Poetry Forum

Full Version: wardiaries on wikileaks
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
source:

will posting them cause anyone danger to anyone
should they have been posted or is wiki leaks acting badly.

for me it's hard to say. on the one hand i believe things should be open and above board.

in some cases i think too much oneness could cause harm.
i think the posting of the diaries give terrorist much more to target.
statistically it also shows a modus operandi which could be used to evade or attack against. on the face of it i think it should be published but they could have at least waited till the troops were out of there.

the hierarchy of occupation force may be wrong in how they act but that doesn't mean more men and women should be put at risk
interesting read but are the warwikies good bad or indifferent?
i thought the the guantanamo leaks okay and the climate leaks though i also thought they were more funny than truthfully informative. the warwiki somehow feels a bit tainted.
i'd call tens of thousands of communications big lol.

and i think some of it should be know, but what. when does
the line change from not putting lives in danger to putting
lives in danger?
on their own i agree. even the pentagon agrees
but as a group of documents statistics, tactics and
planning scenarios can be garnered for future encounters.

i'm sure if churchill, stalin, hitler macarther or even mark anthony has files like that on his enemy they'd be put to good use. if you think about it those documents represent what intelligence agencies are actively seeking out. the fact there old could be a bonus in a theater of war. plus the government and the [pentagon would look a little silly if they said openly "those documents could drop us in the shit when it comes to carrying out certain attacks, procedures or withdrawal. they have to say it not damaging or else they'll look like bigger clowns that they already are.

i agree with you on the collateral damage thing i think the armed forces themselves should aquatint us with such fact. but it isn't just that which is being shown. withdrawal from strategic posts, even if they've been closed 7 months (it shows the posts can be used by the afghans as the yanks won't be back to it.) the closure of viewing points. the movement of men and machines. the shortfall in manpower etc. all usable intel to a wiley enemy.

mrmod

There is indication of Pakistan collaborating with the insurgent fighters. Again it is nothing hat hadn't been thought of, but it just shows us a couple of truths.

Imo, it doesn't endanger any operations. However, it decreases the support for the War.
i have to agree moobs

but my point is this. if they don't (talkinking about the top brass here btw)
is it right to print something that could cause death to others.

plus, the major share of the leaks wasn't about the cock ups.
most were just about general reporting of actions and situation.
i watched a TED talk this morning that said;

when anne nicole smith dies it accounted for about 60% of news stories on the main media channels.
the real news; pakistan and all the other really important stuff gets put aside. for me thats whats happening with the leaks. though only a small percent relate to collateral deaths they're taking being taken up as the whole thing. sad as collateral deaths are. and i wish they're weren't any. there's a lot more leeks been published that have nothing to do with that. there's a lot more happening out there on the ground that has nothing to do wit that. somebody wears a waistcoat to church and in doing so kills ten or twenty people.
something thats basically happening every single day in that region but guess what. all thats really in the new is the fuckin wikileaks.

we talk about collateral deaths as though they're just that, fuck it who cares it's just collateral shit. well yes, lets really talk about it . wtf? it's all i see on the news (apart from BP) i want to know whats happening in pakistand and khandahar, in iraq and iran. i don't just need to know about collateral damage. but i have no say so the 3, 6, 12 or 20 civilians the arny kill gets 80% percent more airtime than the 10, 20, 30, or 80 innocents their own countrymen kill.

and as for the smarmy cunt who did the wiki ad on cnn (appeared) i seriously don't belive the fucker. he doesn't give a flying fuck about transparency that bastard wants fame. the hunger for it was oozing out of the fucker, i swear.
the wiki leaks people in charge have been told;
"you may already have blood on your hands"

people (afghanistanis) and soldiers lives at risk.
people because it will be able to trace back and point fingers at individual afghans.

soldiers because the terrorist will be able to see how the usa miltary works in combat (strategies etc)
It's a bit irresponsible I have to admit.

I think this situations like this is where real journalism (the skilled, impartial, dedicated, virtuous kind, which unfortunately we don't see) should come in... in their work, journalists can get access to sensitive information, but they now how to responsibly manage the information so they can tell the public an important story while minimizing sacrifices in security. If only there was dedicated investigative journalism and not the horseshit we see on the news now, then we wouldn't have to rely on wikileaks for transparency.
leaks like that yes.
but the main stuff is about troop deployment field tactics etc.
as well as which afgahanistani informed on what.

and thats what i'm saying. all anyone is interested in is which collateral damage was done by armed forces.
they don't believe intelligence can be gathered from such a long period of maneuvers and tactics.
in fact the generals were the ones who new the most about the opposing force's tactics. the taliban have been hand a lot of that on a plate. and i still say the wiki guy on the news is in it for the glory he just wants fame. he doesn't give a fuck about any truths.

i also agree that embedded journalists will not be unbiased.
That's what I mean. I think if the scoop/leak fell into the hands of a good investigative journalist (of which there is none nowadays, assuming they ever really existed at all) then it would still be hardhitting but handled better (maybe I'm just idealizing). Instead our leaks have to come from someone who is possibly just in it for his own glory/wankery and not really concerned with the meat of the issue and the impact this information is having. I guess that's a kind of impartiality but I prefer truths to come from a spirit of integrity, and I just hope that's the case here.
i agree addy. for me wiki leaks has dragged the other wikis down into the level of the gutter press.
i always thought it was above that shit, i think i was wrong
maybe though i said it could cause some harm before the spin doctors hit the news.
and i agree about the wool pulling. but if something should be published just because it's a leak then sorry but
i think it's wrong. to simply say oh it's a year old so it won't or cant cause harm seems to me a bit blase.
i personally believe some afghan informers and their families at the very least will end up dead because of it.

for wiki to say"we removed the names" is not in my mind enough to stop someone from realizing who the informant was. and think of this. the wiki crustacean himself said we have removed names to protect people. if having something leaked wasn't or isn't dangerous according to you why do you think they removed the names and sometimes dates etc?

what they leaked isn't just a misuse of funds or whose banging who. it affects lives.