Taliban Says It Will Target Names Exposed by WikiLeaks
265 replies, posted
Just to point out.
[quote]The Taliban has now confirmed it is poring through the documents, and intends to hunt down and punish any suspected spies named. [/quote]
No killing has yet happened.
[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]
Wikileaks intends to prevent any killing.
Bad readings, bad readings everywhere (except here)!
What a coincidence. :allears:
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;23766383]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.[/QUOTE]
if fucking 4chan hasn't perused this shit already and made a spam list of all the names, I doubt there are any in there.
Seriously, when you open this shit up to internet by now we'd have found who all these supposed named spies are.
[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]
Do you honestly think that we're going to know which of the informants have been killed?
Wikileaks fucked up in the fact that they permitted these documents which contained information like that to be leaked. I don't give two shits what anyone says; releasing documents that have confidential names is completely irresponsible and honestly, if anyone dies, Assange deserves to be charged for the crime, as it is directly his fault.
It's common fucking sense not to release a document with information like that during wartime.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;23766818]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]
what fucking names
name one, if you can ill take back fucking everything
i jsut want some evidence of this supposed supar sekrit information
[editline]10:46PM[/editline]
[quote=brickinhead;23767022]do you honestly think that we're going to know which of the informants have been killed?
Wikileaks fucked up in the fact that they permitted these documents which contained information like that to be leaked. I don't give two shits what anyone says; releasing documents that have confidential names is completely irresponsible and honestly, if anyone dies, assange deserves to be charged for the crime, as it is directly his fault.
It's common fucking sense not to release a document with information like that during wartime.[/quote]
what fucking names
where
just someone point to one fucking name
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23767022]Do you honestly think that we're going to know which of the informants have been killed?
Wikileaks fucked up in the fact that they permitted these documents which contained information like that to be leaked. I don't give two shits what anyone says; releasing documents that have confidential names is completely irresponsible and honestly, if anyone dies, Assange deserves to be charged for the crime, as it is directly his fault.
It's common fucking sense not to release a document with information like that during wartime.[/QUOTE]
I used to think you were sensible, then you go and suggest that a journalist should be charged because someone else killed someone due to the actions of his source.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;23767070]I used to think you were sensible, then you go and suggest that a journalist should be charged because someone else killed someone due to the actions of his source.[/QUOTE]
I'm perfectly sensible. Anyone who thinks that complete transparency in government is a good thing is out of their mind. And, the releasing of 92,000 documents doesn't justify the death of even one person.
I'm a liberal activist, and the second that you do anything that puts [I]anyone [/I]in physical danger you've overstepped your bounds, no matter how righteous the cause. This is completely irresponsible on his part.
Take it from the position had this happened in your own country (if you're an american); the DEA has an undercover inside a cocaine drug ring. During his time, he killed rival dealers. Some journalist comes along and puts his name in the paper (citing the fact that he's committing crime as a member of the Federal government) and he's killed. Is anything gained?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23767047]what fucking names
name one, if you can ill take back fucking everything
i jsut want some evidence of this supposed supar sekrit information
[editline]10:46PM[/editline]
what fucking names
where
just someone point to one fucking name[/QUOTE]
Fuckin this.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;23766844]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.[/QUOTE]
Improvement was the course of action you suggested in your post, nowhere did you state the above. Try to stay more consistent.
[QUOTE]We should target the things they do bad, and try to improve them.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23767125]I'm perfectly sensible. Anyone who thinks that complete transparency in government is a good thing is out of their mind. And, the releasing of 92,000 documents doesn't justify the death of even one person.
I'm a liberal activist, and the second that you do anything that puts [I]anyone [/I]in physical danger you've overstepped your bounds, no matter how righteous the cause. This is completely irresponsible on his part.[/QUOTE]
I direct you to [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=23766989#post23766989]This[/url]
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;23767070]I used to think you were sensible, then you go and suggest that a journalist should be charged because someone else killed someone due to the actions of his source.[/QUOTE]
Releasing classified military documents is highly illegal itself. He should be charged as they're classified for a reason.
Posting to new page.
----
Just to point out.
[quote]The Taliban has now confirmed it is poring through the documents, and intends to hunt down and punish any suspected spies named. [/quote]
No killing has yet happened.
[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]
Wikileaks intends to prevent any killing.
Bad readings, bad readings everywhere (except here)!
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23767125]I'm perfectly sensible. Anyone who thinks that complete transparency in government is a good thing is out of their mind. And, the releasing of 92,000 documents doesn't justify the death of even one person.
I'm a liberal activist, and the second that you do anything that puts [I]anyone [/I]in physical danger you've overstepped your bounds, no matter how righteous the cause. This is completely irresponsible on his part.[/QUOTE]
right
which is why all protests are evil and should be outlawed, those mean nasty unions putting workers at risk
But regardless, it's [I]not fucking transparent.[/I] They say they [I]did[/I] screen the documents, and I've seen no evidence whatsoever against that claim.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23767125]I'm perfectly sensible. Anyone who thinks that complete transparency in government is a good thing is out of their mind. And, the releasing of 92,000 documents doesn't justify the death of even one person.
I'm a liberal activist, and the second that you do anything that puts [I]anyone [/I]in physical danger you've overstepped your bounds, no matter how righteous the cause. This is completely irresponsible on his part.[/QUOTE]
I read charging someone for a crime they didn't commit and less government transparency, then I read liberal activist.
:colbert:
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23767047]what fucking names
name one, if you can ill take back fucking everything
i jsut want some evidence of this supposed supar sekrit information
[editline]10:46PM[/editline]
what fucking names
where
just someone point to one fucking name[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010[/url]
The names are in the diary. Not gonna post the names here because honestly, I don't want to have anything to do with it.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;23767070]I used to think you were sensible, then you go and suggest that a journalist should be charged because someone else killed someone due to the actions of his source.[/QUOTE]
It could be considered negligence, as "It can be generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from foreseeable risks of harm."
[QUOTE=Billiam;23767198]I read charging someone for a crime they didn't commit and less government transparency, then I read liberal activist.
:colbert:[/QUOTE]
criminal negligence
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;23767201][url]http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010[/url]
Not gonna post the names here because honestly, I don't want to have anything to do with it.[/QUOTE]
yes let me just sift through tens of thousands of documents in order to defeat my own position
[QUOTE=imadaman;23767145]I direct you to [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=23766989#post23766989"]This[/URL][/QUOTE]
That's fine, and as long as no one is harmed I don't give a fuck, then the documents can stay up.
But it's a little bit naive to think that no one is going to be harmed.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23767236]criminal negligence[/QUOTE]
Which has not in any way been proven [I]at all.[/I]
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;23767070]I used to think you were sensible, then you go and suggest that a journalist should be charged because someone else killed someone due to the actions of his source.[/QUOTE]
Um, he did choose to publish classified documents that have directly endangered the lives of hundreds of Afghan civilians. If anyone is killed as a result of his recklessness then he has blood on his hands.
[QUOTE=Billiam;23767144]Improvement was the course of action you suggested in your post, nowhere did you state the above. Try to stay more consistent.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I did, and that isn't an excuse. There is a massive difference between 'We fucked up, but we'll try to do better' and 'We're improving, so anything bad that happens isn't actually our fault'.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23767269]That's fine, and as long as no one is harmed I don't give a fuck, then the documents can stay up.
But it's a little bit naive to think that no one is going to be harmed.[/QUOTE]
Oh come on. [I]Every single progressive action ever taken has resulted in harm.[/I]
It is fun to watch as people continue to ignore me.
(not directed at BIH who actually read what I posted)
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23767170]right
which is why all protests are evil and should be outlawed, those mean nasty unions putting workers at risk
But regardless, it's [I]not fucking transparent.[/I] They say they [I]did[/I] screen the documents, and I've seen no evidence whatsoever against that claim.[/QUOTE]
[I]physical risk[/I].
For instance, you're overstepping your bounds if you're a treehugger and you mess with the machinery someone that's planning to cut down a forest for a housing development.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23767267]yes let me just sift through tens of thousands of documents in order to defeat my own position[/QUOTE]
Here's an example of one document that's been censored by the news so they're not making it easier to find names. But the full names and villages are in the actual war diary:
[url]http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/taliban+hunt+wikileaks+outed+afghan+informers/3727667[/url]
Threatening the lives of abortion doctors, etc.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23767320][I]physical risk[/I].
For instance, you're overstepping your bounds if you're a treehugger and you mess with the machinery someone that's planning to cut down a forest for a housing development.[/QUOTE]
This is in no way like the situation whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;23767291][I]Yes, I did[/I], and that isn't an excuse. There is a massive difference between 'We fucked up, but we'll try to do better' and 'We're improving, so anything bad that happens isn't actually our fault'.[/QUOTE]
Uh, it's a good thing Assange has never said the latter.
It's also a good thing that he's trying to improve on his mistakes and you really should wait for more developments before smashing him for not owning up. After all you kinda' do wanna' be careful formulating a response to the media.
Also no you did not.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23767371]This is in no way like the situation whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
Actually it is. You can not support the war, but don't release classified documents which put our own soldiers in danger.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.