Wikileaks of course!Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
Printable View
Wikileaks of course!Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
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.
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
Both are to blame.
How did they know what was in those documents if they didn't read it themselves first?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
~: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"?
What did you learn from the documents that wasn't available elsewhere? How many have you read so far?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
from a quick check of wiki:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
NoQuote:
Originally Posted by Andres
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
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.
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?
I think they are on a "All the truth and nothing but the truth, everything revealed. Nothing hidden away."Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
It has its advantages and disadvantages.
EDIT: Like Buddha said "Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."
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
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.
[crowded theatre]
FIRE!
[/crowded theatre]
If the Taliban was the kind of superduper swat team you're proposing they are, they would've won the war years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
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.
.....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?Quote:
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.
This is very interesting, what would happen if Wikileaks released it to weaken the position of the NATO is Afghanistan, what would happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
BTW, this 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.
I know, but America wouldn't be too happy about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Luckily, there are plenty of anti-war demonstrations in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Wut we just did it, not that I agree but Uruzgan was just handed over to the yanks/ozzies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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?
How about names, name of the father, village they live in...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.
“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.
Some of you make me sick
You are kidding, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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.
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.
My usual comment applies: the world has changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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/.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki
God help those poor people when we pack it in next year. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Indeed. The Taliban have announced their new policy is to kill all informants.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
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/
Quote:
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-a...orite-website/
Sometimes you just know you live in a Monthy Pyton sketch
“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
Yes, of course I bloody well know that. That kinda fits in with my point, you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
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
With two sentences in his first post, Brenus neatly sums up the point I've tried/failed to convey over dozens of post...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
You do realize that I will have to kill you now, right?
Flawed argument as getting to these guy's families is the best way to discourage others. Of course that means being exceptionally cruel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Yep. It was at the top of google news this morning.
Wikileaks Afghanistan: Taliban 'hunting down informants'
How can he sleep at night?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
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'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
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.
We should have send construction workers instead of soldiers, it's a construction mission after all, and guns don't build schools.
Uhm, yes, like they will have to use a bullet and that will set them back a year financially.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
Would you volunteer to go as a construction worker without the soldiers being there as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Don't call it a construction mission then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
In addition to what Louis already pointed out - actual construction is being done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
True, but ocnstruction implies that there is a foundation to build on, for example Germany or Japan after WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
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=...=&oq=&gs_rfai=Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Japanese foundations: http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&c...=&oq=&gs_rfai=
No. They pretty much started from scratch.
".....but the fourth castle."Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
-- M. Python
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Own decisions? The village / clan leader makes the decisions. That's the way it always has been. Taliban or not this would continue.
~:smoking:
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
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:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
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…
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.
"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
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 hisbu%!sh@^ storyehr, 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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.
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:Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
I am going to blame this on the one indoctrinating youQuote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You are asking meQuote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
This statement is childish on every level. Take a step back and look at the :daisy: you're posting.Quote:
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.
Certainly not, and by the same standard, one innocent death does not justify another.Quote:
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?
kuch...9/11...kuchQuote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
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.Quote:
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.
But yet some stupids did, with devastating consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
But anyway, back to topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Washington Post 2004
And there's the requisite bush bash of the thread.
Carry on everybody.