Wikileaks reveals identity of Afgan informants

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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...

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.

[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...

[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.