wikileaks followup
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civilian deaths are unacceptable
Ridiculous: how can you fight a war with your hands tied behind your back and where the line between civilian and enemy are quite blurred. Modern wars are not about 2 uniformed armies lining up against each other so it can be albeit impossible to distinguish. Accidents also happen, blue-on-blue as well as civilian casualties. All that happens when you release information like this during the war is it gives strength and intel to the enemy: whoever leaked this is treasonous and the media outlets should be utterly ashamed of themselves (and, where possible, should be prosecuted). The problem is that war has become unacceptable to the west: even 1 casualty is too many. Pity since war isn't going away and, with that attitude, we may as well rollover and hoist the white flag.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
It's a tough one. What if, and sure we could play this game all day, but what if the release of those documents resulted in those wars ending earlier? What if 5 service men were killed tomorrow as a result of the leak but 10,000 didn't get deployed? Turns out the founder is an Aussie and may face charges under Australia law[^]
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civilian deaths are unacceptable
Ridiculous: how can you fight a war with your hands tied behind your back and where the line between civilian and enemy are quite blurred. Modern wars are not about 2 uniformed armies lining up against each other so it can be albeit impossible to distinguish. Accidents also happen, blue-on-blue as well as civilian casualties. All that happens when you release information like this during the war is it gives strength and intel to the enemy: whoever leaked this is treasonous and the media outlets should be utterly ashamed of themselves (and, where possible, should be prosecuted). The problem is that war has become unacceptable to the west: even 1 casualty is too many. Pity since war isn't going away and, with that attitude, we may as well rollover and hoist the white flag.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
All that happens when you release information like this during the war is it gives strength and intel to the enemy
Mark, I've said similar in the thread below and next door in SB1.0, but I get the impression that many CP members, and the public at large, just plainly don't care. Just because we now live in an "Information era" doesn't mean that all information no matter how confidential/secret should be published. And that troubles me.
digital man wrote:
hoist the white flag
That could be the intention all along. To rid Afghanistan of our respective troops and infrastructure in a way not dissimilar to how Vietnam ended with defeat for the United States. And let's not away from the fact that it was a defeat, with those American servicemen of the time being shunned by their civilian population. The troubles in Luton in recent months could be a blueprint for the future if defeat in Afghanistan becomes a reality.
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civilian deaths are unacceptable
Ridiculous: how can you fight a war with your hands tied behind your back and where the line between civilian and enemy are quite blurred. Modern wars are not about 2 uniformed armies lining up against each other so it can be albeit impossible to distinguish. Accidents also happen, blue-on-blue as well as civilian casualties. All that happens when you release information like this during the war is it gives strength and intel to the enemy: whoever leaked this is treasonous and the media outlets should be utterly ashamed of themselves (and, where possible, should be prosecuted). The problem is that war has become unacceptable to the west: even 1 casualty is too many. Pity since war isn't going away and, with that attitude, we may as well rollover and hoist the white flag.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-michael-johnson/analysis-of-civilian-casu_b_660273.html[^] An article looking at the way that the leaks were reported. As for the whole support the troops argument. criticism != to lack of support. Any civillian deaths are unnaceptable, preventable or not.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
It could also be that some people were already aware civilians died in the war, and weren't surprised all to much by revelations of exactly how. When media claims media bias, you can generally assume they're full of crap. It typically means they found a way to take some cheap shots at competitors.
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civillian deaths are unnaceptable, preventable or not.
How exactly would we go about preventing unpreventable civilian deaths? Are live civilians unacceptable, they will die eventually. Ok, the second bit is deliberately obtuse, but still, it's war, people die, and it's rarely the people who should. Until we change war to locking the politicians in a room with a limited air supply(in which case 99% of the populations of both countries win), innocent people are going to die. Cases of obvious lack of concern for the populace should be punished, but short of calling an air strike on a retirement home that's never easy to prove.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-michael-johnson/analysis-of-civilian-casu_b_660273.html[^] An article looking at the way that the leaks were reported. As for the whole support the troops argument. criticism != to lack of support. Any civillian deaths are unnaceptable, preventable or not.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civillian deaths are unnaceptable, preventable or not.
On paper that is correct. BUT what happens when the civillian population that your protecting etc. can earn more by joining our enemy?
As barmey as a sack of badgers
-
It's a tough one. What if, and sure we could play this game all day, but what if the release of those documents resulted in those wars ending earlier? What if 5 service men were killed tomorrow as a result of the leak but 10,000 didn't get deployed? Turns out the founder is an Aussie and may face charges under Australia law[^]
What-if games are utterly pointless: releasing the document is treason - end of story.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
digital man wrote:
All that happens when you release information like this during the war is it gives strength and intel to the enemy
Mark, I've said similar in the thread below and next door in SB1.0, but I get the impression that many CP members, and the public at large, just plainly don't care. Just because we now live in an "Information era" doesn't mean that all information no matter how confidential/secret should be published. And that troubles me.
digital man wrote:
hoist the white flag
That could be the intention all along. To rid Afghanistan of our respective troops and infrastructure in a way not dissimilar to how Vietnam ended with defeat for the United States. And let's not away from the fact that it was a defeat, with those American servicemen of the time being shunned by their civilian population. The troubles in Luton in recent months could be a blueprint for the future if defeat in Afghanistan becomes a reality.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The troubles in Luton in recent months could be a blueprint for the future
What did DD do this time? :-) In reality I agree with you.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
What-if games are utterly pointless: releasing the document is treason - end of story.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
What-if games are utterly pointless: releasing the document is treason - end of story.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
What-if games are utterly pointless:
Pretty much. But linking the release of these documents to deaths of service people is a 'what if'.
digital man wrote:
releasing the document is treason - end of story.
I dont think it's that black and white.
-
Of course it is, because of the way treason is defined. But "the law" and "what is right" are never the same.
harold aptroot wrote:
But "the law" and "what is right" are never not always the same.
Fixed that for ya.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
harold aptroot wrote:
But "the law" and "what is right" are never not always the same.
Fixed that for ya.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
:)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civilian deaths are unacceptable
Ridiculous: how can you fight a war with your hands tied behind your back and where the line between civilian and enemy are quite blurred. Modern wars are not about 2 uniformed armies lining up against each other so it can be albeit impossible to distinguish. Accidents also happen, blue-on-blue as well as civilian casualties. All that happens when you release information like this during the war is it gives strength and intel to the enemy: whoever leaked this is treasonous and the media outlets should be utterly ashamed of themselves (and, where possible, should be prosecuted). The problem is that war has become unacceptable to the west: even 1 casualty is too many. Pity since war isn't going away and, with that attitude, we may as well rollover and hoist the white flag.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
Ridiculous: how can you fight a war with your hands tied behind your back and where the line between civilian and enemy are quite blurred.
Then why are we there? All you hear from the government is Al Qaeda and the Taliban. If we can't tell who the enemy is then we should leave. Staying does nothing but spend money and lives all around. War should be unacceptable to any civilized person. It is a failure to agree to live together in mutual respect. I don't think any Muslims or people of any other faith besides Christianity participate in these sorts of conversations back here. Why do you suppose that is? In college I had a classmate who thought Bin Laden was a hero for the way he evaded the US military. I told her to keep things like that to herself. I then ran into her again when she started working for the financial software company I worked at, before I left. I told one of my coworkers about that experience and he just completely blew it off. She was from Pakistan. Pakistan is suppose to be our allie but they're not. These papers illustrate this point by showing how Pakistan is helping the Taliban. They seem to be ignoring this fact. That area wants our money, but not our culture or way of living. I also had a couple of her cousins as classmates and they were both caught cheating in a programming class we had together. All three of them were born in Pakistan. I don't think they want or need democracy. Some may have been thankful that the Taliban is gone, but it's not our responsibility to spread democracy across the world or our culture. That is a foreign policy that came from Bush.
digital man wrote:
Pity since war isn't going away and, with that attitude, we may as well rollover and hoist the white flag.
War isn't going away anytime soon because there are too many differences between cultures and not enough tolerance on one side or another in this case. There are other reasons too, but that's for another time. Stopping something that is dumb and achieves nothing isn't hoisting the white flag. If the Afghans don't take control of their destiny it's their own fault and not worth our military, or treasure. Our military exists to protect and serve us and no other country.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_<
-
digital man wrote:
What-if games are utterly pointless:
Pretty much. But linking the release of these documents to deaths of service people is a 'what if'.
digital man wrote:
releasing the document is treason - end of story.
I dont think it's that black and white.
Josh Gray wrote:
But linking the release of these documents to deaths of service people is a 'what if'.
In what way?
Josh Gray wrote:
I dont think it's that black and white.
IMO it is: if, in time of war, you give aid and support to the enemy, in any form, then you are guilty of treason - whatever the value of these documents they provide intel to the enemy. How much more clear cut can it get?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
What-if games are utterly pointless: releasing the document is treason - end of story.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
What-if games are utterly pointless: releasing the document is treason - end of story.
Exactly on the point! Everything else is a jabbering of people sitting safe behind their computers. The situation has nothing to do with whether the government is right or wrong, how many civilian casualties are acceptable, how pointless is the war and so on… There are soldiers from my country there as well as American soldiers and they are the only thing that matters in that case. This little attention-seeking stinky fart has published a thousand of documents without been qualified to distinguish the dangerous ones, from those which could or should be published.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
digital man wrote:
What-if games are utterly pointless: releasing the document is treason - end of story.
Exactly on the point! Everything else is a jabbering of people sitting safe behind their computers. The situation has nothing to do with whether the government is right or wrong, how many civilian casualties are acceptable, how pointless is the war and so on… There are soldiers from my country there as well as American soldiers and they are the only thing that matters in that case. This little attention-seeking stinky fart has published a thousand of documents without been qualified to distinguish the dangerous ones, from those which could or should be published.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
:thumbsup:
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
digital man wrote:
Ridiculous: how can you fight a war with your hands tied behind your back and where the line between civilian and enemy are quite blurred.
Then why are we there? All you hear from the government is Al Qaeda and the Taliban. If we can't tell who the enemy is then we should leave. Staying does nothing but spend money and lives all around. War should be unacceptable to any civilized person. It is a failure to agree to live together in mutual respect. I don't think any Muslims or people of any other faith besides Christianity participate in these sorts of conversations back here. Why do you suppose that is? In college I had a classmate who thought Bin Laden was a hero for the way he evaded the US military. I told her to keep things like that to herself. I then ran into her again when she started working for the financial software company I worked at, before I left. I told one of my coworkers about that experience and he just completely blew it off. She was from Pakistan. Pakistan is suppose to be our allie but they're not. These papers illustrate this point by showing how Pakistan is helping the Taliban. They seem to be ignoring this fact. That area wants our money, but not our culture or way of living. I also had a couple of her cousins as classmates and they were both caught cheating in a programming class we had together. All three of them were born in Pakistan. I don't think they want or need democracy. Some may have been thankful that the Taliban is gone, but it's not our responsibility to spread democracy across the world or our culture. That is a foreign policy that came from Bush.
digital man wrote:
Pity since war isn't going away and, with that attitude, we may as well rollover and hoist the white flag.
War isn't going away anytime soon because there are too many differences between cultures and not enough tolerance on one side or another in this case. There are other reasons too, but that's for another time. Stopping something that is dumb and achieves nothing isn't hoisting the white flag. If the Afghans don't take control of their destiny it's their own fault and not worth our military, or treasure. Our military exists to protect and serve us and no other country.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_<
wolfbinary wrote:
Then why are we there?
Irrelevant: we are there and so that's the end of it. The whys and wherefores are a different conversation.
wolfbinary wrote:
Our military exists to protect and serve us and no other country.
Which is what, purportedly, they are doing. War can no longer be confined to a specific geographical area: it is global and, therefore, to protect your citizens you may have to fight a war outside of your borders. And, again, the whys and wherefores are another discussion - we have to deal with the reality as it is i now and, right now, whomever gave up those documents has betrayed not only their own country but every country that has soldiers fighting in those battles.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Josh Gray wrote:
But linking the release of these documents to deaths of service people is a 'what if'.
In what way?
Josh Gray wrote:
I dont think it's that black and white.
IMO it is: if, in time of war, you give aid and support to the enemy, in any form, then you are guilty of treason - whatever the value of these documents they provide intel to the enemy. How much more clear cut can it get?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: But linking the release of these documents to deaths of service people is a 'what if'. In what way?
It's my understanding that a lot of the documents are 'post action reports'. No doubt this would give an enemy more knowledge of how you carry out operations and allow them to make some assumptions or better preparations but once you know they know some of that advantage is lost. So can we categorically say that the actions of wiki leaks resulted in the death of service people? Will we be able to say that in the future? Probably but we cant know for sure now so that makes the statement a case of 'what if'.
digital man wrote:
IMO it is: if, in time of war, you give aid and support to the enemy, in any form, then you are guilty of treason - whatever the value of these documents they provide intel to the enemy. How much more clear cut can it get?
If you purposefully give aid and support to the enemy then yes, that's treason. If you attempt to expose a corrupt government or a war based on lies or some other injustice by exposing secret material then the motivation is very different. If it did result in aiding and supporting the enemy then I think any charge should reflect that. Kind of a murder vs manslaughter. Just for the record I'm not suggesting that the war(s) in question are based on lies or that the material in this case is going to expose some massive scandal that will bring the UK, US etc governments to their knees and result in an immediate end to the fighting. It's just an interesting 'what if'.
-
digital man wrote:
What-if games are utterly pointless: releasing the document is treason - end of story.
Exactly on the point! Everything else is a jabbering of people sitting safe behind their computers. The situation has nothing to do with whether the government is right or wrong, how many civilian casualties are acceptable, how pointless is the war and so on… There are soldiers from my country there as well as American soldiers and they are the only thing that matters in that case. This little attention-seeking stinky fart has published a thousand of documents without been qualified to distinguish the dangerous ones, from those which could or should be published.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
The situation has nothing to do with whether the government is right or wrong, how many civilian casualties are acceptable, how pointless is the war and so on…
It has everything to do with these things. As long as governments are willing to lie and hide behind a veil a secrecy then wistle-blowers will need to step forward. If one is really concerned about the soldiers I would think that deciding whether or not they should even be in Afghanistan might be a good place to start.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
without been qualified to distinguish the dangerous ones, from those which could or should be published.
Perhaps so, but the real issue is the government's excessive use of secrecy to not just protect real secrets but to also protect itself from embarrassment and accountability.
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civilian deaths are unacceptable
Ridiculous: how can you fight a war with your hands tied behind your back and where the line between civilian and enemy are quite blurred. Modern wars are not about 2 uniformed armies lining up against each other so it can be albeit impossible to distinguish. Accidents also happen, blue-on-blue as well as civilian casualties. All that happens when you release information like this during the war is it gives strength and intel to the enemy: whoever leaked this is treasonous and the media outlets should be utterly ashamed of themselves (and, where possible, should be prosecuted). The problem is that war has become unacceptable to the west: even 1 casualty is too many. Pity since war isn't going away and, with that attitude, we may as well rollover and hoist the white flag.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Have you even read any of the documents. The billions of dollars we have been giving to Pakastan to fight terrorism was actually being used to fund terrorism. The fucking Al'Quada are controlled by the same people who control the troops. The terrorist are a bunch of opium dealers that didn't pay their cut to the CIA. Now you tell me who the traitors are.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]