• Taliban Says It Will Target Names Exposed by WikiLeaks
    265 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;23767348]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][/QUOTE] Alright then, that'll do. Kind of ironic that the Taliban found out about this shit from media reports about how the Taliban will find out about this shit, but whatever.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23767371]This is in no way like the situation whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Criminal neglignce is "Failure to use reasonable care, and thus put someone at risk of injury or death". Which Wikileaks has done in this case.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23767310]Oh come on. [I]Every single progressive action ever taken has resulted in harm.[/I][/QUOTE] women's rights movement here's a good example Malcom X's civil rights movement vs MLK's and the peaceful movement. MLK spearheaded a civil rights movement based entirely on civil disobedience and endagering only themselves; ie, protesters knew damn well they (themselves, critical point here) were likely going to be beaten and arrested for their protests. Malcom X on the other hand was notorious for promotion of violence against white americans, in a way of taking black civil rights by force. MLK = kosher Imo, Malcom X = not
Oldest trick in the book. Stir up shit in your enemies lies, live a better life.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23767371]This is in no way like the situation whatsoever.[/QUOTE] in what sense the point is that you're putting someone in risk of physical harm if you fuck around with their machinery like cutting brake lines etc, therefore putting them in harm's way
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23767434]Kind of ironic that the Taliban found out about this shit from media reports about how the Taliban will find out about this shit, but whatever.[/QUOTE] I'm sure they were reading through the war diary way before then.
[QUOTE=Orkel;23766513]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.[/QUOTE] Yea, but there is a chance you might hurt an innocent bystander. I'd go with beheading.
Anyway transparency during war is horrible, take Vietnam for example.
[quote]We, in common with other news organisations, have redacted parts of the text, including names of individuals, which [b]might make it possible to identify people[/b]. But the raw material is viewable online. [/quote]Might.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23767501]Anyway transparency during war is horrible, take Vietnam for example.[/QUOTE] I think that's a bad example because transparency pretty much ended that war.
[QUOTE=Orkel;23766513]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.[/QUOTE] Getting shot is faster, an explosion won't take out your critical organs unless it's actually strapped to your chest ie if it's at your legs it'd blow your legs off and get your intestines, which would be a very, very slow death
[QUOTE=Billiam;23767408]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] [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10825183]He doesn't even believe he's made a mistake, according to the BBC.[/url] So where has he promised to improve and admit Wikileaks was wrong?
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;23767479]I'm sure they were reading through the war diary way before then.[/QUOTE] [quote]Zabihullah Mujahid said that the Taliban had come to know of the leaked secret documents through media reports. [/quote] *cough*
I just don't think leaking that was worth the shitstorm the media is causing. They should have waited to withdrawal was closer
[QUOTE=jlj1;23767552]I just don't think leaking that was worth the shitstorm the media is causing. They should have waited to withdrawal was closer[/QUOTE] Except it wasn't coming closer.
[QUOTE=imadaman;23767541]*cough*[/QUOTE] They said they learned about the war diary from media reports, not the leaked names.
[QUOTE=Billiam;23767522]I think that's a bad example because transparency pretty much ended that war.[/QUOTE] Like turning the public against a war is ever good. How would you like to come home from war and be called baby killers. There's a reason why documents are classified during war. Your understanding of American history is skewed.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;23767533][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10825183"]He doesn't even believe he's made as mistake, according to the BBC.[/URL] So where has he promised to improve and admit Wikileaks was wrong?[/QUOTE] I don't think you're reading into my posts well enough, by withholding further releases of documents to assure this doesn't happen he's improving. And by wait for further developments I mean you should probably wait until he gets wind of the news story being discussed in this thread for a response. Also, no need to get nit picky, but is anything he said untrue? "One must consider why the Pentagon is focusing on the hypothetical blood that it says might be on our hands - although there is no evidence of that - compared to the 20,000 lives that have been lost in Afghanistan that are documented and exposed by our material,"
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;23767590]They said they learned about the war diary from media reports, not the leaked names.[/QUOTE] the leaked names are in the diary
Honestly after all is said and done, as long as no one is hurt I have no problem with these documents being online. The problem is that I guarantee someone [B]will.[/B] And when that happens, Wikileaks will be directly responsible. These are fucking civilians we're talking about here, not militias, not hardened men of battle. Normal civilians. If there's any names left in there as is claimed by sources, well, then the staff of Wikileaks did not do a thorough enough job of taking out all of the names. When it comes down to it and you're trying to push forth one belief, you really need to weight the consequences of your actions. If wikileaks staff thinks the right to classified (largely unimportant to the standard run of the mill american) information is more important than human life, they're royally fucked up. Releasing the documents without combing through every single page to make sure it's safe is completely irresponsible, and if any harm is done, not only should the perpetrators be held responsible, so should Wikileaks for providing the information.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4&feature=related[/media][URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4"][/URL]
Posting to a 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.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23767629]the leaked names are in the diary[/QUOTE] Ugh. You said they learned about the leaked names from the articles about how they were going to find the leaked names. I was just saying that they were probably already the diary by that point so it didn't matter if the media said that there were leaked names in it. Or maybe I completely misunderstood your post.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23767600]Like turning the public against a war is ever good.[/QUOTE] You're saying this like Vietnam was a war worth fighting, and yeah turning the public against a war is usually a good thing in that respect. [QUOTE=Ragy;23767600]How would you like to come home from war and be called baby killers. There's a reason why documents are classified during war.[/QUOTE] Witholding documents about massacres and chemical bombings are unjust you heard it here first folks. [QUOTE=Ragy;23767600]Your understanding of American history is skewed.[/QUOTE] And you're crazy.
[QUOTE=Billiam;23767624]I don't think you're reading into my posts well enough, by withholding further releases of documents to assure this doesn't happen he's improving. And by wait for further developments I mean you should probably wait until he gets wind of the news story being discussed in this thread for a response. Also, no need to get nit picky, but is anything he said untrue? "One must consider why the Pentagon is focusing on the hypothetical blood that it says might be on our hands - although there is no evidence of that - compared to the 20,000 lives that have been lost in Afghanistan that are documented and exposed by our material,"[/QUOTE] He witheld the documents at the same time the 'risky' ones were released, as they were part of the same bundle. He hasn't increased the censored of documents since then, they are the SAME documents.
What? :psyduck: You (DamagePoint) said that they were probably going through the diary by the time they heard about how they are going to learn of the leaked names being in a diary leaked to the internet. Another :psyduck:
fucking Taliban cunts.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23767637]Honestly after all is said and done, as long as no one is hurt I have no problem with these documents being online. The problem is that I guarantee someone [B]will.[/B] And when that happens, Wikileaks will be directly responsible. These are fucking civilians we're talking about here, not militias, not hardened men of battle. Normal civilians. If there's any names left in there as is claimed by sources, well, then the staff of Wikileaks did not do a thorough enough job of taking out all of the names. When it comes down to it and you're trying to push forth one belief, you really need to weight the consequences of your actions. If wikileaks staff thinks the right to classified (largely unimportant to the standard run of the mill american) information is more important than human life, they're royally fucked up. Releasing the documents without combing through every single page to make sure it's safe is completely irresponsible, and if any harm is done, not only should the perpetrators be held responsible, so should Wikileaks for providing the information.[/QUOTE] It are probably the US` own men or high diplomatic workers who leaked out the documents. Wikileaks is just an international network of digital deposit boxes seeking for a bit of 100% un censored media ,publicing anything secret that`s being deposited. There wouldn`t be any harm if wikileaks didn`t exist or published documents like this, but holding them directly accountable for this harm ( IF there is harm at all ) doesn`t seem well, right, i geuss.
[QUOTE=Billiam;23767699]You're saying this like Vietnam was a war worth fighting, and yeah turning the public against a war is usually a good thing in that respect.[/QUOTE] Turning a public against the war is never good. When a public turns against a war like Vietnam, it badly hurts our soldiers who are the ones over there risking their lives. [QUOTE=Billiam;23767699]Witholding documents about massacres and chemical bombings are unjust you heard it here first folks.[/QUOTE] They're withheld, because it turns a public against a war. If you actually look back in history, the media coverage of just one massacre turned the public into hippies which in turn hurt our soldiers. War is nasty and the general public doesn't understand that. [QUOTE=Billiam;23767699]And you're crazy.[/QUOTE] No, I just understand more than you. It makes me sick to know that you would rather push your own views of a war so far that it hurts our own soldiers. Aka Wikileaks.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23767809]Turning a public against the war is never good. When a public turns against a war like Vietnam, it badly hurts our soldiers who are the ones over there risking their lives. They're withheld, because it turns a public against a war. If you actually look back in history, the media coverage of just one massacre turned the public into hippies which in turn hurt our soldiers. War is nasty and the general public doesn't understand that. No, I just understand more than you. It makes me sick to know that you would rather push your own views of a war which hurt our own soldiers.[/QUOTE] Risking their lives for absolutely nothing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.