• Taliban Says It Will Target Names Exposed by WikiLeaks
    265 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Channel 4]The U.S. military has already accused WikiLeaks of having "the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family" on its hands after leaking 92,000 classified documents. The Taliban has now confirmed it is poring through the documents, and intends to hunt down and punish any suspected spies named. Britain's Channel 4 News interviewed a Taliban spokesperson named Zabihullah Mujahid by telephone. "We are studying the report," he said, referring to the documents, available online, some containing the names, tribes, and family information of Afghan informants. "We knew about the spies and people who collaborate with U.S. forces," he continued. "We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them." The Taliban has recently pursued a policy of intimidating those who cooperate with the NATO forces in an attempt to undermine efforts at governance. Many local officials have been killed, and most have been threatened. The militant group is known to execute informants, reports Channel 4, by hanging, beheading, and shooting. It has even, on one recent occasion, strapped "two alleged traitors to explosives before detonating them in public." Defense Secretary Robert Gates and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen condemned WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange yesterday. "Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing," Mullen said, according to Reuters. "But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." Gates told reporters that trust between the Afghan people and the U.S. military had been breached. "I spent most of my life in the intelligence business, where the sacrosanct principle is protecting your sources," he said. "It seems to me that, as a result of this massive breach of security, we have considerable repair work to do in terms of reassuring people and rebuilding trust, because they clearly—people are going to feel at risk." Many media organizations have avoided linking to the WikiLeaks site and have redacted information in their reports. But Mujahid told Channel 4 that the Taliban had begun investigating the leaked information after being alerted by news stories.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/taliban-says-it-will-target-names-exposed-by-wikileaks.html[/url]
Dammit.
Ouch
The Taliban probably says a lot of things.
Thanks.
Didn't they vet the report to remove any names of active spies?
:bravo:
Well, do they name any spies? Have they found any yet?
"That man is a spy!" "Before you kill me - how did you find out?" "... WikiLeaks..." Mmhm...
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23766335]Well, do they name any spies? Have they found any yet?[/QUOTE] Supposedly there's hundreds, I don't know if that number is true but I have already seen quite a few along with the village that they live in and I'm sure the Taliban has too.
Also isn't the government powerful enough to shut down the website or something?
Of course this was going to happen . . .
This was inevitable.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;23766245]Dammit.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/rating/tick.png[/img]
I don't want th military to only do tight security operations that civilians don't know about, but there are reasons a government/military needs its secrets.
Except Wikileaks is withholding and censoring 15,000 of those 92,000 supposedly already released files to prevent this. :colbert: [quote]In a world where mainstream media seems to be increasingly under the thumb of corporate and political interests, Wikileaks is indeed a gamechanger, available at any moment to do the whisteblowing dirty work. But Wikileaks still isn’t totally free: under pressure from the White House, the New York Times urged Wikileaks to withhold certain details from its website; Wikileaks had already admitted to withholding 15,000 documents until it could redact the names of individuals whose safety could be jeopardised. [/quote] [url=http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/07/wikileaks-julian-assange-war-logs/]Source[/url] tl;dr More attempts to ruin Wikileaks reputation.
This would have been a really good way to pick off some targets by the US military.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;23766234]"The militant group is known to execute informants, reports Channel 4, by hanging, beheading, and shooting. It has even, on one recent occasion, strapped "two alleged traitors to explosives before detonating them in public."[/QUOTE] To be honest, if I was about to be executed and had a choice between those four, I'd choose exploding. Afterall it's the fastest way to die out of those, your body gets blown to smithereens in a fraction of a second.
The Taliban knows if they say this, western media will focus on Wikileaks instead of the shit they're doing.
Ultimately I think Assange did the right thing. :smith:
Well fuck. I'm leaving the country
[QUOTE=imadaman;23766456]Except Wikileaks is withholding and censoring 15,000 of those 92,000 supposedly already released files to prevent this. :colbert: [url=http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/07/wikileaks-julian-assange-war-logs/]Source[/url] tl;dr More attempts to ruin Wikileaks reputation.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and they still fucked up and released some. Then Assange claimed he had [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10825183]'no blood on his hands'[/url]. I understand what Wikileaks do, and agree with some of it, but they fucked up big time and should admit to it.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;23766665]Yeah, and they still fucked up and released some. Then Assange claimed he had [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10825183]'no blood on his hands'[/url]. I understand what Wikileaks do, and agree with some of it, but they fucked up big time and should admit to it.[/QUOTE] "Fucked up big time" You can maybe start saying that when some actual damage is caused by these documents. Until then, no.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;23766665]Yeah, and they still fucked up and released some. Then Assange claimed he had [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10825183]'no blood on his hands'[/url]. I understand what Wikileaks do, and agree with some of it, but they fucked up big time and should admit to it.[/QUOTE] If you show the fuck up documents, I'll believe you. Until that, it's just another attempt to blackpaint Wikileaks and/or move attention to their way.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;23766692]"Fucked up big time" You can maybe start saying that when some actual damage is caused by these documents. Until then, no.[/QUOTE] Surely blindly defending Wikileaks is just as bad as blindly defending the government? They did something bad. Governments also do things bad. We should target the things they do bad, and try to improve them. Wikileaks should have been more stringent about editing or censoring the documents they published. If someone has to die to prove that they shouldn't have published the names, then that, in my opinion, is kinda fucked up.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;23766767]Surely blindly defending Wikileaks is just as bad as blindly defending the government? They did something bad. Governments also do things bad. We should target the things they do bad, and try to improve them. Wikileaks should have been more stringent about editing or censoring the documents they published. If someone has to die to prove that they shouldn't have published the names, then that, in my opinion, is kinda fucked up.[/QUOTE] But they are trying to improve, argument es null.
1. Taliban (aka. US Government) threatens to kill people in the wikileaks report. 2. USA makes wikileak illegal 3. Problem solved
I still think Wikileaks should have been more careful with the names, but it's too late for that now. I think the right thing for the Government to do at this point would be to allow the informants and their families asylum in the States.
[QUOTE=Billiam;23766793]But they are trying to improve, argument es null.[/QUOTE] Uh, what? That means fuck all. You make a mistake, deal with it. Don't say 'We're improving' or 'We're not official, so it doesn't matter'. You make a mistake, own up to it, and help to repair any damage it does.
they really shoulda went through each document they released onebyone and censored each informant's name imho
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.