62 replies to this topic

[Waser Lave]

Where was the media then? The media has failed us at their one job. Holding the government accountable. Now Wikileaks is doing that. So fuck you and your defense of stopping them. Either they keep going, or the Government starts being honest.

The media did report on the incident at the time (a Reuters photographer was even killed) but the video revealed things which the media couldn't possibly know at the time and so they could only report it based on what they knew then.

[PeonYourLawn]

Please link me to a document stating where we will be moving our troops to, and I might agree with you. These documents are about things that happened in the past. NO ONE FUCKING GETS NAMED. I'm sick of this excuse being played over and over and over.

No one gets named. No one gets named. No one gets named. None of the documents name, or will name a secret agent. WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THESE DOCUMENTS ARE REDACTED? Go and read them. They have parts missing. Parts that may or may not endanger troops. Thats to protect them. But releasing a video of an helicopter shooting civilians only endangers the people who ordered the attack.

If Wikileaks doesn't release these documents. They will never be released. Not in 20 years. Not in 50 years. Not in 100 years. Not in the next million years. You should probably know that I am 100% patriotic and against treason, but I am for this. Because the government isn't transparent. Obama said, "I will be transparent", so where is this transparency? How come no one ever reported on the Helicopter that killed citizens. Where was the media then? The media has failed us at their one job. Holding the government accountable. Now Wikileaks is doing that. So fuck you and your defense of stopping them. Either they keep going, or the Government starts being honest.

I think media's role is to shed light on the events of the current events of the world. They should hold a neutral stance and allow us to judge and interpret the actions of others.

[Sweeney]

there was a time when your sarcasm amused me, but then i realized they are vain attempts at thinking you are superior to someone. i'd love to see you risk your life once, instead of sitting behind a warm screen trying to poke fun at others who actually do something for their country.

That wasn't a sarcastic comment at all. It was a genuine request.
If you can't point out the cables that are most likely to endanger troops, then why should I believe your purely emotional rant?
Before I accept that troops are in danger, and Wikileaks is evil, you're going to have to show me.

(And for the record, I'm a fully trained lifeguard and lifesaver. I'm always ready to risk my life to save another, at work or otherwise).

[PeonYourLawn]

lmao had no idea UK troops had anything to do with iraq. goes to show how out of the loop i am

Edited by PeonYourLawn, 10 December 2010 - 08:26 AM.

[Sweeney]

lmao had no idea UK troops had anything to do with iraq. goes to show how out of the loop i am

As far as I'm aware, all British troops have now left Iraq.
We're talking about US troops.

[PeonYourLawn]

Perhaps its not just tangible evidence we're looking for here. It could be the potential that wikileaks can leak information the can endanger troops. Although it may seem like a matter of paranoia in this respect, you have to remember that it is the possibility of lives that we are dealing with.

Edited by PeonYourLawn, 10 December 2010 - 08:38 AM.

[Sweeney]

Perhaps its not just tangible evidence we're looking for here. It could be the potential that wikileaks can leak information the can endanger troops. Although it may seem like a matter of paranoia in this respect, you have to remember that it is the possibility of lives that we are dealing with.

That's a stupid argument.
If anything, Wikileaks has shown greater integrity that the very government Phalkon is fighting to protect.

[PeonYourLawn]

That's a stupid argument.
If anything, Wikileaks has shown greater integrity that the very government Phalkon is fighting to protect.

Now I'm not sure if you're being serious or you have such a limited scope of view that you cannot see that Wikileaks is merely a media organisation. It doesn't do anything but submit sensitive information about governments and such. A government on the other hand has many things to worry about. A large and structured organisation like the US government is bound to have many flaws if not from corruption than to human error. That is, you cannot compare the two with respect to integrity because they are on entire different levels of function.

[Sweeney]

Now I'm not sure if you're being serious or you have such a limited scope of view that you cannot see that Wikileaks is merely a media organisation. It doesn't do anything but submit sensitive information about governments and such. A government on the other hand has many things to worry about. A large and structured organisation like the US government is bound to have many flaws if not from corruption than to human error. That is, you cannot compare the two with respect to integrity because they are on entire different levels of function.

You're correct that the two are totally different kinds of organisation. Using this as an excuse not to compare them is fallacious.
Simply because a level of error is expected in an organisation, is not a reason to give up on striving to minimise it.
I don't believe a government has to compromise its integrity in order to fuction, so to make allowances for it to do so is unnecessary.

Further to that, it's clear that I was talking about the integrity of WikiLeaks specifically in relation to potentially distributing dangerous information.

[PeonYourLawn]

You're correct that the two are totally different kinds of organisation. Using this as an excuse not to compare them is fallacious.
Simply because a level of error is expected in an organisation, is not a reason to give up on striving to minimise it.
I don't believe a government has to compromise its integrity in order to fuction, so to make allowances for it to do so is unnecessary.

Further to that, it's clear that I was talking about the integrity of WikiLeaks specifically in relation to potentially distributing dangerous information.

But you have to assume that with all things human, there will be errors naturally. And with the government, I don't think they try not to minimize the amount of error nor do they try to sweep it under the rug. Besides the chain of command is very frail and the commands are rarely followed to the tee. Regardless, the videos that wikileaks shows places US troops in a bad light. Like you said previously, 3 in 16 thousand hardly stick as a real statistic. The reason we trust US troops is because we have assumed the probability of the actions of the troops to be favourable due to the hard performance that we have seen. However, it's not hard at all to find the occasional screw-up in an operation.

And that was another point I was going to make prior to replying to your post. I know for a fact the Julian Asssange and co have at least half a functional brain each. Therefore, I am quite positive that there will be no release of any information that truly compromises the safety of our troops. I am sure that they anyone in their right mind would want to place anyone in danger just to advocate a message of any sort....

[Sweeney]

But you have to assume that with all things human, there will be errors naturally. And with the government, I don't think they try not to minimize the amount of error nor do they try to sweep it under the rug. Besides the chain of command is very frail and the commands are rarely followed to the tee. Regardless, the videos that wikileaks shows places US troops in a bad light. Like you said previously, 3 in 16 thousand hardly stick as a real statistic. The reason we trust US troops is because we have assumed the probability of the actions of the troops to be favourable due to the hard performance that we have seen. However, it's not hard at all to find the occasional screw-up in an operation.

And that was another point I was going to make prior to replying to your post. I know for a fact the Julian Asssange and co have at least half a functional brain each. Therefore, I am quite positive that there will be no release of any information that truly compromises the safety of our troops. I am sure that they anyone in their right mind would want to place anyone in danger just to advocate a message of any sort....

I think you've missed the thrust of the argument. The point is that yes, mistakes happen, but sweeping them under the rug is not the way to handle it.
I know that you said that's not how they do things, but if that were the case, the cable leaks wouldn't be leaks at all.

No one is saying that the the entire US army is a bunch of dog-killing, civilian-massacring cunts.

[Andy]

Any reports that Wikileaks has endangered the lives of US Troops is a lie. Much like the lies which sent troops to Iraq, resulting in around 4430 soldiers dying to this date.

[redlion]

Oh fuck. That guy was head of intelligence? Now 9/11 makes plenty of sense.

And now I get why we keep hitting our own tanks with airstrikes and shit. That guy is a fucking moron.

You know there's a mandatory retirement age for federal employees, right? The dude obviously retired recently, and in his senility has decided to share his opinion with the media. It doesn't matter though, his opinion is already six months, a year, ten years behind the official government conception of intelligence. Were he the expert he claims to be, and he wasn't severed from the NSC prematurely for any reason, he would probably receive more credit and support for his assertions. But, he can't string a sentence together in the modern parlance. Obviously this old timer was ready to retire.

As far as Wikileaks and the army goes... two things. One, it just goes to show that the only people that can defeat the unstoppable American Army are Osama bin Laden and a two-bit Private intent on causing a stir with his security clearance (low though it was).

Second, I disagree with the assumption that these cables potentially endanger US offensive forces. You say that troop movements, tactics and procedure are all the equivalent of "trade secrets" and keeping them secret from the world is vital to US interests. I would agree with you, if I didn't know that many of the world's top paramilitaries train with the united states military. The secret of the sleeper hold is already out, man. I mean it's war. You should never have assumed your tactics would work 100% of the time, without evolution or adaptation to changing situations.

Bitching to us citizens about how some dude halfway across the world is making your job harder doesn't inspire sympathy, it just sheds light on who cuts your check. If I asked you strait up, it would be Army of One, USA, etc, etc. But we all know that America is merely a collection of corporate interests that badge and brand and socially engineer themselves to be commercially acceptable, to be 'merican enough for Americans to accept and defend their right to earn profit. We've waged two wars in central Asia in the past decade to secure favorable commerce treaties with Afghanistan and Iraq. There really was no national security threat. It all comes down to money, in the end. You're fighting to secure oil contracts for Haliburton and Exxon-Mobil. At least there is actual money to be had in oil futures (and mineral deposits in Afgh. apparently). If this were the Vietnam conflict, the only money to be made would be in the hands of the munitions companies, Boeing and McDonald-Douglass, and the makers of Napalm and Agent Orange. It's fucked up, but we're the superpower; we really will fight just to waste the bullets. After all, new bullets come in next week - we've got to have a place to put them, right?