• Taliban Says It Will Target Names Exposed by WikiLeaks
    265 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ragy;23768250]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] Fine by me as long as we get the fuck out.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;23768283]They still posted names despite screening, that is what the debacle is about.[/QUOTE] Except we don't know how severe it is. [editline]02:50AM[/editline] 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=Billiam;23767952]Freedom is information is pretty damn important too, just sayin'. As is ending a war, just sayin.[/QUOTE] Ugh. You're missing the whole point of the thread. They didn't have to publish the names. But they endangered hundreds afghan civilians. Even if no one dies it's fucking irresponsible, but the Taliban already said they are hunting these people down. And they've already killed Afghans in the past for cooperating with the coalition so I don't see why now would be any different, except now the informants are already named for them.
[QUOTE=imadaman;23768307]Except we don't know how severe it is. [editline]02:50AM[/editline] Posting to a new page ------ Just to point out. No killing has yet happened. Wikileaks intends to prevent any killing.[/QUOTE] By posting the names of Afghani informants. How does that stop the informants being killed or threatened?
[QUOTE=Billiam;23768292]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?[/QUOTE] How many of these would you think it would take for a soccer mom to hate our own soldiers and totally turn against a war? [img]http://www.gallerym.com/images/work/big/pulitzer_nick_ut_vietnam_napalm_kim_phuc_6872_L.jpg[/img] [img]http://chainedandperfumed.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/vietnam.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.history.navy.mil/pics/vietnam_bodies.jpg[/img] You don't see this shit on the morning news for a reason.
[quote][02:50] <h0me> there may have been a few names slip past,sadly, however wl did ask the whithoes and the pentagon to help screen [not veto] any material - the whitehouse declined - as did the pentagon [02:51] <insane_hatter> Hm. Would have expected them to contribute to saving lives.[/quote] Scooped this up just now.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;23768319]Ugh. You're missing the whole point of the thread. They didn't have to publish the names. But they endangered hundreds afghan civilians. Even if no one dies it's fucking irresponsible, but the Taliban already said they are hunting these people down. And they've already killed Afghans in the past for cooperating with the coalition so I don't see why now would be any different, except now the informants are already named for them.[/QUOTE] Oh pardon, when I said that I wasn't specifically addressing the issue in the OP, but the fact that BrickintheHead doesn't seem to share my view about government transparency. i.e. I'm agreeing with you.
[QUOTE=imadaman;23768343]Scooped this up just now.[/QUOTE] willing to bet it's really just an attempt to save their own ass, who knows. The White House has already stated it's an outright falsehood, but of course they would, and it's not too outlandish to imagine they wouldn't help release classified documents. also holy shit at the terrible fucking grammar god damn
[QUOTE=Camundongo;23768283]They still posted names despite screening, that is what the debacle is about.[/QUOTE] Well, then it's a good thing they still have the opportunity to screen 15,000 more documents eh?
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23768398]also holy shit at the terrible fucking grammar god damn[/QUOTE] I dunno what you're talking about man, I'm not even from the US and I know that you guys are governed by the whithoes.
This is why the guy who said "There's no blood on his hands" in the other thread is an idiot. There's no blood on Assange's hands [b]yet[/b].
[QUOTE=Billiam;23768384]Oh pardon, when I said that I wasn't specifically addressing the issue in the OP, but the fact that BrickintheHead doesn't seem to share my view about government transparency. i.e. I'm agreeing with you.[/QUOTE] i'm in favor of freedom of information but not unbridled freedom of information i've said this like 4 times over the course of this week; the greatest changes in american history happen [I]behind closed doors[/I]. Classified information is the sole reason America isn't still under the articles of confederation and still in the bloody depression
[QUOTE=Billiam;23768411]Well, then it's a good thing they still have the opportunity to screen 15,000 more documents eh?[/QUOTE] TOTALLY. Those informants deserve to have their names revealed.
Shit, what do you mean this cave doesn't have internet access? Well never mind then. [editline]06:00PM[/editline] [QUOTE=lulzbocks;23768441]This is why the guy who said "There's no blood on his hands" in the other thread is an idiot. There's no blood on Assange's hands [B]yet[/B].[/QUOTE] Have you read the documents. There's nothing in them the Taliban doesn't already know.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;23768453]TOTALLY. Those informants deserve to have their names revealed.[/QUOTE] I think, you think, that I think, that Assange thoughts to release most of those documents without screening was right, but you should not think that, because that is not what I think. [editline]08:01PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BrickInHead;23768447]i'm in favor of freedom of information but not unbridled freedom of information i've said this like 4 times over the course of this week; the greatest changes in american history happen [I]behind closed doors[/I]. Classified information is the sole reason America isn't still under the articles of confederation and still in the bloody depression[/QUOTE] Then these are views that we cannot share. :smith: [editline]08:01PM[/editline] [QUOTE=jeimizu;23768467] Have you read the documents. There's nothing in them the Taliban doesn't already know.[/QUOTE] Source?
Lol "no blood on my hands". Yet, moron. [editline]05:48AM[/editline] [QUOTE=jeimizu;23768467]Have you read the documents. There's nothing in them the Taliban doesn't already know.[/QUOTE] I'm glad to hear you know so much about the Taliban.
[QUOTE=Billiam;23768487]Then these are views that we cannot share. :smith:[/QUOTE] 'scool
[QUOTE=Ragy;23768342]How many of these would you think it would take for a soccer mom to hate our own soldiers and totally turn against a war? [Holy shit, this is disgusting] You don't see this shit on the morning news for a reason.[/QUOTE] That doesn't apply to today, people realize that certain troops will fuck up and that certain troops are people who just want to server their country. This will turn a public's viewpoint against a war, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;23768519]Lol "no blood on my hands". Yet, moron. [editline]05:48AM[/editline] I'm glad to hear you know so much about the Taliban.[/QUOTE] The reports are mostly Coalition encounters with the Taliban. Obviously they were both there. The people who learned something from the documents was the public. [url]http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/[/url] look through them yourself, and try to find anything that would remotely aid the Taliban.
[url=http://arabnews.com/world/article93019.ece]Source[/url] [quote]WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. in an interview aired Thursday that WikiLeaks had contacted the White House - via The New York Times acting as intermediary &#8212; and offered to let government officials go through the documents to make sure no innocent people were identified. The White House did not respond to the approach, he said. A Pentagon spokesman, Marine Col. David Lapan, said Friday it was "absolutely false" that WikiLeaks contacted the White House or other elements of the US government to offer a pre-release review. [/quote]
[QUOTE=Billiam;23768583]That doesn't apply to today, people realize that certain troops will fuck up and that certain troops are people who just want to server their country.[/QUOTE] You're right, that is nasty. That was the stuff which was shown on the news day and night. That's all the public saw. A bloodbath. The people of today are no less the people of yesterday, so don't act like they're different in anyway. Everyone back then understood the need to serve their country and the mistakes of soldiers, yet the public still divided in two. If that had happen with World War II or any other, it could have cost us the war. [QUOTE=Billiam;23768583]This will turn a public's viewpoint against a war, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.[/QUOTE] It's always a bad thing. It hurts the whole country and can cost the county to lose the war.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23767859]What makes them cunts?[/QUOTE] Wow.
I knew this would happen the minute I heard about wikileaks. It was a really dumb idea to start with.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23768723]You're right, that is nasty. That was the stuff which was shown on the news day and night. That's all the public saw. A bloodbath. The people of today are no less the people of yesterday, so don't act like they're different in anyway. It's always a bad thing. It hurts your whole country and can cost your county to lose the war.[/QUOTE] "Lose the war" how do you win a war? By having casualties? I think you forget the enemy here is ideology and religion, you can't eradicate that without genocide. This war is pointless. People don't die if you stop a pointless war. Good on wikileaks.
[QUOTE=IStanI;23768768]"Lose the war" how do you win a war? By having casualties? I think you forget the enemy here is ideology and religion, you can't eradicate that without genocide. This war is pointless. People don't die if you stop a pointless war. Good on wikileaks.[/QUOTE] All war is not pointless. War may be stupid, but it is also needed at times.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23768795]All war is not pointless. War may be stupid, but it is also needed at times.[/QUOTE] We aren't talking about all war, we're talking about the current war in Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23768795]All war is not pointless. War may be stupid, but it is also needed at times.[/QUOTE] No it isn't.
[QUOTE=IStanI;23768833]No it isn't.[/QUOTE] Oh god.
[QUOTE=Ragy;23768795]All war is not pointless. War may be stupid, but it is also needed at times.[/QUOTE] We're one of the most powerful coaltions in the world, anyone who can remotely threaten NATO is a gigantic economic partner, I see no need for war excluding 3rd world countries seeking revolution from oppressive governments.
In my opinion the least they could have done was admitted they fucked up and apologized, but instead they're trying to blame the White House for not helping them screen top secret documents that were never supposed to be released in the first place (which may or may not be true). That's not how a responsible organization acts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.