.com/node/16693313). Both are good reads. Also here's an interview of theirs with Julian Assange (http://www.economist.com/blogs/multimedia/2010/07/wikileaks_and_afghan_papers)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

huh, apparently wikileaks being morally and intellectually bankrupt is old news:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/12/warlock-wikilea/


# By Noah Shachtman Email Author
# December 18, 2008 |
# 11:09 am

In July, 2005, I asked a member of a Baghdad-based military bomb squad about the radio-frequency jammers his team was using to cut off signals to Iraq’s remotely detonated explosives. His response: "I can’t even begin to say the first ******* thing about ‘em." A few days later, one of those jammers seemed to save me and him from getting blown up. Months after that, David Axe was thrown out of Iraq by the U.S. military, for a blog post which mentioned the Warlock family of jammers.

So I was more than a little surprised, when I saw that Wikileaks had posted a classified report, outlining how the Warlock Red and Warlock Green jammers work with — and interfere with — military communications systems. The report, dated 2004, gives specific information about how the jammers function, their radiated power and which frequencies they stop. That Baghdad bomb tech would’ve put his fist through a wall, if he saw it out in public.

Today, the leak isn’t quite so serious. Those Warlock Green and Warlock Red jammers have been largely — but not completely — superseded by newer models. And those newer models have largely wiped out the remotely detonated bomb threat in Iraq.

But still, the leaked report raises important questions about what information — if any — is too sensitive to disclose.

Steven Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists’ longtime advocate for open government, believes the site has gone too far. "Wikileaks says that it publishes restricted documents that are ‘of substantial political, diplomatic or ethical significance.’ Its publication makes sense only from the perspective that all secrecy is wrong and should be resisted. It’s not a perspective that I share."

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange, not surprisingly, has a completely different take. "Wikileaks represents whistleblowers in the way that lawyers represent their clients — fairly and impartially. Our ‘job’ is to safely and impartially conduct the whistleblower’s message to the public, not to inject our own nationality or beliefs," he tells Danger Room.

[Skullheadhq]

The state is the people, so when the state is hiding something the people is hiding stuff from the people?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The state is the people, so when the state is hiding something the people is hiding stuff from the people?

This is the nature of representative government.