Author Topic: Wikileaks:  (Read 131129 times)

Offline Endoe

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,966
  • A liverbird on my chest
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #240 on: December 9, 2010, 10:56:44 am »
First of all, no. There were also insurgents.

Second of all, when did I say anything about journalists with weapons?
Wasn't having a go at you, just pointing out that.
« Last Edit: December 9, 2010, 11:01:14 am by Endoe »

Offline Trada

  • Fully paid up member of the JC cult. Ex-Tory boy. Corbyn's Chief Hagiographer. Sometimes hasn't got a kloop.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,852
  • Trada
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #241 on: December 9, 2010, 11:02:57 am »
SkyNewsBreak Sky News Newsdesk
by torres9gerrard
AFP: WikiLeaks supporters shut down Swedish government website.
Don't blame me I voted for Jeremy Corbyn!!

Miss you Tracy more and more every day xxx

“I carry them with me: what they would have thought and said and done. Make them a part of who I am. So even though they’re gone from the world they’re never gone from me.

Offline llcooljoel

  • He's bad
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,218
  • Denying I wanted Owen Coyle since 2011.
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #242 on: December 9, 2010, 11:04:09 am »
I dont for one minute believe that terrorists would attack most of these places, thats media spin being played out.. How come suddenly the media's focus is on these sites that interest America being now targets for Terrorists?
Surely in the hundreds of thousands of documents, they should be inundated with information to tell us all.. no, they are stuck on one or 2 points. And this Rape case is taking away newstime from the material that has been released.

We have 2 sites here in Ireland that are on that list, but no one is talking of terrorists coming over here and attacking us or the sites.
I dont see why they would either.. Scare tactics and an attemtp at justifying why these documents should not be released.

It's just another example of the fear tactics wheeled out by certain governments in order to ignore the law and introduce whatever legislation they feel like at the time. It strikes me how much of the outrage is being directed at the people who are leaking these documents rather than those responsible for the words and deeds contained within. Watch the American government bring in some new "terror" laws in the coming weeks targeted directly at Assange et al.
We all pay for life with death, so everything in between should be free.

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #243 on: December 9, 2010, 11:07:10 am »
sure is Joel.

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #244 on: December 9, 2010, 11:23:49 am »
The Apache gun camera video was discussed at length on here when it came out. The group quite clearly is carrying both Ak variants and at least one RPG type weapon (not so clear but in my opinion it looks like one).

That video is probably what the pilots were using too, they're about 1500m or more away from the group so it's unlikely they were using the naked eye.

The minivan with the kids in isn't as easy to explain but the kids aren't all that clear unless they're pointed out. You can kind of pick out a shape behind the driver but it really could be anything if you didn't know they were there.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #245 on: December 9, 2010, 11:27:34 am »
The Apache gun camera video was discussed at length on here when it came out. The group quite clearly is carrying both Ak variants and at least one RPG type weapon (not so clear but in my opinion it looks like one).

That video is probably what the pilots were using too, they're about 1500m or more away from the group so it's unlikely they were using the naked eye.

The minivan with the kids in isn't as easy to explain but the kids aren't all that clear unless they're pointed out. You can kind of pick out a shape behind the driver but it really could be anything if you didn't know they were there.
fair enough Dava, i dont know much if anything about being inside a gunship..
but, the 3rd thing those people did was launch a couple of missiles into a building (with permission)..
how can that be justified? if they are 1500m away, surely they cannot be anywhere near certain there are no people inside...

Offline Kahuna{=}Berger

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,775
  • Innovate, not imitate.
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #246 on: December 9, 2010, 11:27:49 am »
Just a quick question Dava, is the minivan a legitimate target, even if the occupant is trying to retrieve the wounded?

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #247 on: December 9, 2010, 11:32:20 am »
I've got no idea about the missiles. It would depend on why they've been fired. If they were fired under a genuine belief that lives were at risk if they weren't used then it's probably legal, as distasteful as it might seem.

No idea about the minivan is legit or not, again it would depend on why they fired at it and what RoE they were operating under at the time.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #248 on: December 9, 2010, 11:35:29 am »
I've got no idea about the missiles. It would depend on why they've been fired. If they were fired under a genuine belief that lives were at risk if they weren't used then it's probably legal, as distasteful as it might seem.

No idea about the minivan is legit or not, again it would depend on why they fired at it and what RoE they were operating under at the time.
I read about it, and the exact quotes were in the article, but they called their command center and asked permission to shoot a missile into a building as 2 insurgents had just run in, they said that the building was empty other than those 2. they were given permission to fire.

So, there is no way they could have been sure it was empty, and it certainly wasnt, 7 people were inside.
Then 2 people that ran, that were not insurgents.
One last point, the US Army had listed everyone involved in this entire event as an insurgent, which is clearly not the case.

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #249 on: December 9, 2010, 11:45:11 am »
It depends on what the pilots knew and can legitimately be expected to know (and their superiors in this case, since they asked permission). If the pilots genuinely believed the people to be legitimate targets and could realistically expect the building to be empty then it's probably legal although obviously a terrible mistake.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #250 on: December 9, 2010, 12:37:02 pm »
All I hear about Wikileaks is that they are risking lives and costing lives or they will cost lives. Could someone please give me one shred of evidence to back this up? They've been merrily leaking stuff since 2006 and yet during all that time, nobody has ever come up with irrefutable evidence that they have cost lives. Isn't that odd?

Wikileaks response to such allegations is consistent. They say they have never once been given any evidence that anyone has been harmed by their activities. One or two people may have been sacked and they claim to have altered the course of an election (democratically) but no deaths.

So what, exactly, gives anyone the right to gravely opine that Wikileaks will cost lives? Because it's the buzzphrase de nos jours right now, with American politicians of all stripes coming out and repeating what they've heard other people say. This kind of idle blather is what enables even more stupid people to call for Assange's execution, which is where we really career off into mental territory.

Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #251 on: December 9, 2010, 12:59:28 pm »
All I hear about Wikileaks is that they are risking lives and costing lives or they will cost lives. Could someone please give me one shred of evidence to back this up? They've been merrily leaking stuff since 2006 and yet during all that time, nobody has ever come up with irrefutable evidence that they have cost lives. Isn't that odd?

Wikileaks response to such allegations is consistent. They say they have never once been given any evidence that anyone has been harmed by their activities. One or two people may have been sacked and they claim to have altered the course of an election (democratically) but no deaths.

So what, exactly, gives anyone the right to gravely opine that Wikileaks will cost lives? Because it's the buzzphrase de nos jours right now, with American politicians of all stripes coming out and repeating what they've heard other people say. This kind of idle blather is what enables even more stupid people to call for Assange's execution, which is where we really career off into mental territory.

I have no idea what the politicians are saying, as I try to avoid both politicians and the news like the plague, but anyone that wishes harm on Assange is 'mental'.

With that said, I don't understand how someone could not see that the release of the sort of information that is reported to be in some of these cables (I've not read them, nor do I have any interest in so doing), could lead to people who wouldn't otherwise be killed to be killed.  Right or wrong, there is a reason that secret and classified information is secret and classified.  It isn't that the release of this information stops at just being embarrassing, as some have suggested about what was reportedly leaked recently.  Certain other things that are classified, like troop movements and deployments, for example, are also classified, and once you've shown that you'll release some classified information, should anyone really expect that you won't release any and all information you receive? Perhaps you think they're responsible enough not to publish such information.  I don't.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #252 on: December 9, 2010, 01:08:40 pm »
I've not read them, nor do I have any interest in so doing 

As far as I can recall from one of your previous abusive volleys, you're a US Govt employee so you're not allowed to read them.

With that said, I don't understand how someone could not see that the release of the sort of information that is reported to be in some of these cables ....could lead to people who wouldn't otherwise be killed to be killed. 

That's a tortured sentence (you must be a Govt employee) but what you seem to be saying is that you don't need any evidence because it stands to reason that someone will be killed. So, if that's true, why hasn't that happened already?

Offline Endoe

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,966
  • A liverbird on my chest
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #253 on: December 9, 2010, 01:16:21 pm »
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-05/world/iraq.photographers.killed_1_war-zones-two-reuters-journalists-gunship?_s=PM:WORLD
One of two photojournalists killed in a 2007 attack by a U.S. helicopter gunship in Iraq was being rescued when the gunship's crew fired on the van to which he was being carried, according to footage posted online Monday.

Reuters photographer Saeed Cmagh survived an initial strafing by the Apache gunship's 30 mm machine gun, but he apparently died when the gunship opened fire on people attempting to get him off the sidewalk where he lay, according to the video. The aerial footage was posted by the Web site WikiLeaks, which said the video remains classified and "clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers."

Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #254 on: December 9, 2010, 01:35:32 pm »
As far as I can recall from one of your previous abusive volleys, you're a US Govt employee so you're not allowed to read them.

Abusive?  I certainly disagree with the some of the things I've read in this thread, but I've not abused anyone.  I understand why people dislike my country's Government;  I don't blame them.  I don't even care that people poke fun or cast stones.  The folks in power certainly earned and deserve it most of the time.  I just find some of what's said, given my personal expericences, to be utterly ridiculous.


That's a tortured sentence (you must be a Govt employee) but what you seem to be saying is that you don't need any evidence because it stands to reason that someone will be killed. So, if that's true, why hasn't that happened already?

How do you know it hasn't?  How can you state with any certainty that the releases haven't cost a single person their life?  I'm not a betting man, but I'd wager that it's happened before.  I'm not trying to wind you up, but I think that your viewpoint on this particular issue is a little naive.

Offline ollick

  • Huge Dick..and a Big Knob too!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,624
  • Arghhhh
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #255 on: December 9, 2010, 01:41:12 pm »
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-05/world/iraq.photographers.killed_1_war-zones-two-reuters-journalists-gunship?_s=PM:WORLD
One of two photojournalists killed in a 2007 attack by a U.S. helicopter gunship in Iraq was being rescued when the gunship's crew fired on the van to which he was being carried, according to footage posted online Monday.

Reuters photographer Saeed Cmagh survived an initial strafing by the Apache gunship's 30 mm machine gun, but he apparently died when the gunship opened fire on people attempting to get him off the sidewalk where he lay, according to the video. The aerial footage was posted by the Web site WikiLeaks, which said the video remains classified and "clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers."

This was discussed at length this summer in another thread, might be worth digging it up and reading through it.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=256105.0
« Last Edit: December 9, 2010, 01:48:19 pm by ollick »
Why do people quote other people for the sigs?  What' the point?

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #256 on: December 9, 2010, 01:43:29 pm »
From what I've read Corky (not read the leaked docs myself) some of the information leaked includes the names of Iraqis and Afghans who have worked for or given information to the Coalition. It could certainly cost them. I'm pretty sure I've read reports of some already being killed, but I'm on my phone so I can't search for it now.

There's also the risk of agents in other countries being put at risk, depending what information is leaked.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #257 on: December 9, 2010, 02:16:54 pm »
Abusive?  I certainly disagree with the some of the things I've read in this thread, but I've not abused anyone. 

I was referring to a lovely PM you sent me one time.

How do you know it hasn't?  How can you state with any certainty that the releases haven't cost a single person their life?  I'm not a betting man, but I'd wager that it's happened before. 

That isn't the way it works at all. You have asserted that Wikileaks will cost lives. I've asked you to give me some evidence of that and your response is that I have to demonstrate that it hasn't happened. That shifts the burden of proof onto me, despite the fact that you made the initial assertion, which is a bizarre way to approach the matter.

Again. Show me some evidence that Wikileaks have cost lives and no, "they simply must have" is not a sufficient answer. If it's that inescapable, surely the combined forces of the US Govt, military and various corporations should be able to come up with clear, incontrovertible evidence. I'm all ears here.

From what I've read Corky (not read the leaked docs myself) some of the information leaked includes the names of Iraqis and Afghans who have worked for or given information to the Coalition. It could certainly cost them. I'm pretty sure I've read reports of some already being killed, but I'm on my phone so I can't search for it now.

There's also the risk of agents in other countries being put at risk, depending what information is leaked.

I agree those are theoretically possible outcomes but my point remains. If Wikileaks have cost lives, how hard could it be to show that? Or is that secret as well?

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #258 on: December 9, 2010, 02:19:00 pm »
Like I say mate, I'm sure I've read that they have. I might even have mentioned it on here when the first set of leaks came out if you want to do a search.

If not then I'll have a look when I'm not on my phone.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Online hide5seek

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,374
  • We all live in THE 5 EUROPEAN CUPS
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #259 on: December 9, 2010, 02:31:46 pm »
Surely hard to prove someone has been killed because of Wikileaks or  just been found out the normal way?

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #260 on: December 9, 2010, 02:57:45 pm »
Like I say mate, I'm sure I've read that they have. I might even have mentioned it on here when the first set of leaks came out if you want to do a search.

Yeah, I found it, here. I seem to have disagreed then too!

Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #261 on: December 9, 2010, 03:01:37 pm »
I was referring to a lovely PM you sent me one time.

Surely you wouldn't mind sharing it with me, as I have no record of ever sending you a personal message.

That isn't the way it works at all. You have asserted that Wikileaks will cost lives. I've asked you to give me some evidence of that and your response is that I have to demonstrate that it hasn't happened. That shifts the burden of proof onto me, despite the fact that you made the initial assertion, which is a bizarre way to approach the matter.

Again. Show me some evidence that Wikileaks have cost lives and no, "they simply must have" is not a sufficient answer. If it's that inescapable, surely the combined forces of the US Govt, military and various corporations should be able to come up with clear, incontrovertible evidence. I'm all ears here.

Taliban Says It Will Target Names Exposed by WikiLeaks
Militants were alerted to the leaked documents, which reveal details of informants, by news reports.
 
Christophe Simon / AFP-Getty Images
An Afghan farmer talks to U.S. Marines on the outskirts of Marja, Afghanistan, earlier this year.
The U.S. military has already accused WikiLeaks of having "the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family" on its hands after leaking 92,000 classified documents. The Taliban has now confirmed it is poring through the documents, and intends to hunt down and punish any suspected spies named.

Britain's Channel 4 News interviewed a Taliban spokesperson named Zabihullah Mujahid by telephone. "We are studying the report," he said, referring to the documents, available online, some containing the names, tribes, and family information of Afghan informants.

"We knew about the spies and people who collaborate with U.S. forces," he continued. "We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them."
 
The Taliban has recently pursued a policy of intimidating those who cooperate with the NATO forces in an attempt to undermine efforts at governance. Many local officials have been killed, and most have been threatened. The militant group is known to execute informants, reports Channel 4, by hanging, beheading, and shooting. It has even, on one recent occasion, strapped "two alleged traitors to explosives before detonating them in public."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen condemned WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange yesterday. "Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing," Mullen said, according to Reuters. "But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."

Gates told reporters that trust between the Afghan people and the U.S. military had been breached. "I spent most of my life in the intelligence business, where the sacrosanct principle is protecting your sources," he said. "It seems to me that, as a result of this massive breach of security, we have considerable repair work to do in terms of reassuring people and rebuilding trust, because they clearly—people are going to feel at risk."

Many media organizations have avoided linking to the WikiLeaks site and have redacted information in their reports. But Mujahid told Channel 4 that the Taliban had begun investigating the leaked information after being alerted by news stories.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/taliban-says-it-will-target-names-exposed-by-wikileaks.html?from=rss

Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks
Leaked U.S. Intel documents listed the names and villages of Afghan collaborators—and the Taliban is starting to retaliate.
After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered. Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

The violence may just be beginning. According to Agha Lali, the deputy head of Kandahar’s provincial council, threatening letters have been delivered to 70 elders in Panjwaii district. While it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents, it’s clear the Taliban believes they have been cooperating with Western forces and the Afghan government. One short handwritten note, shown to NEWSWEEK, said: “We have made a decision for your death. You have five days to leave Afghan soil. If you don’t, you don’t have the right to complain.” The screed, written on the letterhead of Mullah Mohammed Omar’s defunct Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, bore the signature of Abdul Rauf Khadim, a senior Taliban official and former inmate at the American lockup in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who had been released into—and subsequently escaped from—Kabul’s custody last year.

The frightening combination of the Taliban spokesman’s threat, Abdullah’s death, and the spate of letters has sparked a panic among many Afghans who have worked closely with coalition forces in the past, according to a senior Taliban intelligence officer who declined to be named for security reasons. The officer said he has seen reports of Afghans rushing to U.S. and coalition bases in southern and eastern Afghanistan over the past few days, seeking protection and even asking for political asylum. (U.S. military officials would not verify this information.) The Taliban officer claimed that the group’s English-language media department continues to actively examine the WikiLeaks material and intends to draw up lists of collaborators in each province, to add to the hit lists of local insurgent commanders.

The big question going forward is whether the leaked material will make regular Afghans more wary about cooperating with coalition forces. The intelligence officer, unsurprisingly, believes this will be the case. “The impact of this should be good for us and a slap in the face to those who are working with America,” he says. “America is not a good protector of spies.” Locals have long known that the Taliban deals harshly with those it suspects of working against it: the ruthless guerrillas have assassinated scores, if not hundreds, of tribal elders and Afghans of all ages for their alleged cooperation with the coalition. In one particularly gruesome case a few months ago, according to the intelligence officer, the Taliban discovered that a group of recent high-school graduates in Ghazni province had been feeding information to the Americans. The youths were arrested, and around 10 of them were hanged. The Taliban is also shutting down cell-phone networks after dark in an effort to prevent villagers from alerting coalition forces to the insurgents’ locations.

The Taliban has reason to fear such exposure by the local population. As a result of these tip-offs, the insurgents have lost scores of midlevel commanders to coalition antiterrorist operations over the past few months. Now the question is: has the WikiLeaks leak ruined that cooperation? Or will locals continue to undermine the Taliban at the risk of their own lives?

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/02/taliban-seeks-vengeance-in-wake-of-wikileaks.html




Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,404
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #262 on: December 9, 2010, 03:23:51 pm »
Surely you wouldn't mind sharing it with me, as I have no record of ever sending you a personal message.

I deleted it. I posted about it at the time, though.

Incidentally, High Cotton, please don't PM me any more. If I want to be called a fucking thick fuckwit mongoloid, I can always just go down my local.

While it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents, it’s clear the Taliban believes they have been cooperating with Western forces and the Afghan government.

The article then goes on to not make it clear in any way.

The Taliban have been executing people for suspected collaboration for quite some time. Here's another view, the source has links to further sources.


Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Wikileaks Likely Has Nothing To Do With Tribal Leader Deaths

Though the powers that be would have you believe that Wikileaks and their recent document release are to blame for a recent rash of tribal leader killings in Afghanistan, on closer look it seems highly unlikely that the two have anything to do with one another. One can read in Newsweek or in The New York Post that:

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

and how...

over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

What isn't made clear, and probably for very good reason, is what the execution has to do with the Wikileaks documents. I found another article which sort of filled in the details that Newsweek and The New York Post chose to leave out.

In an article originally from Asia World News that I found on Earthtimes, some added details are given around the events. Wikileaks however is never mentioned in the article. Were the events simply lifted and blamed on Wikileaks to fit the propaganda purposes of the Pentagon? Perhaps. But there is more. It is hard to imagine how the deaths could be connected to Wikileaks for two reasons. The Wikileaks documents came out on Sunday, the 25th of July. According to the article:

70 tribal elders in Panwayi district had received death threats unless they leave the country within five days.

The tribal leader, Khalifa Abdullah, who was recently killed, and mentioned in Newsweek as being a result of Wikileaks, was killed on Friday. Assuming they did give him five days, that would mean the same day Wikileaks released their material the Taliban was in a position to scourge through it all in english and find his name and issue the letters and have them arrive the same day so that the leaders would have their five days before the killing would begin. Not satisfied? There's still more...

At the very end of the article which doesn't mention Wikileaks at all, another more logical reason is given for the murders:

NATO said earlier this month that Taliban chief Mullah Omar had sent to his followers a list of tribal leaders to kill.

A month ago? What can that possibly have to do with the Wikileaks Afghan Diary?
If you wish you can also read another article from more than a month ago which talks of the Taliban assassinations as an ongoing event in the region way before Wikileaks was even making news.
It seems obvious to me that the Pentagon and their propaganda artists in the mainstream media have done a bit of cut and paste to make this suddenly all the fault of Wikileaks. Nice smear campaign.

source


Offline HelterSkelter

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 792
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #263 on: December 9, 2010, 04:40:02 pm »
Can't believe people on here are saying Wiki may put lives in danger. Our goverments have KILLED thousands through an illegal war or two. But lets focus on the fact that Wiki MIGHT of endangered some. 

Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #264 on: December 9, 2010, 05:02:19 pm »
Can't believe people on here are saying Wiki may put lives in danger. Our goverments have KILLED thousands through an illegal war or two. But lets focus on the fact that Wiki MIGHT of endangered some.

You're right.  It's alright to put more people in danger because of the irresponsible actions of our Governments.  Fight irresponsiblility with irresponsiblility!

Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #265 on: December 9, 2010, 05:21:35 pm »
I deleted it. I posted about it at the time, though.

Convenient.  I haven't deleted a single PM I've ever received or sent, and I have no record of it.  I seriously think you have me mistaken with someone else.  Can you at least link me to your posting about it at the time?  Or am I the only one that doesn't get to shift the burden of proof?

The article then goes on to not make it clear in any way.

The Taliban have been executing people for suspected collaboration for quite some time. Here's another view, the source has links to further sources.


Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Wikileaks Likely Has Nothing To Do With Tribal Leader Deaths

Though the powers that be would have you believe that Wikileaks and their recent document release are to blame for a recent rash of tribal leader killings in Afghanistan, on closer look it seems highly unlikely that the two have anything to do with one another. One can read in Newsweek or in The New York Post that:

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

and how...

over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

What isn't made clear, and probably for very good reason, is what the execution has to do with the Wikileaks documents. I found another article which sort of filled in the details that Newsweek and The New York Post chose to leave out.

In an article originally from Asia World News that I found on Earthtimes, some added details are given around the events. Wikileaks however is never mentioned in the article. Were the events simply lifted and blamed on Wikileaks to fit the propaganda purposes of the Pentagon? Perhaps. But there is more. It is hard to imagine how the deaths could be connected to Wikileaks for two reasons. The Wikileaks documents came out on Sunday, the 25th of July. According to the article:

70 tribal elders in Panwayi district had received death threats unless they leave the country within five days.

The tribal leader, Khalifa Abdullah, who was recently killed, and mentioned in Newsweek as being a result of Wikileaks, was killed on Friday. Assuming they did give him five days, that would mean the same day Wikileaks released their material the Taliban was in a position to scourge through it all in english and find his name and issue the letters and have them arrive the same day so that the leaders would have their five days before the killing would begin. Not satisfied? There's still more...

At the very end of the article which doesn't mention Wikileaks at all, another more logical reason is given for the murders:

NATO said earlier this month that Taliban chief Mullah Omar had sent to his followers a list of tribal leaders to kill.

A month ago? What can that possibly have to do with the Wikileaks Afghan Diary?
If you wish you can also read another article from more than a month ago which talks of the Taliban assassinations as an ongoing event in the region way before Wikileaks was even making news.
It seems obvious to me that the Pentagon and their propaganda artists in the mainstream media have done a bit of cut and paste to make this suddenly all the fault of Wikileaks. Nice smear campaign.

source

Given your bias on the issue, I'm not sure that I'm going to be able to provide you with the conclusive proof that I would need to change your mind on the topic, so I apologize for wasting your time, making you go through the news articles to respond.

The bottom line is that you don't think people will be harmed by as a result of the publishing of certain information (inlcluding the names of people cooperating coalition forces in Taliban territory..as in the example), and I do.

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #266 on: December 9, 2010, 05:47:59 pm »
You're right.  It's alright to put more people in danger because of the irresponsible actions of our Governments.  Fight irresponsiblility with irresponsiblility!
on the contrary Wikileaks is trying to put the responsibility to the irresponsible.
Their lies have been called out by Wikileaks, doesn't this twist the screw of responsibility into the governments?

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #267 on: December 9, 2010, 05:53:23 pm »
Convenient.  I haven't deleted a single PM I've ever received or sent, and I have no record of it.  I seriously think you have me mistaken with someone else.  Can you at least link me to your posting about it at the time?  Or am I the only one that doesn't get to shift the burden of proof?

Given your bias on the issue, I'm not sure that I'm going to be able to provide you with the conclusive proof that I would need to change your mind on the topic, so I apologize for wasting your time, making you go through the news articles to respond.

The bottom line is that you don't think people will be harmed by as a result of the publishing of certain information (inlcluding the names of people cooperating coalition forces in Taliban territory..as in the example), and I do.
Corkboy can be overly aggressive in his search for the truth ;)

I agree, and Corkboy agreed with Dava that lives 'could' be put in danger, but this is a line that is spouted again and again by the same media that try to perverse and influence our lives with their agenda day in and day out. There has been no proof that a single life has been lost. In the grand scheme of things, If a life or 2 are lost, but manners have been put on the aggressors, war crimes are called for against the agressors (unlikely because the US, UK and other western governments never cause any crimes, and never are accountable), If these documents make the aggressors change their civilian life wasting approach to war (sorry, i should have called those civilians insurgents) then perhaps lives will be saved??

Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #268 on: December 9, 2010, 06:01:07 pm »
on the contrary Wikileaks is trying to put the responsibility to the irresponsible.
Their lies have been called out by Wikileaks, doesn't this twist the screw of responsibility into the governments?

Fighting irresponsibility in an irresponsible manner and trying to make the irresponsible responsible for their actions are not mutually exclusive.

I don't see how releasing the names of informants trying to aid the Coalition in their fight against the taliban (just the example du jour) does anything other than put those folks at risk.  Surely, if the goal is to discredit the US and their allies in Afghanistan, there is a better way?  A way that won't out people who justifiably dislike the Taliban to the Taliban?

It seems that neither the Governments being outed by wikileaks nor wikileaks themselves care all that much about collateral. 

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #269 on: December 9, 2010, 06:04:06 pm »
Fighting irresponsibility in an irresponsible manner and trying to make the irresponsible responsible for their actions are not mutually exclusive.

I don't see how releasing the names of informants trying to aid the Coalition in their fight against the taliban (just the example du jour) does anything other than put those folks at risk.  Surely, if the goal is to discredit the US and their allies in Afghanistan, there is a better way?  A way that won't out people who justifiably dislike the Taliban to the Taliban?

It seems that neither the Governments being outed by wikileaks nor wikileaks themselves care all that much about collateral. 

Yea, i dont like seeing names of informants being put out, but i was referring to Wikileaks in general rather than a singular point. I know they also try their best to limit the exposure of these documents, but its clear they cannot be 100% on it.

Offline High_Cotton

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,043
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #270 on: December 9, 2010, 06:19:25 pm »
Corkboy can be overly aggressive in his search for the truth ;)

I don't mind that in the least.  His insights are informative, even if I couldn't disagree more with some of his arguments.

I agree, and Corkboy agreed with Dava that lives 'could' be put in danger, but this is a line that is spouted again and again by the same media that try to perverse and influence our lives with their agenda day in and day out. There has been no proof that a single life has been lost.

As I said previously, I don't pay much mind to the media, and had no idea they were making the same argument.  That we're making the same argument is either coincidence or shows that the belief that folks could be harmed is legitimate.  I suppose the difference is that there position is certainly more agenda driven, and I'm more genuinely worried for the folks that are suddenly finding themselves naked in the cold.  It is just too bad that the media aren't doing a good enough proving their arguments, as in this case, it would help me substantiate what I've said.

In the grand scheme of things, If a life or 2 are lost, but manners have been put on the aggressors, war crimes are called for against the agressors (unlikely because the US, UK and other western governments never cause any crimes, and never are accountable), If these documents make the aggressors change their civilian life wasting approach to war (sorry, i should have called those civilians insurgents) then perhaps lives will be saved??

I don't like this argument as I don't think wikileaks will change a thing, and all that will have happened will be the deaths of innocent people (<--and I realize that is arguable on a case by case basis).

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #271 on: December 9, 2010, 06:22:44 pm »
    * Business
    * Royal Dutch Shell

The US embassy cables
WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed

US embassy cables reveal top executive's claims that company 'knows everything' about key decisions in government ministries


The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles.

- profiting oil company c*nts!


WikiLeaks cables: Consult us before using intelligence to commit war crimes, US tells Uganda

US sought assurances that intelligence was being used 'in compliance with the law of armed conflict' during long-running Ugandan battle against Joseph Kony's rebel movement


The US told Uganda to let it know when the army was going to commit war crimes using American intelligence – but did not try to dissuade it from doing so, the US embassy cables suggest.

America was supporting the Ugandan government in its fight against rebel movement the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), providing information and $4.4m (£2.8m) worth of military hardware a year.

But a year ago officials became concerned that the Ugandans were guilty of war crimes in the long-running battle against Joseph Kony's rebel movement, which is famed for its brutal atrocities and abduction of children.

Jerry Lanier, the US ambassador to Kampala, reported on 16 December to Washington that the country's defence minister, Crispus Kiyonga, had verbally assured him that American intelligence was being used "in compliance with Ugandan law and the law of armed conflict. This pledge includes the principles of proportionality, distinction and humane treatment of captured combatants."

But Lanier continued: "Uganda understands the need to consult with the US in advance if the [Ugandan army] intends to use US-supplied intelligence to engage in operations not government [sic] by the law of armed conflict. Uganda understands and acknowledges that misuse of this intelligence could cause the US to end this intelligence sharing relationship."


- So, the US's intelligence is allowed to cost people lives, but Wikileaks plays by a different set of rules, and can be accused by that same government.


Offline OLDIE

  • WORLDIE
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,020
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #272 on: December 9, 2010, 06:22:57 pm »
What I find concerning is that people seem to be happy with the quality of information leaked. The authorities have not exactly put themselves in a position of denial. They leaks appear to be accepted as true information.

If the information leaked is true, who else is worried at the calibre of those who (lets be honest) control the world ? Who else is scared shitless about the lack of security surrounding this information and does anyone really believe that we wont have a major conflict/war in the near future.

Are we seeing the next stage in the development of the NWO ??




Answers on a postcard !




Offline Refo

  • ree! How art thee?!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,742
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #273 on: December 9, 2010, 06:24:06 pm »
There was no factual account to say they were insurgents. As far as i know no weapons were found. The attack helicopter was out to get insurgents in a group of similar size, but these don't appear to be the ones they were after. There was also 7 people in the building they missiled, 2 kids in a van and their father that got out to help the injured.

Details have been discussed in that other thread. Dava's the man to ask about this kind of stuff.

Quote
Did you all read that huge New Yorker article?
It's worth reading...
Haven't read the whole thing, no. Will shortly.

I dont want to quote the entire thing and i agree with a lot of what you said.
I wouldnt call America Evil in all walks of life, but certainly some of the things that happen on a political and military level simply are, that vid is just one such case. America is in a war with Iraq and Afghanistan, but yet they are not in a war in Burma, nor have they invaded to such an extent African countries that have widespread tyranny. Sending a few token troops is one thing, but they only send their armies to places that are in their economic interests, and OIL certainly is in their economic interests, so was stopping communism, and so forth. So, i wont have any of this that America went to Iraq to free the people from an Evil dictator who they themselves put in power. They went to Iraq for reasons that suits themselves. ( i say themselves rather than yourselves, as i seperate the US Gov and military from the ordinary people ).
I don't think America went in to free the people either. And I'm 100 percent against the war, because it was a bad idea in the first place, and was badly conducted. My point is that I don't think you can paint America's actions as evil. Stupid, maybe, but to me, evil implies an intent to exploit the Iraqi people, and i simply don't think you can accuse America of that, even if they did want to support their oil company buddies.

Quote
I do agree that the Iraqi people needed help, but surely surely it could have been done in a more civilised manner, surely it could be done in a way that doesn't put the people in such harm, doesn't pit the ethnic groups and tribes against each other. Surely if you are there in the best interests of the people then you would respect the people and not kill 100,000s and thousands and say they all are insurgents, they are not all insurgents, wikileaks exposed this well known viewpoint also. Surely if you are there with good intentions and respectful to the people you are freeing you wouldn't set up a military base on the absolutley historic site of Babalon, and you wouldnt riddle this hugely important, hugely significant site with Bulletholes as it was being used as pretty much a practice range.
109000 people have died, as a result of this war, but I haven't seen us claiming they are all insurgents. Also, were all these people killed by American troops? Because surely if they were killed by sectarian violence and insurgents, you can't blame America for it. Also, its worth noting that had an insurgency not happened, America's military would have surely left years ago. As it stands most of it has already gone anyway.

Quote
Not that i condone or respect Al Queda in any sort of way, but weren't they always calling out America over their overly aggressive corporate and foreign policy in their region? Can there be any possible truth to this inlight of what Wikileaks has exposed. When all these documents have been viewed, the dust is allowed to settle and time takes its course, maybe it will be understood on a worldwide scale why there is such resentment to the USA from the middleeast. Something similar to the reasons Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Wasn't America antagonising the Japanese?

Maybe we will gain better insight, but at the same time, likely not. And certainly I see alot of people on here wishing to see evidence of American abuse, and when it is not shown, feigning outrage anyway. Pearl Harbour? Are you saying we shouldn't have intervened in WWII?

Quote
This is the sort of policy that irks the world, and not just the middleast Refo, It might not be so apparent from within your own borders, but it is quite obvious here, and almost everywhere else. But do understand that this is a recognition not of American people, but of American Elite, political and military. People worldwide don't recognise America's right to over extend their hands of influence. How is it that we can be so casual about our own countries defence, as can Canada, as can many many more places and America cannot...? They must know that they are pissing some serious people off to need to be so paranoid about defending the homeland. And why is it referred to as "homeland", surely that means that they recognise their right to their homeland as well as other lands?
What irks the world so much, that the US is a superpower? Would you prefer us to be isolationists? I can respect that but surely you know someone else would take our place. Would you prefer China or Russia, countries that don't have a free press?

Quote
Anyway, back onto Wikileaks. Wikileaks do not call themselves the Press, and dont want to be considered as such. They consider themselves as sources of transparent and correct information. They are not out to get America, they are infact more concerned with exposing these horrific regimes in Africa and the Middleast. America happens to be one entity that is everywhere, so therefore is in a greater position to be exposed. The information came to Wikileaks, they didnt go get it so to speak. Wikileaks as i stated are not the press, and don't see their existance as a means to provide slant, or direction to arguments, they see themselves as a databank of historical and factual information that will allow everyone to make up their own minds. Surely there must be some respect for this policy, equally so it is open to be criticised.

Jullian Assange started out by exposing problems in Australia, his home country. He can be relentless, he then moved on to expose places worldwide, as I said, Wikileaks is not out to get America, but they do indeed have their noses in everyones affairs, so they will get exposed more than others, and the world will be more critical as a result.

I respect the policy, but I think they are not careful enough. I would prefer they stick to releasing evidence of abuse.
I'm liking this Refo-fella. Wanna adopt?

Offline Refo

  • ree! How art thee?!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,742
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #274 on: December 9, 2010, 06:27:32 pm »
on the contrary Wikileaks is trying to put the responsibility to the irresponsible.
Their lies have been called out by Wikileaks, doesn't this twist the screw of responsibility into the governments?

Maybe it would help if you gave a few examples.
I'm liking this Refo-fella. Wanna adopt?

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #275 on: December 9, 2010, 07:30:44 pm »
Details have been discussed in that other thread. Dava's the man to ask about this kind of stuff.
Dava has been on the case :D

Quote
I don't think America went in to free the people either. And I'm 100 percent against the war, because it was a bad idea in the first place, and was badly conducted. My point is that I don't think you can paint America's actions as evil. Stupid, maybe, but to me, evil implies an intent to exploit the Iraqi people, and i simply don't think you can accuse America of that, even if they did want to support their oil company buddies.
I would call it stupid, but stupid implies lack of intelligence and lack of intellect, thats certainly not the case. They went in their to control the oil supply, or atleast to make the oil supply favourable, just like they have listed these sites of interest around the world, oil is at the top of the list of those sites. To get that oil, civilian lives have been taken. Maybe I lack the correct word, but they were and are certainly irresponsible, selfish, greedy, biggoted, minipulative and so forth. I'd love to see war crimes reach out to all those that have commited them, and not just to the enemies or easy targets. Perhaps Wikileaks can enable this hope?

Quote
109000 people have died, as a result of this war, but I haven't seen us claiming they are all insurgents. Also, were all these people killed by American troops? Because surely if they were killed by sectarian violence and insurgents, you can't blame America for it. Also, its worth noting that had an insurgency not happened, America's military would have surely left years ago. As it stands most of it has already gone anyway.
Have a read of that long article we were talking about yesterday, and you will see how the US military were listing pretty much everyone bar kids and women as insurgents.
This following bit is in reference to the UK troops, not US.. but the question may be asked, who is inciting sectarian violence and/or a civil war.. And who is pitting who against each other..?

"Two Iraqis were killed in the violence, an Interior Ministry official said. The fighting broke out after two British soldiers, allegedly dressed as Arabs, opened fire on a police patrol killing one officer and wounding another"
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/19/iraq

Quote
Maybe we will gain better insight, but at the same time, likely not. And certainly I see alot of people on here wishing to see evidence of American abuse, and when it is not shown, feigning outrage anyway. Pearl Harbour? Are you saying we shouldn't have intervened in WWII?
I want to see all or most that are guilty of commiting war crimes and inhumane sin to be brought before worthy courts, the hague springs to mind.. I dont want it to be just American, I want it to be everyone and anyone no matter what flag they fly.

No, that was not point. What i was saying was that Japan launched an attack on Pearl harbour, there may be many reasons as to why they did this, but one certainly is that the US Government provoked them endlessly, was this in an effort to get them to attack? I dont know, but certainly there was a motive for them to make a move.
I support the fact that the USA entered the the world war.

Quote
What irks the world so much, that the US is a superpower? Would you prefer us to be isolationists? I can respect that but surely you know someone else would take our place. Would you prefer China or Russia, countries that don't have a free press?
Thats not really a great argument, although I understand where you are coming from.. But no country should consider themselves as the World police, thats what made that movie so good btw, the fact that were so many satirical truths in it. Its like a shoolyard bully telling someone that they are lucky to be bullied by him, rather than have some other lad beat him each day.. perhaps there are better examples..

Quote
I respect the policy, but I think they are not careful enough. I would prefer they stick to releasing evidence of abuse.
I would support them releasing everything except info about individuals who are defenceless. To be fair, there should be an international body responsible for releasing evidence of abuse, its not up to Wikileaks to govern the world.

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #276 on: December 9, 2010, 07:41:15 pm »
The Iraqi police at the time could be trusted about as far as they could be thrown Conman. Which wouldn't have very far with sone of the useless, grossly obese wastes of organs I saw in blue out there.

A firefight between UK/US troops and the IP means pretty much nothing. A lot of them were working for the Mahdi Army when they weren't on shift and IP uniforms, vehicles and weapons were used in a number of attacks against Coalition forces.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #277 on: December 9, 2010, 07:43:01 pm »
The Iraqi police at the time could be trusted about as far as they could be thrown Conman. Which wouldn't have very far with sone of the useless, grossly obese wastes of organs I saw in blue out there.

A firefight between UK/US troops and the IP means pretty much nothing. A lot of them were working for the Mahdi Army when they weren't on shift and IP uniforms, vehicles and weapons were used in a number of attacks against Coalition forces.
Did the UK troops not dress as Arabs and open fire?

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #278 on: December 9, 2010, 07:43:36 pm »
Why WikiLeaks Is Winning Its Info War


There was a time when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's voluntary surrender to the British authorities might have put an end to the crisis created by the Internet provocateur's dissemination of tens of thousands of state secrets. But in the upside-down world of transnational crowdsourcing unleashed by WikiLeaks, in which thousands of activists around the globe can be rallied to defend and extend its work, Assange's arrest is a win, not a loss, for his organization.

The asymmetrical info war initiated by the WikiLeaks dump of diplomatic cables is all about spectacle — the more Assange is set up by world powers, the more powerful his own movement becomes. "The field of battle is WikiLeaks," wrote John Perry Barlow, a former Grateful Dead lyricist and founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the First Amendment advocacy group, in a message to his followers. "You are the troops." WikiLeaks admiringly forwarded the post to 300,000 of its own followers. As the U.S. and other governments attempted to close down WikiLeaks over the past week, those "troops" have fought back. And so far, it doesn't look like much of a contest. (Read TIME's interview with Julian Assange.)

First, the U.S. government pushed WikiLeaks off the servers of Amazon, its U.S. host — thanks in part to an effort by the office of Senator Joe Lieberman, who heads the Senate Homeland Security Committee. After the rogue site was pushed off a smaller, backup host in the U.S., it moved first to a Swiss domain, then to a simple numeric one. WikiLeaks has complained, and some news outlets have reported, about apparent hacker attacks against the website. The effect of all that pressure, however, was very much like cutting the head off the mythical Hydra. By Tuesday evening, WikiLeaks listed 507 Web addresses that it said were hosting the site worldwide.

The U.S. and its allies have taken other steps to curb WikiLeaks' activities. The French Industry Minister Eric Besson called for the site to be banned from French servers. Swiss bank PostFinance announced it had frozen $41,000 in an account set up as a legal-defense fund for Assange. The bank said it took action because Assange had claimed Geneva as his domicile when opening the account, but this had proved incorrect and he could not show that he is a Swiss resident. PayPal, MasterCard and Visa have all blocked donations to WikiLeaks. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks' backers are fighting back, though their hacker attacks on some of the sites that shut off WikiLeaks funding may be less effective. (See all of TIME's WikiLeaks coverage.)

Assange's detention is not without its costs to him and WikiLeaks. Swedish prosecutors say he has been accused of having had unprotected sex with a woman, identified only as Miss A, despite her insistence that he use a condom, and that he had unprotected sex with a second woman, Miss W, while she was asleep. Both scenarios would be crimes in Sweden, and the attention to the charges has divided some of his supporters. Assange has not been formally charged with any crime and denies any wrongdoing.

But the principal effect of his arrest has been to rally the troops. Assange, who was in hiding in England, turned himself in to British police on Tuesday morning. That afternoon, he faced a hearing in which his British lawyer pledged to appeal again against extradition to Sweden. Several people present offered tens of thousands of dollars worth of bail, but the judge ordered him held without bail. Supporters cheered Assange as he left the courthouse. (Read "WikiLeaks' War on Secrecy.")

And the David vs. Goliath stagecraft continues. Assange's Swedish attorney, Bjorn Hurtig, told Reuters on Friday that he suspects "somebody has an interest in getting [Assange] to Sweden and maybe asking for him to be extradited to another country [from there]." In fact, extradition from Europe to the U.S. is hard, and even if Assange could be extradited it's not clear what he could be charged with.

There is, of course, a limit to how much Assange can win. In the U.S., officials are finding that while there were certainly structural reasons like expanded technology and overclassification behind the theft of the leaked documents, practical reasons were equally important. Thanks to an imperative from then commander of the U.S. Central Command David Petraeus and others to share information with allies on improvised explosive devices and other threats, the Central Command allowed the downloading of data from its secret in-house network, SIPRNet, to removable storage devices, officials tell TIME. The information was then carried to computers linked to secret networks used by allies and uploaded. The process was derisively called "sneaker net," because it was so inefficient, although it replaced the prior need to manually retype all information into the allied computers. (Comment on this story.)

New restrictions on downloading media have been imposed over the past six months, restoring the restrictions that existed before the leaks. That may be one victory for the U.S. in its attempts to fight WikiLeaks. Meanwhile, Assange's lawyer said Tuesday that a new editor in chief of WikiLeaks would step in during Assange's absence.
— With reporting by Eben Harrell / London


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2035817,00.html#ixzz17e4OM2Ks

Offline BIGdavalad

  • Major Malfunction. Yearns To Be A Crab! MOD Agony Aunt. Dulldream Believer. Is the proud owner of a one year old login time.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,024
Re: Wikileaks:
« Reply #279 on: December 9, 2010, 07:44:59 pm »
I'm not claiming they didn't. I'm claiming that there's a very good chance that it was legitimate and not part of some agent provocateur campaign.
Joining Betfair? Use the referral code UHHFL6VHG and we'll both get some extra cash.

All of the above came from my head unless otherwise stated. If you have been affected by the issues raised by my post, please feel free to contact us on 0800 1234567 and we will send you an information pack on manning the fuck up.