Wikileaks [MERGED]

[rareboy]

Re: Wikileaks

Taliban leaders have said they're now using the leaked documents to hunt down Afghan informants who have been helping American troops. Who knows how much blood is already on his hands.

If you think that one of the 850,000 people who had clearance for these documents hasn't already passed along any real intelligence that is in these documents, you're more naive than I thought.

But interesting how now it is suddenly the Afghans' blood you're worried about spilling? It isn't and you know it. Have you even thought about the number of innocent Afghani's killed by US and other troops in the past 9 years? Nope.

It is merely a knee-jerk response to something that threatens the fog of war approach to disseminating information about military conflict.

As I said. The Pentagon papers these ain't. They're pretty dull reading for the most part.

But you know what? It will make the Pentagon even more careful about how they handle this type of info, I'll bet. this is practice they won't forget when it comes time to really guard the palace secrets.

So the guy did them a favour. Now they can hang him and scare the children even more in Fortress America.

 

[laikaNYC]

Re: Wikileaks

Not until now have tens of thousands of documents been posted on an infamous website. And now you're calling the US and our allies murderers of innocents? I thought I had heard just about all the left-wing talking points from you already.

 

[rareboy]

Re: Wikileaks

Nawwwww.

Now you're just doing more Fox-spin.

C'mon kid. Stop destroying your cred so quickly.

I asked if you'd ever given a thought to all the innocent Afghanis killed as collateral damage in this war since you suddenly seem to have some conscience about the protection of those who you have been told may be named in the docs on wikileak? Why do these Afghanis suddenly matter to you so much?

 

[laikaNYC]

Re: Wikileaks

Nawwwww.

Now you're just doing more Fox-spin.

C'mon kid. Stop destroying your cred so quickly.

I asked if you'd ever given a thought to all the innocent Afghanis killed as collateral damage in this war since you suddenly seem to have some conscience about the protection of those who you have been told may be named in the docs on wikileak? Why do these Afghanis suddenly matter to you so much?

Please don't put words in my mouth. Do you care to see their country have a real democracy? Do you care to see their homeland free of radical jihadists who wouldn't think twice to execute them for any trivial reason? I do. So yeah, you could say that those Afghanis "matter" to me.

 

[bankside]

Re: Wikileaks

I've looked at the grand scheme, and I consider it to be very dangerous what wikileaks is doing. Forgive me for caring about the safety of the soldiers from my country.

The safety of soldiers from your country is very much entwined with the safety of soldiers from my country, as we are allies in Afghanistan. I have friends who are fighting and have fought there.

That there will be civilian casualties in Afghanistan is a given. There is even a moral argument to be made that ordinary Afghanis owed it to the world to rise up and depose the Taleban prior to 2001, and that their failure to contain the extremist problem is not only a mandate for external action, but an offence against humanity.

I don't want my Canadian soldiers or their American allies to face greater risks in that war zone than even non-combattants, since we're in there doing a job that should have been taken care of by the Afghan population itself via a civil war that they failed to conduct.

However I still want verification that our soldiers are conducting themselves according to the laws of war, and making every reasonable effort to minimise the death toll, and basically I want proof of their ability to be different from every strong-man crackpot who has subjugated the people in that country for many decades. I want to be sure the population can tell the difference between the behaviour of a dictatorial theocrat, and the behaviour of our militaries.

The only way to get that proof is through independent verification. When something goes wrong, the interests of voters in a democracy are well-served by protecting people who bring it to our attention. Cover-ups can't be justified or tolerated.

IRAQ is an area where I hope there is an even greater role for wiki leaks. For as much as we are allies in Afghanistan and I hope our soldiers can get the job done with the least amount of grief, the United States never had any business going into Iraq with fake propaganda "intelligence." It is as far as we know, an illegal war. Thus in Iraq, compared to the safety of non-combattants, I really don't give a damn about the safety of soldiers from your country: they have no business being there and every civilian casualty is unforgivable.

There is much more of the story to be told about Bush's machinations and orchestrations of that debacle.

Obama is not in a position to pull that apart. In democracies, there is a certain kind of lèse-majesté that one democratically elected leader grants to his democratically elected predecessor. The election is considered the ultimate and only verdict on the policies of the predecessor and that party, and it is an unwritten rule of democracies to let the past lie: what happened happened before was done under a democratic mandate, and now the electorate have spoken. This arrangement allows the country to shift course without engaging in an all-consuming tug-of-war of revisionism, of trying to undo the previous mandate. It is the lack of this lèse-majesté that probably foils democratic transition in so many African countries: the first instinct of a new party on obtaining power is to seek revenge on their predecessors, who weary of governing as they may be, naturally resist. Mature western democracies seek to avoid even the perception of that scenario.

And Obama has announced as much: his administration is not even exploring whether to build a case for war crimes charges against miniBush or Cheney or Rumsfeld: they all have their own kind of immunity - the immunity of the defeated party that leaves office peaceably.

However that does not mean that a case cannot be made. It will just require bringing authentic information into the light via other channels.. In this case, the international stature and influence of the United States were so crippled by the lunacy of Iraq that they can only hope information comes forward via something like wikileaks that will force the system to proceed against Bush, or at the very least show clearly to the international community where the blame lies.

 

[kallipolis]

Re: Wikileaks

^There is no hope in Hell of any sitting American president taking legal action against a previous POTUS.

Such a precedent would immobilise any sitting president from taking military action, against a perceived enemy, for fear of having to face a judicial tribunal to answer charges.

The United States does not recognise the jurisdiction of The World Court for this very reason.

President Nixon's criminal actions were wiped clean, by a pardon, granted by his successor.

 

[rareboy]

Re: Wikileaks

Do you care to see their country have a real democracy? Do you care to see their homeland free of radical jihadists who wouldn't think twice to execute them for any trivial reason? I do.

And now you nakedly demonstrate your inability to understand tribal cultures and atavistic societies.

I'll just bet you think that the democracy invented by your 'founding fathers' is something perfect and exportable. Remember that it too tolerated slavery and the exclusion of women from voting.

So do you want to export the US democracy with all the amendments? Is that what you envision the people of Afghanistan should want?

How about Iranian democracy? Or Palestinian democracy? Or Pakistani democracy? Or Indian Democracy? Which ones of those is a real democracy? There are many democratic countries for instance that allow more than only two political parties. Perhaps Iraqi democracy then? Russia is a democracy now too.

What you need to understand about Afghanistan is the tribal culture and the endemic and centuries old systems of governance and justice. Because you do not understand, you think that the US and 'allies' are over there to win. There is no win. There is only not losing. this is the country that helped bring the USSR to its knees.

There will be no perfect democracy in Afghanistan. Not this decade or this century. It will not exist until the tribal culture is eradicated. Which no one wants to do. Maybe China could finally beat the snot out of them but they wouldn't be asking for a vote afterward.

BTW, has it ever occurred to you that the Afghanis are cynical enough and smart enough to keep conflict alive because it means the endless influx of billions of dollars into an economy that otherwise is marginal at best and without opium, virtually non-existent at worst. Pakistan certainly knows how to play this card. Do you really think that from the Brits dividing the spoils of the mideast and the Durand line, through the Soviet occupation and now that by the west that foreigners are somehow seen as liberators?

Be honest. You don't care about the jihadists executing Afghanis. You only care about Afghanistan because bin Laden and al Quaeda used it to plan and launch attacks against the US. If the only choice was to obliterate the country to prevent this from happening again, I'll bet anything that you'd be cheering on the four horsemen.

Your sudden care for the Afghani people is touching but false. It is only because your argument that the US troops would be endangered by Wikileaks has fallen apart.

Bankside has explained why scrutiny by the citizens paying for conflict can be essential.

It was in the case of Vietnam.

Now go back to your history books, and not the ones the Texas board of Education wants all US children to use, but real history books that will give you some understanding of the area of the world you're suddenly so fretful about.

 

[laikaNYC]

Re: Wikileaks

Is it possible for you to explain your opinion without launching personal attacks?

 

[bankside]

Re: Wikileaks

Is it possible for you to explain your opinion without launching personal attacks?

Here we have an example of the real reason for avoiding personal attacks: not because it's "rude," and regardless of whether you are able to substantiate the commentary , but because it allows people to focus on their own perception of being slighted and avoid any responsibility for answering the substance of the opposing view in debate.

So laika, tell Rareboy he's rude, and then answer to the substance of the debate.

 

[rareboy]

Re: Wikileaks

Oh good heaven's, I'm so sorry.

I just would think that the biggest fan of Fox news would understand that the context for a person's opinion or stand is sometimes more important than the opinion itself.

And such a response from one that has had no problem at all labelling others wing-nuts, etc.

I've had years of students' noise and fury signifying nothing. And most of the time, when put to the test, all they can do is complain about hurt feelings.

If you are serious about obtaining a degree in history and political history, the first thing you've got to do is stop being a partisan conservative flak, because at this point you don't simply know enough to hold up your end in an argument.

You clearly don't like being challenged, but if you don't ease up on the doctrinaire Republican line, as barfed out by the Fox cabal, you are never going to finish your Master's or PhD.

And I think that it is a shame if all you extracted from my previous post was some imagined slight against you as a person.

 

[laikaNYC]

Re: Wikileaks

Oh good heaven's, I'm so sorry.

I just would think that the biggest fan of Fox news would understand that the context for a person's opinion or stand is sometimes more important than the opinion itself.

And such a response from one that has had no problem at all labelling others wing-nuts, etc.

I've had years of students' noise and fury signifying nothing. And most of the time, when put to the test, all they can do is complain about hurt feelings.

If you are serious about obtaining a degree in history and political history, the first thing you've got to do is stop being a partisan conservative flak, because at this point you don't simply know enough to hold up your end in an argument.

You clearly don't like being challenged, but if you don't ease up on the doctrinaire Republican line, as barfed out by the Fox cabal, you are never going to finish your Master's or PhD.

And I think that it is a shame if all you extracted from my previous post was some imagined slight against you as a person.

I don't mind being challenged at all. I quite like it. I mean I go to Columbia University for goodness sake. But everything you spout is anti-conservative, FOX, Republican, etc. You calling someone partisan? Pot meet kettle. Hopefully you haven't indoctrinated too many students.

 

[bankside]

Re: Wikileaks

Ahh. So I infer that, although you won't actually answer the question, your reply is basically "Tu quoque."

 

[Corny]

Re: Wikileaks

laika hasn't answered ANY question, he just shifts his arguments if he is asked to back them up.

Not until now have tens of thousands of documents been posted on an infamous website. And now you're calling the US and our allies murderers of innocents? I thought I had heard just about all the left-wing talking points from you already.

ffs .. read the documents. because clearly you didn't. besides other things they document VERY WELL the murders of innocents.

 

[laikaNYC]

Re: Wikileaks

I answered the questions why I'm not happy with Assange and his crew. You just didn't like my opinion.

 

[kallipolis]

Re: Wikileaks

My Welsh partner has asked me to provide a link to the childhood background on Bradley Manning. It would appear that Pvt. Manning is from Pembrokeshire, Wales. Another Briton with a conscience?:

http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/n...embrokeshire_pupil_s_Wikileaks_arrest/?ref=mr

 

[justapixel]

WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning responsible for US deaths

Bradley Manning who released tens of thousands of secret documents to WikiLeaks is responsible for numerous death of US allies and potentially US troops.

The Taliban has already begun to retaliate against Afghan collaborators named in more than 90,000 secret U.S. files released by a whistleblower website, Newsweek reported Monday.

Death threats have also begun arriving at the homes of a number of other tribal leaders.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange acknowledged that Afghan deaths may be "unavoidable" after his website released the files, but he said he felt in was in the public interest.

Questioned by Australian news program "Dateline" as to whether their release may lead to Afghan informants named in the documents being killed, Assange said it was possible.

"It's absolutely not something I want, but ... the possibility of that is unavoidable," the Australian said.

"In the end we are forced to make hard choices."

Bradley Manning should br tried as a traitor to the US and executed.

Julian Assange should be tried by the Australian authorities and also executed.

Many US troops will be killed by the release of the names of our allies.

Nobody will dare ally with us now. Without information from Afghan allies, US troops will be killed.







http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/taliban_seeks_vengeance_on_afghans_cy9V6VfsOcOW3982DAC44O

 

[justapixel]

Re: WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning responsible for US deaths

Bradley Manning, also, has set back the end of 'Dont ask, Dont tell'.

Mr Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: "Bradley Manning didn't want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast."

At the beginning of May, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: "Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn't have anything left."

Five days later he said he was "livid" after being "lectured by ex-boyfriend", then later the same day said he was "not a piece of equipment" and was "beyond frustrated with people and society at large".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...aks-documents-raged-on-his-Facebook-page.html

 

[Corny]

oh just for all the people who scream "blood on their hands" .. Assange told the media yesterday that they offered the files to the US government before so that they could filter out the names of known collaborators before they got published on wikileaks. they refused.

so the files got published .. but wikileaks still held over 1500 of them back because those would have posed an obvious risk to people involved.

it's still so ironic that a Mr Gates whose job is to make his underlings kill other people as efficiently as possible is talking about others having blood on their hands

oh yeah .. it's just innocent afghani people .. at least not us soldiers, right?
guess the canadian soldiers don't matter either:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/26/wikileak-afghanistan-canada-soldiers.html

 

[rareboy]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

And we're supposed to have infinite faith in what the Pentagon brass have to say?

 

[BostonPirate]

HA!

I bet they have some swamp land for sale too