Taliban Says It Will Target Names Exposed by WikiLeaks
265 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Camundongo;23767719]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.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]WikiLeaks withheld some 15,000 documents from release until its technicians could redact names of individuals in the reports whose safety could be jeopardized. [/QUOTE]
:smith:
You NEED to make a war public and people NEED to turn against it.
[QUOTE=cheezey;23767775]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]
the leakers are suspected to be ranked private first class
aka jack shit
sadly they'll probably be charged for treason if they're found guilty (a capital crime that is often punished with the death penalty)
[QUOTE=mrryanchisholm;23767761]fucking Taliban cunts.[/QUOTE]
What makes them cunts?
The Taliban are becoming more and more like North Korea, they brag about doing x and y but they just hide in the closet hopping nobody will find them and beat them with a stick.
[QUOTE=Billiam;23767836]:smith:[/QUOTE]
And they missed other documents, which is what the whole 'fiasco' is about.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23767844]You NEED to make a war public and people NEED to turn against it.[/QUOTE]
that's not what wikileaks is about
if they wanted it to be about ending the war they could've just cherrypicked what to release (such as the reuters incident a while back)
nope this is about "freedom of information" a woefully misguided concept
had this been just about publishing massacres and bringing them to the public's attention I'd be all for it, but nope, they're just releasing everything they can get their hands on that has a "classified" stamp on it.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23767600]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]
To my understanding what your saying is; we should keep people in the dark to the atrocities committed at war to prevent generalizing of the soldiers in said war, because they're secretly "heroes"?
[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.[/QUOTE]
What? Turning a public against a war ends wars, ending a bad war saves lives and that's always good.
If your main argument is the reputation of soldiers, then it really doesn't apply to Afganistan since most already support the troops. So turning the public against the war is good in the case of Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23767809]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]
I still fail to see how turning the public against the war is a bad thing.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23767809]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. Aka Wikileaks.[/QUOTE]
Seriously, Wikileaks doesn't hurt the reputation of soldiers as a whole, it hurts the reputation of soldiers they believe have committed crimes and the government. Really, go for a drive and look how many "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers you can find.
Wikileaks doesn't hurt soldiers, that may have been a valid argument Vietnam era, but it's utter bullshit now.
[editline]07:32PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Camundongo;23767895]And they missed other documents, which is what the whole 'fiasco' is about.[/QUOTE]
Yes and?
We were arguing whether or not they were trying to improve.
[editline]07:34PM[/editline]
[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]
Freedom is information is pretty damn important too, just sayin'.
As is ending a war, just sayin.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23767931]that's not what wikileaks is about
if they wanted it to be about ending the war they could've just cherrypicked what to release (such as the reuters incident a while back)
nope this is about "freedom of information" a woefully misguided concept
had this been just about publishing massacres and bringing them to the public's attention I'd be all for it, but nope, they're just releasing everything they can get their hands on that has a "classified" stamp on it.[/QUOTE]
Wikileaks is all fine and dandy if they want to support freedom of information, but if soldiers get hurt from their actions, they stepped over their boundaries.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23767931]that's not what wikileaks is about[/QUOTE]
Actually, yeah it is.
[QUOTE=Billiam;23768007]Actually, yeah it is.[/QUOTE]
No, it isn't.
[quote]WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Ragy;23767998]Wikileaks is all fine and dandy if they want to support freedom of information, but if soldiers get hurt from their actions, they stepped over their boundaries.[/QUOTE]
sorry ragy I don't agree with you on the whole soldier thing
I disagree with the complete freedom of information and agree wholeheartedly with publishing things that may cast american soldiers in a negative light enough to get them called baby killers (which isn't going to happen given the American culture of supporting troops nowadays) if it ends the fucking war
this on the other hand does nothing, and if anything, will [I]extend [/I]our presence there because now we either need to eliminate the taliban completely or we need to isolate those affected (those who were named) from afghanistan
all around it was a stupid fucking decision if their plans are to end the war
[editline]07:37PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Billiam;23768007]Actually, yeah it is.[/QUOTE]
no it is not.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23767600]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]
That's the stupidest claim I've ever heard anyone make. You support the soldiers, not the war. Questioning the war doesn't mean running up to a bus full of returning soldiers and yelling "lol you guys suck."
[QUOTE=imadaman;23768048]No, it isn't.[/QUOTE]
I just realized how fucked up that mission statement is in reference to this situation
Awesome.
[QUOTE=imadaman;23768048]No, it isn't.[/QUOTE]
An organization can't have multiple goals? Assange is pretty anti-war.
"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=Billiam;23767952]What? Turning a public against a war ends wars, ending a bad war saves lives and that's always good.
If your main argument is the reputation of soldiers, then it really doesn't apply to Afganistan since most already support the troops. So turning the public against the war is good in the case of Afghanistan.
I still fail to see how turning the public against the war is a bad thing.
Seriously, Wikileaks doesn't hurt the reputation of soldiers as a whole, it hurts the reputation of soldiers they believe have committed crimes and the government. Really, go for a drive and look how many "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers you can find.
Wikileaks doesn't hurt soldiers, that may have been a valid argument Vietnam era, but it's utter bullshit now.
[editline]07:32PM[/editline]
Yes and?
We were arguing whether or not they were trying to improve.
[editline]07:34PM[/editline]
Freedom is information is pretty damn important too, just sayin'.
As is ending a war, just sayin.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23768061]sorry ragy I don't agree with you on the whole soldier thing
I disagree with the complete freedom of information and agree wholeheartedly with publishing things that may cast american soldiers in a negative light enough to get them called baby killers (which isn't going to happen given the American culture of supporting troops nowadays) if it ends the fucking war
this on the other hand does nothing, and if anything, will [I]extend [/I]our presence there because now we either need to eliminate the taliban completely or we need to isolate those affected (those who were named) from afghanistan
all around it was a stupid fucking decision if their plans are to end the war
[/QUOTE]
Listen. The general public does not understand how brutal war is. It doesn't matter if a war is right or wrong, it's still brutal. Prior to Vietnam, they were saw as heroes. After Vietnam, they were seen as murderers. That's how transparency and media coverage can hurt a war. That's why till this day media is highly limited in wars, because it does more damage than good
[QUOTE=Billiam;23768114]An organization can't have multiple goals? Assange is pretty anti-war.
"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]
that's not the overall purpose of wikileaks
sure that may be one of its minor goals but that's not the "idea" of wikileaks at all
[QUOTE=Billiam;23767952]
Yes and?
We were arguing whether or not they were trying to improve.[/QUOTE]
Um? This is the latest info they posted, they have not admitted they're wrong and have shown zero interest in improving anything. What are you trying to get at?
So people are ok with killing people for what they do and think and who they are when it's done by our side but not when it's done by the enmy side.
Bigots.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23768142]Listen. The general public does not understand how brutal a war is. It doesn't matter if a war is right or wrong, it's still brutal. Prior to Vietnam, they were saw as heroes. After Vietnam, they were seen as murderers. That's how transparency and media coverage can hurt a war. That's why till this day media is highly limited in wars, because it does more damage then good[/QUOTE]
the americans of the 60s and 70s have an entirely different culture than the americans of today
you need to understand that the average american already supports the troop but not the war and understands how fucking brutal it is this is what media coverage over the past 20 years has been able to do for us
you cannot compare the iraqi war to the vietnam war unless you're talking about how ungodly pointless it is
[QUOTE=Killuah;23768160]So people are ok with killing people for what they do and think and who they are when it's done by our side but not when it's done by the enmy side.
Bigots.[/QUOTE]
What?
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;23768070]That's the stupidest claim I've ever heard anyone make. You support the soldiers, not the war. Questioning the war doesn't mean running up to a bus full of returning soldiers and yelling "lol you guys suck."[/QUOTE]
I never said not supporting a war is wrong, you're totally in your rights. When the media covers a war fully and its made public by everyone, it turns the people against it, because war is nasty.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;23768152]Um? This is the latest info they posted, they have not admitted they're wrong and have shown zero interest in improving anything. What are you trying to get at?[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure withholding documents for screening for names is a sign that they're withholding documents for screening for names.
That's what this debacle is about right?
[QUOTE=Jund;23768195]What?[/QUOTE]
we're okay with americans killing people over ideology but we're not okay with other people killing us over ideology
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23768184]the americans of the 60s and 70s have an entirely different culture than the americans of today
you need to understand that the average american already supports the troop but not the war and understands how fucking brutal it is this is what media coverage over the past 20 years has been able to do for us
you cannot compare the iraqi war to the vietnam war unless you're talking about how ungodly pointless it is[/QUOTE]
The Iraqi war could be just like Vietnam if there was no limitations to media coverage. You don't see videos of our soldiers shooting and killing the enemy on the morning news while your sipping your coffee, because the media is limited. Do you see bodies of kids and citizens who got caught in cross fire when you turn on the news? Mass pits of bodies? Dead soldiers? Guts? No. That stuff turns the public not just against the war, but against our own soldiers.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23768143]that's not the overall purpose of wikileaks
sure that may be one of its minor goals but that's not the "idea" of wikileaks at all[/QUOTE]
I definitely wouldn't call it a minor goal, especially since their latest releases were Afghanistan War busting.
[QUOTE=Billiam;23768214]I'm pretty sure withholding documents for screening for names is a sign that they're withholding documents for screening for names.
That's what this debacle is about right?[/QUOTE]
They still posted names despite screening, that is what the debacle is about.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23768197]I never said not supporting a war is wrong, you're totally in your rights. When the media covers a war fully and its made public by everyone, it turns the people against it, because war is nasty.[/QUOTE]
So you believe people should have the right to decide for themselves whether a war is just, but they shouldn't have the material present to make an informed decision?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.