EPT
EDIT: Ooh la la it's up on TPB in CSV format.
Wikileaks - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
EDIT: Ooh la la it's up on TPB in CSV format. | ||
|
ckw
United States1018 Posts
On July 26 2010 08:56 Elegy wrote: I HIGHLY doubt there is anything in those documents that really matters. It's probably a load of stuff about casualties, civilian and military, that everyone knows happens but the military tends to hush up because it's embarrassing and sad when a missile misses and blows up Afghani civilians. If any of this information endangers the lives of service members, then those responsible for leaking it should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but if it's merely an account of the various embarrassing moments throughout the war that doesn't place anyone in danger, there is no reason for it to be hidden. And there won't be any "government repercussions" for downloading this. What are they going to do, track down the (easily) thousands of people who have downloaded this information and...make them disappear? lol. Dude, it shows locations. Read it. | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
| ||
|
Gliche
United States811 Posts
i haven't kept up with it, but a friend of mine who keeps up with all these things says that it's kind of just an overblown media sensation. all the real important stuff hasn't been leaked. most of it is just standard military stuff you will find accessible in books/records a few years down the road. that said, i expect wikileaks to be punished hardcore for this, and new laws enacted prevent this in the future, as well as extra regulation of the internet while they have the chance | ||
|
RaiderRob
Netherlands377 Posts
The US government allowed these documents to be leaked to turn people more against the war, and mostly the conservative publications and Republican politicians. I'm pretty sure Obama wants to end this war ever since he set foot in the Oval Office but doing so from the getgo would make him look weak and give his opponents an easy target. But if he can get his opponents calling for an end to it, it will make it easy for him to pull out with little to no political damage taken. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
| ||
|
Eben
United States769 Posts
| ||
|
deth
Australia1757 Posts
On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote: Why? This is war time in Afghanistan. Very few people are going to condemn the invasion of Afghanistan and unless there's something truly horrific that wasn't due to human error or wasn't dealt with, I'm not sure the contents themselves are that inflammatory (although the fact that the contents are available certainly is.) But you never know, there could be some gross negligence or something. #1 is the major sticking point, but I certainly don't think any other sovereign nation will question it. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened One thing to pay attention to is the note taking skills of the military. Very close attention is usually paid to documenting any type of conflict. For instance, the reason we have all the leaked gunship footage is because each raid is recorded and reviewed later on. The estimates in these reports should be pretty accurate. I'm extremely curious what kind of effect this has on the future of intelligence operations. :o Something I should clarify. I support the international aid to the war efforts in Afghanistan. But there have been so many mistakes, cover-ups and lies told about situations, casualties and attacks that I think it's great for wikileaks to publish the information so we can have transparency around military operations in Afganistan. It pressures the US military (and international forces, for that matter) to be more careful in engagements, and to try and minimise mistakes. The Taliban/AQ are a threat to western society and countless lives, and certainly must be dealt with. And to ckw, wikileaks isn't based in the US, they don't need permission from the US government to run their operations.. Your argument about jews killing muslims made me laugh btw, great way to not address any logical points in a discussion. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote: Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. over what? Afghanistan is invaded because of the way we live. It has a strategic position to protect Iraqi-Kuwait-Saudi oil. Same reason why the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1980: control the Middle East oil and you essentially control the U.S & Western economies. I think it was JPMorgan in the 90s during the first gulf war that if Saudi oilfields are attacked by long-range Iraqi military, oil barrel price could skyrocket to 300 to 400$/barrel. None of the airlines can survive at 150$/barrel. ShcShc11@gmail.com | ||
|
shin ken
Germany614 Posts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/826B488C-EA6F-A132-511610DB68C2EDBD | ||
|
Imagist
Australia484 Posts
On July 26 2010 08:51 ckw wrote: Respect isn't the word I would use for Wikileaks. This is insulting the country in which grants them the freedom to exist and putting peoples lives at risk. I hope they get shut down. I fail to see how this is an insult to Iceland. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On July 26 2010 09:15 Imagist wrote: I fail to see how this is an insult to Iceland. I thought the guy behind wikileaks was Swedish? Or is it the servers that are located on Iceland? | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 26 2010 09:13 dethrawr wrote: We really don't know what it does. I think rational cases could be made that it improves the war effort or that it makes it weaker. Don't really know what the answer is. I'll just say that before it pressures them to be more careful in engagements, it pressures them to be more careful with their file management. Something I should clarify. I support the international aid to the war efforts in Afghanistan. But there have been so many mistakes, cover-ups and lies told about situations, casualties and attacks that I think it's great for wikileaks to publish the information so we can have transparency around military operations in Afganistan. It pressures the US military (and international forces, for that matter) to be more careful in engagements, and to try and minimise mistakes.  | ||
|
Imagist
Australia484 Posts
On July 26 2010 09:19 Integra wrote: I thought the guy behind wikileaks was Swedish? Or is it the servers that are located on Iceland? The guy is Swedish. They just moved their servers to Iceland where a robust set of media protection/whistleblower laws that he helped to write have just been passed. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 26 2010 09:09 Sfydjklm wrote: well i coulda lived without a checkmark next to my name out of sole reason to satisfy my curiosity checkmark what are you talking about? if you're really that paranoid download with a proxy but... it'd be so complicated and difficult for any intelligence agency to track who downloads this maybe you're not being all that serious though I guess | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On July 26 2010 09:25 travis wrote: checkmark what are you talking about? if you're really that paranoid download with a proxy but... it'd be so complicated and difficult for any intelligence agency to track who downloads this maybe you're not being all that serious though I guess If Travis says it's safe and that the Government won't come after you, that's all I need to know. Download away. | ||
|
USn
United States376 Posts
Newsflash: Wikileaks is not based in the US and they have no obligation to consider your enemies their enemies. | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote: 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ Sorry to just quote this point. Would you care to elaborate what reasons they had? (Apart from opium & other resources) Also there is a german blog (http://blog.fefe.de/) which states: "Für die New York Times ist die Kernaussage, dass der ISI (Pakistans Geheimdienst) hinter der Taliban steckt." (For the New York Times the core message is, that the ISI (Pakisan Secret Service) is behind the Taliban). So therefore the USA should have, according to you (based on the facts of wikileaks), legitimate reasons to enter Pakistan next to pursue the people behind the Taliban? (just for additonal fun: link) Edit (to clarify): I hope there is nothing leaked which endangers the life of individuals. If that would be the case I'd be against those documents leaking. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 26 2010 09:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: If Travis says it's safe and that the Government won't come after you, that's all I need to know. Download away. ty for replying to me by saying "you're wrong" and giving no basis for it whatsoever. unless the server that this is hosted on works with U.S. intelligence it would be insanely complicated for them to track people who download it. if you disagree with me, then say why! otherwise you're just being a dick. edit: I realized I may be misinterpreting your tone completely and that you aren't being sarcastic at all, lol. if so, im sorry which is the case? | ||
| ||
