Wikileaks reveals identity of Afgan informants

**miotas** · 07-29-2010, 15:42

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** · 07-29-2010, 15:44

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Think it through.

**Skullheadhq** · 07-29-2010, 15:49

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

**miotas** · 07-29-2010, 15:59

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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

but they let it get out and the informant is killed. Who's to blame?

Originally Posted by Andres

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...

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** · 07-29-2010, 16:00

Originally Posted by miotas

The informant situation is probably more like if the police have an informant

but they let it get out and the informant is killed. Who's to blame?

Wikileaks of course!

**Andres** · 07-29-2010, 16:03

Originally Posted by miotas

The informant situation is probably more like if the police have an informant

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** · 07-29-2010, 16:06

Originally Posted by Andres

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** · 07-29-2010, 16:09

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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?

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** · 07-29-2010, 16:16

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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** · 07-29-2010, 16:18

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

**Andres** · 07-29-2010, 16:06

Originally Posted by miotas

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** · 07-29-2010, 15:53

Originally Posted by 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.

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...