what is there to fire for? what we'll tolerate is clear - killing thousands of women and children is ultimately ok as long as it's not obvious that we directly meant to do so. talk shit about obama or biden? yourefired.jpg
xp
― terry squad (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:38 (thirteen years ago) link
there's no smack talk in however many pages of leaked documents?
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:39 (thirteen years ago) link
killing thousands of women and children is ultimately ok as long as it's not obvious that we directly meant to do so.
or as long as it met an approved military objective.
― "It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:40 (thirteen years ago) link
re: manning, didn't he say there was stuff specifically embarrassing to Hillary Clinton and some yet unheard of diplomatic fiascoes? is wikileaks just sitting on this?
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:41 (thirteen years ago) link
if he was transmitting not only defense department cables going to/from the pentagon but also diplomatic cables to/from the state dept, yeah sure it could contain all kinds of shit about Madam Secretary. who knows? wikileaks may be sitting on a lot yeah...
― goole, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:48 (thirteen years ago) link
I am long past "why can't we all get along" and well into "shut the fuck up all of you useless blowhards"
― measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:51 (thirteen years ago) link
^ is this really the finger we want on the red button?
― "It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 22:53 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/opinion/27exum.html?_r=1&ref=global
this one's got it all really - starts off with the popular "SIMPSONS DID IT, ASSHOLE", flows nicely into putting-the-troops-in-danger fear mongering, mocks assange for not being pragmatic or subservient enough, lolsy i-actually-served-in-the-military-you-don't-understand-the-nuances-of-war butthurtedness, some tasteful minimizing of civilian casualties, then ends with assailing the 'contemptible' person who leaked the cables
― terry squad (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 03:21 (thirteen years ago) link
By muddying the waters between journalism and activism, and by throwing his organization into the debate on Afghanistan with little apparent regard for the hard moral choices and dearth of good policy options facing decision-makers, he is being as reckless and destructive as the contemptible soldier or soldiers who leaked the documents in the first place.
lol yeah unlike the Pentagon Papers which in no way conflated journalism & activism
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 03:38 (thirteen years ago) link
Does the timing of all this sound suspicious to anyone? Just a few weeks ago there was that huge story w Manning and supposedly 150,000 cables. And now Obama has suddenly announced a planned surge of 30,000, using this very recent new leak for support.
― Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 04:12 (thirteen years ago) link
hasn't obama justified his previous surge of 30000 troops with this leak, rather than lobbied for another surge? i haven't really read through what he said, but his statement seemed to be contextualising his response so far.
― Earning your Masters in Library and Information Science is beautiful (schlump), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 10:08 (thirteen years ago) link
I bowed out when I lost track of what you guys were arguing about, but the start of today's Times front page is basically everything I was trying to say in my posts upthread:
Hundreds of Afghan lives have been put at risk by the leaking of 90,000 intelligence documents because the files identify informants working with NATO forces.In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to US forces. Their villages are given for identification and also, in many cases, their father's name....A senior official at the Afghan Foreign Ministry, who declined to be named(!), said "The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans. The US is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the US/international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."
In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to US forces. Their villages are given for identification and also, in many cases, their father's name.
...
A senior official at the Afghan Foreign Ministry, who declined to be named(!), said "The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans. The US is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the US/international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."
Must say I'd be surprised if WL has been *that* inept - I assumed it would take a bit of detective work to unmask sources, which WL is obviously unqualified to assess, but according to this maybe not. Nevertheless, I got shouted down because WL causing harm is apparently only an issue with troop movements or once-in-seventy-years secrets like D-Day planning. But then all these guys are only Afghans I guess.
― Ismael Klata, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 10:17 (thirteen years ago) link
you weren't shouted down, people just disagreed that secrecy was "usually" to protect a source. the military is routinely secret and far more of these logs involve protection of military mistakes than protection of sources (ie, nyt finds "dozens" of informants, but there are hundreds of civilian casualty reports). wikileaks shouldn't be censured for hypothetical potential harm but where people can show they've put people at risk, sure, it's fair to criticise them.
But then all these guys are only Afghans I guess.
oh, please.
― joe, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 10:44 (thirteen years ago) link
http://griffinarmament.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/loose-lips-sink-ships-1.jpg
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:27 (thirteen years ago) link
I find it interesting that the Afghan official says that the US is 'morally and legally responsible' for resultant harm done, not WikiLeaks.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:29 (thirteen years ago) link
well, THEIR intel was compromised
― pies. (gbx), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:37 (thirteen years ago) link
If you keep shit secret, you should kind of be responsible for the fallout if it gets leaked.
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:37 (thirteen years ago) link
Afghan official otm - it's the US ship that leaked, tighter ship means Wikileaks never gets hold of the info
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:38 (thirteen years ago) link
Good points all.
Tim Rutten complains.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:38 (thirteen years ago) link
hey since these cables are from a few years ago, those afghan intel contacts might already be dead. there's always a bright side!
― goole, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:40 (thirteen years ago) link
LMK who's responsible for the dead civilians killed in our precision attacks (then Bam can do another press dinner joke about it)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:48 (thirteen years ago) link
get ready for everybody to pile on your Morbz, you know that the actual war is a-ok, it's reporting on it that's unconscionable
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:52 (thirteen years ago) link
From that NYT op-ed:
Third, the site asserts that the Pentagon employs a secret task force of highly trained commandos charged with capturing or killing insurgent leaders. I suspect that in the eyes of most Americans, using special operations teams to kill terrorists is one of the least controversial ways in which the government spends their tax dollars.
That, folks, is a flawlessly-executed triple axel, getting from "insurgent leaders" to "terrorists" in two sentences. Hey, dickhead, someone fighting to expel the US Army from his or her own country is a lot of things, but none of them is "a terrorist."
― the penis cream pilot walked free (Phil D.), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:54 (thirteen years ago) link
fighting to expel the US Army from his or her own country is a lot of things, but none of them is "a terrorist."
depends on their methods imo
― "It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 14:55 (thirteen years ago) link
there's no great term for 'em: pretty sure they also want to 'expel' the afghan govt as well as the US army, which *would* make them terrorists (cf deliberate attacks on civilians), but then of course it's an illegitimate govt. (kind of a qed.)
― rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:07 (thirteen years ago) link
guys anybody who's against us anywhere ever is a terrorist, do keep up
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:10 (thirteen years ago) link
It's odd how the word is diverging from 'terror' - the Japanese described the Aussie Greenpeacers who boarded one of their whaling vessels as 'terrorists', and it just sounded ludicrous
― Ismael Klata, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:14 (thirteen years ago) link
If this has been posted already, my apologies. the NYT notes its methods
― balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:17 (thirteen years ago) link
the horrorists are gonna sneak in & really cause trouble while everybody's attention is diverted by the terrorists
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:19 (thirteen years ago) link
Frankly, I'm more scared of the startleists.
― the penis cream pilot walked free (Phil D.), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:21 (thirteen years ago) link
hasn't obama justified his previous surge of 30000 troops with this leak, rather than lobbied for another surge?
So he has. I really should've RTFA.
― Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:22 (thirteen years ago) link
mentalists are worse imo
― balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:23 (thirteen years ago) link
xxxp Amis is in agreement aerosmith
― peligro, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 15:31 (thirteen years ago) link
i wonder what wikileaks man's pubes look like
― mittens, Thursday, 29 July 2010 00:56 (thirteen years ago) link
Amis's horrorism doesn't not have enough of the Mummy lighting shit on fire with his heat vision tho
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Thursday, 29 July 2010 02:07 (thirteen years ago) link
wonder what amis' pubes look like
― mittens, Thursday, 29 July 2010 02:09 (thirteen years ago) link
http://rightwingnews.com/2010/07/the-cia-should-kill-julian-assange
― no turkey unless it's a club sandwich (polyphonic), Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:28 (thirteen years ago) link
Holy shit – I thought I'd seen it all. That site is a cloaca.
agree we should kill him, but not for any sense of "he deserves it." He has proven himself our enemy who has done damage to us, ergo, we should kill him. That's all the justification I need.
― balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:34 (thirteen years ago) link
that url looks like an onion creation. er maybe collegehumor.com creation
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:37 (thirteen years ago) link
lol that site is awesome
― goole, Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:39 (thirteen years ago) link
was there anything politically damaging yet to come out of this recent 'facebook leak'?
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 29 July 2010 19:14 (thirteen years ago) link
From Admiral Mike Mullen's Twitter:
@thejointstaff Meant what I said: Mr. Assange & his source might already have on their hands the blood of our troops or that of our Afghan partners.
― no turkey unless it's a club sandwich (polyphonic), Thursday, 29 July 2010 22:59 (thirteen years ago) link
ok what the fuck is going on here, with aerosmith's post?
there's an obvious case for leaking, but i think this
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/wikileaks+damage+already+done+says+human+rights+group/3727677
and what ismael posted sort of doesn't really merit a lol censorship post?
― rip MAD MEN on AMC S4 26/07 never forget (history mayne), Friday, 30 July 2010 10:42 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/30/wikileaks-data-suspected-army-source
So we've gone from "This is isn't anything new/This won't change anything" to "Wikileaks could have blood on its hands" in less than a week. Wonder if Wikileaks is on their way to being named an enemy combatant.
― Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 30 July 2010 15:15 (thirteen years ago) link
Doesn't even have to be under the targeted assassination regime iirc
― "It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Friday, 30 July 2010 15:20 (thirteen years ago) link
xp, just pointing out the obvious but you can release information that doesn't give readers a new window into the war and still be responsible for people's deaths by including specific intel that gives away informants names and troop information, obv obv obv.
― Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 15:37 (thirteen years ago) link
guns don't kill people, wikileaks do
― "It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Friday, 30 July 2010 15:41 (thirteen years ago) link
I don't know if you're being facetious, but I think it's okay if people voice concern that apparently WikiLeaks did not redact all the names of sources in the WikiLeaks documents and those sources are, at least acc to Zabihullah Mujahid, going to be killed.
― Mordy, Friday, 30 July 2010 15:44 (thirteen years ago) link
:) I was being a little facetious
― "It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Friday, 30 July 2010 15:47 (thirteen years ago) link
Ismael on this thread has always been clear about his concern for the safety of the sources.
― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, 30 July 2010 15:48 (thirteen years ago) link