Largest leak in US military history tells the truth on the Afghanistan war
perseus
Active member
Did the person who leaked it get paid in any way? If he felt the army wasn't acting responsibly he did it from a sense of moral duty.
Would you consider an SS guard grassing on his mates in the Nuremburg trials a traitor? It depends exactly what the military was up to. If they weren't complying with the Geneva convention, if they were alienating the population and generating enemies, perhaps he shuld be viewed more as a hero than a villian. However, if he was grassing for private gain he is indeed a traitor in a more general sense.
Would you consider an SS guard grassing on his mates in the Nuremburg trials a traitor? It depends exactly what the military was up to. If they weren't complying with the Geneva convention, if they were alienating the population and generating enemies, perhaps he shuld be viewed more as a hero than a villian. However, if he was grassing for private gain he is indeed a traitor in a more general sense.
senojekips
Active member
10/10
Yes, I personally havent even bothered to look at what was leaked, and probably wouldn't understand the importance or otherwise, of what most of it was anyway.
But one thing I would stake my entire retirement pension on, is that regardless of it's importance, the people responsible for not safeguearding the material in the first place will be in there "boots 'n' all" overexagerating the case mainly for the reasons of "revenge" and to divert attention from their own lack of care.
The blame shifting department will be in high overdrive.
I've been there and seen it all before, it's all part of the "back room boys" culture.
Last edited:
Micha
Active member
It's alright my friend, one need to relax sometimes.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll give you the answer to what my point is.
I understand that you are after reading this article concludes that the way you do. The vast majority of people will probably also come up with this conclusion.
But if you read between the lines, then you get very important information. If the Iraqi intelligence service reads this article, then their conclusion would be this: radio triggered improvised explosive device (IED) will be a effective weapon to use against the Danish troops as they do not have vehicles equipped with radio jammers.
You see the point now?
In this case I would call the soldier a big idiot. He was probably frustrated by a shortage of this equipment, but by making such a statement, he puts his and his comrades' lives in danger.
/Micha
Micha
Active member
Yes, morale is good but is hypocrisy twice as good?
If you reveal operational procedures which can cost people their lives, then it is treason in my eyes.
If I was an SS guard I'd call him a traitor and if I was a prosecutor I would call him a useful idiot.
But since we have gone back to WWII then this poster is still valid.
Last edited:
Micha
Active member
No, the problem is also Wikileaks and journalists. Wikileaks agenda we know and the journalist I can, to some degree understand but they should be somewhat more critical with the material they receive and have it analyzed before it´s published in search of a good story.
I would not brag about it. There are many others who can get interesting things out of it.
And here we go again, beard and blue spectacles and ghosts everywhere.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
You haven't even read what I said, so don't try to criticise me for admitting that I had not read the material. As I pointed out, the actual material had nothing to do with my point, because, had Wikileaks had not distributed it a hundred other agencies would have fought to be first in line, including the intelligence agencies of a dozen or more foreign powers. If you think WikiLieaks are to blame you have a very limited and short sighted view of the world that you live in.
In case you are not aware of it, there is a parallel universe outside that of the Military, it is a commercially driven civilian world and it outnumbers the military both numerically and politically. It is the world that provides both the money AND the enemies that keep the military in it's position of power. This world is composed of all types, from supporters of their relative military forces, to your worst nightmare as enemies.
Somewhere, you have led a very protected life, you should get out more and see what is going on in the world you live in. The truth will shock you.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Yeah, once the word is out, it is out, wikileaks or no wikileaks.
Ultimately the CO of that unit and his NCOs bear the responsibility.
Ultimately the CO of that unit and his NCOs bear the responsibility.
Micha
Active member
Yes, I’ve read what you wrote. That one hundred other agencies would have fought to be first in line, including the intelligence agencies of a dozen or more foreign powers is something you assume. There is no coherent narrative, no context for individual episodes or an overarching perspective on the war. And very important: documents are not inconsistent with the image; official reports and media have drawn over several years. These documents complement the picture of the war, you know, if you have read the newspapers and government reports.
The British newspaper The Guardian has a problem as a critical mediator of the papers. the newspaper claims that the documents reveal “a very different landscape” Than what one knows. One would think that the editor had not read newspapers over the last six years. It seems that The Guardian has dramatized the documents more than they can carry, because the newspaper has had exclusive access to them. In this way undermines the press as a serious medium in an age where we are bombarded with information from near and far and have no idea what to believe: source criticism, credibility, insight, ability to prioritize and put information into their proper context.
Several military experts also agree that some of the leaked documents could endanger human life and give the enemy access to how NATO is operating. The media has a responsibility here, but so has the political and military authorities. Indeed, if you repeatedly attempt to suppress information with regard to national security, and it turns out that it is merely a sham to keep inconvenient information away from the public, so the media will be less inclined to listen when national security is really threatened.
That said, we can then welcome the opportunities that WikiLeaks creates for those who believe in transparency and open society. WikiLeaks stood last year behind the publication of thousands of emails from climate scientists that revealed attempts to suppress information that casts doubt on global warming. WikiLeaks has uncovered corruption in Kenya, irregularities in Western banks, an oil scandal in Peru and dumping of hazardous waste in Africa. That day, an official of a repressive regime wanted to share his knowledge of crimes committed by a dictator, WikiLeaks will be the ideal medium, but in the meantime maybe someone should teach Julian Assange the difference between journalism and activism.
I was not born in the military and because I am in the armed forces do not mean that I am not an active member of society. I've been a member of a political party in five years (and yes, it is the conservative party) and international politics have my interest. But I'm only 20 and you are probably twice as old as me and will probably argue that you also are twice as clever. I have lived a sheltered life indeed, and I am grateful for that, but I have not just been sitting on my flat ass at home. I've been out in the world. My father works in a multinational company so I have lived in other countries. The truth will shock you or The Truth Will Set You Free. You sound like the local missionary.
//Micha
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Yes Micha but the point is we expect folks like Wikileaks and the media to act as they did. Irresponsible, etc. yes. But that's the sort of folks they are.
The ultimate responsibility lies with command and I for one would not like to see those people get away with it by letting the smaller fish fry so they can get away without paying the price.
The ultimate responsibility lies with command and I for one would not like to see those people get away with it by letting the smaller fish fry so they can get away without paying the price.
senojekips
Active member
I assume??
I think that you have shot down your own argument here.... It is clearly not only my assumption is that of "Several military experts". Do you honestly feel that information that could give the enemy access to how NATO is operating would be of no interest to any of the groups that I specified?
All I can say is that if you think I am wrong, you live in Lala land and have no idea of the world that you live in. If this information was not of interest to these groups as you seem to imply, I would venture to say that this would indicate that the intelligence value of the information was absolutely nil, and if this was so, why was the information classified in the first place and what is all the stink about if this info is of no intel value.
I'm afraid that you have talked yourself into a corner here. Either the info had intelligence value and therefore others would desire to acquire it, or it had no value and therefore no harm has been done. You can't have it both ways.
Nowhere have I said or implied "The Truth Will set you Free", are you misreading my answers, confusing me with someone else or just trying to misquote me to strengthen your case? I think that my answer above, having shown the illogicallity and complete lack of thought on your behalf would adequately justify my belief that you have little or no idea how the the big wide world really works.
As for "The truth will shock you",... yes, did say it, but upon reading your latest argument I will withdraw it, because I now have serious doubts that you are the type of person who is willing to allow the visible facts to alter your views. In which case you will probably have a great future somewhere among those whom I earlier quoted as "The Blame Shifting Department".
Last edited:
perseus
Active member
Huge Wikileaks release shows US 'ignored Iraq torture'
Wikileaks has released almost 400,000 secret US military logs, which suggest US commanders ignored evidence of torture by the Iraqi authorities. The documents also suggest "hundreds" of civilians were killed at US military checkpoints after the invasion in 2003. And the files show the US kept records of civilian deaths, despite previously denying it. The death toll was put at 109,000, of whom 66,081 were civilians.
The US criticised the largest leak of classified documents in its history.
Continue reading the main story
A US Department of Defense spokesman dismissed the documents published by the whistleblowing website as raw observations by tactical units, which were only snapshots of tragic, mundane events.
Wikileaks has released almost 400,000 secret US military logs, which suggest US commanders ignored evidence of torture by the Iraqi authorities. The documents also suggest "hundreds" of civilians were killed at US military checkpoints after the invasion in 2003. And the files show the US kept records of civilian deaths, despite previously denying it. The death toll was put at 109,000, of whom 66,081 were civilians.
The US criticised the largest leak of classified documents in its history.
Continue reading the main story
A US Department of Defense spokesman dismissed the documents published by the whistleblowing website as raw observations by tactical units, which were only snapshots of tragic, mundane events.
perseus
Active member
The documents were leaked by whistleblowers' website WikiLeaks and obtained by Channel 4 News via The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) ahead of an exclusive report in Iraq's Secret War Files on Channel 4's Dispatches on Monday at 8pm.
http://www.channel4.com/news/mod-condemns-iraq-war-files-leak-as-reckless
http://www.channel4.com/news/mod-condemns-iraq-war-files-leak-as-reckless
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
There's been talk about how the US has no legal ground over prosecuting or engaging Wikileaks.
I pose to you this question.
In 2001, Al Qaeda attacked the United States. The Taliban in itself did not. They were foreign nationals in a foreign land who indirectly engaged in activities that harmed the national security of the United States.
More recently, Wikileaks has been in the headlines.
They supposedly are a headache allegedly because they are foreigners in a foreign country engaging in actions that are endangering the national security of the United States.
The United States attacked the Taliban after issuing an ultimatum involving the handover of Osama Bin Laden.
The United States doesn't seem to be doing squat regarding Wikileaks.
The only difference seems to be that the people behind Wikileaks are predominantely White and are from and live in countries which are also predominantly White. If Wikileaks were run by a group of brown people operating in the Philippines, I guarantee you that Task Force 121 or something of that nature would have lit them up a long time ago.
The case against Wikileaks is much stronger than say, the case for invading Iraq.
Double standards.
I pose to you this question.
In 2001, Al Qaeda attacked the United States. The Taliban in itself did not. They were foreign nationals in a foreign land who indirectly engaged in activities that harmed the national security of the United States.
More recently, Wikileaks has been in the headlines.
They supposedly are a headache allegedly because they are foreigners in a foreign country engaging in actions that are endangering the national security of the United States.
The United States attacked the Taliban after issuing an ultimatum involving the handover of Osama Bin Laden.
The United States doesn't seem to be doing squat regarding Wikileaks.
The only difference seems to be that the people behind Wikileaks are predominantely White and are from and live in countries which are also predominantly White. If Wikileaks were run by a group of brown people operating in the Philippines, I guarantee you that Task Force 121 or something of that nature would have lit them up a long time ago.
The case against Wikileaks is much stronger than say, the case for invading Iraq.
Double standards.
perseus
Active member
In which case why don't they destroy the Al Jazeera offices in Qatar? I suppose spouting 'free speech' and 'freedom' might sound rather hypocritical if that happened. Neither is anyone saying Wikileaks isn't posting the truth, which is more than I can say for Fox news.
It would be a bit like cutting of one of the Hydras heads attacking Wikileaks anyway, which are decentralised on the Internet. Remember this is the very same system the US designed to avoid military attacks. More information will come back to bite the aggressor.
With regards the Taliban, they became de-facto allies of Al-Qaeda and enemies of the US as soon as they defended Bin Laden. This is not the same as reporting facts, albeit ones which one side may prefer to keep under wraps.
It would be a bit like cutting of one of the Hydras heads attacking Wikileaks anyway, which are decentralised on the Internet. Remember this is the very same system the US designed to avoid military attacks. More information will come back to bite the aggressor.
With regards the Taliban, they became de-facto allies of Al-Qaeda and enemies of the US as soon as they defended Bin Laden. This is not the same as reporting facts, albeit ones which one side may prefer to keep under wraps.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Wrong.
As a rule, and not as an exception, Al Jazeera and FOX News do not do things that endanger the lives of people undergoing operations in theater, nor do they release names of local informants or anything of that nature.
Whether Wikileaks is allied with Al Qaeda or not is irrelevant.
Hydra's head argument is also weak.
The same can be said of crime, terrorism and just about any problem in the world.
As a rule, and not as an exception, Al Jazeera and FOX News do not do things that endanger the lives of people undergoing operations in theater, nor do they release names of local informants or anything of that nature.
Whether Wikileaks is allied with Al Qaeda or not is irrelevant.
Hydra's head argument is also weak.
The same can be said of crime, terrorism and just about any problem in the world.
perseus
Active member
Fox do an immense amount of damage, they stir up hatred just like Hitler did. At last someone is taking a stand
How ridiculous can you get, they are simply not spouting US propaganda, thats what you mean! The military thought it could cover up it's misdemeanours by having embedded reporters. They forgot that some soldiers who see the worst also have moral principles.
How ridiculous can you get, they are simply not spouting US propaganda, thats what you mean! The military thought it could cover up it's misdemeanours by having embedded reporters. They forgot that some soldiers who see the worst also have moral principles.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
There was an amazing Freudian slip on the News here two nights ago, when the announcer said,...
"The military has stated that, as a result of this release of information by Wikileaks, thousands of lies have been put at risk"
Hmmmm...
"The military has stated that, as a result of this release of information by Wikileaks, thousands of lies have been put at risk"
Hmmmm...
