Wikileaks - Page 3

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.

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

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.

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.

On July 26 2010 09:15 Imagist wrote:


I fail to see how this is an insult to Iceland.

On July 26 2010 09:13 dethrawr wrote:


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.

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?

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

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

On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:

1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ

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.