Wooooo, someone just unleashed a treasure trove of classified documents to the public about Iraq and Afghanistan. And the ****storm will begin right about...............now.
Last edited by a moderator:
My maxim on this is:Indeed. It looks like the helicopter gunship killing Iraqi civilians was just the start, I wonder what other dirty laundry they've been sitting on......
Note, the site for this info dump contains some pretty heavily biased editorializing - not a lot of it, just enough to let you know what his stance is. I realize the guy who runs the site just can't help himself, but I can't understand why he doesn't see that he undermines his own credibility by not simply dumping the information with a factual explanation of what it is.BTW, wikileaks is not considered an unbiased site, as was proven in their doctoring, voice-overs, and incorrect, misleading commentary of prior pieces.
Yeah, the wikileaks on Afghanastan is a big yawn. Is anyone really surprised that the locals are taking money meant for orphanges and spending it on themselves? That local Afghani's are trying to extort money from UN Convoy's? That local Afghani's are saying they are under attack from insurgents and need ammunition, only to be found to have sold the ammunition in a local bazarre? It goes on and on.I have read that wikileaks is an anti war group? can't say for sure. This won't be about the veracity of Wikileaks. It will be about the 90,000 military documents.
I saw that quote too and though I don't think they make any direct claims about what they post (just implied ones), I think it is a relatively safe conclusion.I have read that wikileaks is an anti war group? can't say for sure.
Mostly, anyway.This won't be about the veracity of Wikileaks. It will be about the 90,000 military documents.
I agree that they're not unbiased. Can you source the doctoring for me? I hadn't heard that one.BTW, wikileaks is not considered an unbiased site, as was proven in their doctoring, voice-overs, and incorrect, misleading commentary of prior pieces.
If it is classified, absolutely yes!I cannot comment on the quality of information it presents but certainly can see the need of it. Should we let the governments decide if some controversial information should be made available to the public?
Yes but in all fairness, is a government really in the best position to objectively judge this? They can say this of all info that is damaging. If any, this should be judged by a supreme court.If it is classified, absolutely yes!
It's my understanding that these documents are after action reports by soldiers. The wikileaks editor says they have a policy for minimizing harm, but they don't eliminate it: the release of after action reports can be very damaging to the war effort. Based on the mischaracterizations of the helicopter shooting tape they made and the anti-war/anti-government stance of the editor, I honestly don't think this guy can see beyond the propaganda value to the real military value of such information. He loves this stuff because of the propaganda, but he doesn't even see he's giving the enemy detailed information about our tactics.
Some information is just plain not fit for public consumption because the general public simply doesn't have the frame of reference needed to propertly process the information. It's a case where if misinterpreted, more facts can actually result in less understanding. His focusing on the laughing of the soldiers in the chopper video is a clear indication that he is simply unable to process what he's seeing.
By the same token, if people saw what happened after being put under anesthetic in an oral surgeon's office, there'd be even more fear of dentists than there already is.
[PLAIN]http://www.andystrekpage.de/garak01.jpg [Broken]I'm wondering how someone downloaded that much information thinking that they wouldn't get caught. It's only a matter of time before the military figures out who gave that info to Wikileaks. It may just be obvious day to day issues but, it's still classified. The person who did this is a traitor.
It isn't a patriotic fixation or something in the eye of the beholder. People who have access to classified documents sign agreements that they will not divulge classified information. Breaking that agreement is grounds to be arrested for treason. That is made clear to them - you break the agreement, you get arrested.Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder
I never really got this strange fixation people have with 'treason' really, but I'm not a nationalist or patriot and never got that either, so...
Oh wow, someone who believes intelligence is more than a subjective judgement, carry on, carry on.Citation, please.
Sure, but the people that don't reveal it get tried for war crimes by the enemy afterwards and then they say you should have stood up against it.It isn't a patriotic fixation or something in the eye of the beholder. People who have access to classified documents sign agreements that they will not divulge classified information. Breaking that agreement is grounds to be arrested for treason. That is made clear to them - you break the agreement, you get arrested.
Maybe you shouldn't resort to juvenile name-calling then.How am I supposed to provide a citation for this?
I think our concept of 'definition' is a bit different, in my world a definition is devoid is vague terms like 'exceptionally grave damage', also, citation that the damage to national security is exceptionally grave?
I said I found a world leader stupid in a politics board. I am not allowed to criticize a world leader on his by my perceived intellectual shortcomings for the job?If you can't, then maybe you should stick to the facts, rather than juvenile name-calling.