The Iraq war was a disgrace, but sometimes we forget just how much

[mkreku]

I have now been enlightened.

You don't know the meaning of the word.

[Gorth]

Did you hear that LoF? you are a right wing nut.

 

Wikileaks might have been a good idea, but no good they ever do now or in the future will redeem them from that first blunder. Whether casualties will follow or not is irrelevant, that they were willing to sacrifice peoples lives for a good story and a bit of publicity means they already failed in my book. Other peoples mileage may wary.

[Thorton_AP]

Which was their first blunder?

[Calax]

Didn't we go over di's argument back when it was in a current part of newsweek... 2 months ago?

 

Yeah, because it doesn't friggin' matter if Afgani's are dying because of the leaks posted on the web. It only matters that Americans are brutal ****, and Di in particular is a Fox News Junkie, even though she hasn't seen more than six minutes of Fox News in the past five years. She isn't a European, she isn't an Australian, so she must be some kind of right-wing nutcase, despite the fact that she hasn't voted republican in a decade and is an avowed atheist. And God forbid she post an opinion on this forum, because everyone knows that as an American female she must be a dedicated right-winger, despite the fact that she has spent the past decade railing against the illegal preemptive invasion of Iraq as an illegal war based upon lies and deceit. She is Di... she is American, she is a female... therefore, she must be a brain-washed idiot.

 

Your condescending insult of people with your stereotypes and pompous superiority complex because they aren't YOU, aren't from your so-very-perfect societies, make me glad that although I live in an imperfect country with a government I frequently disagree with, at least I don't live in a country that ignores its imperfections in order to scapegoat others to make myself feel important in a world where I know that I don't really matter. What a cruel bunch of xenophobic bullies you are. I'm actually sorry that the internet came to exist. Before that happened, I actually thought that I liked Australians and western Europeans because I didn't know what self-indulgent blame-mongering pricks they were. I have now been enlightened.

... Interesting that you responded while quoting me, when I'm a white American never made any bones about it. AND the fact that the Zoraptor and Kez already pointed out that A) the documents leaked had the names redacted, and B) EVEN FOX NEWS SAID THAT THERE WERE NO REPERCUSSIONS SEEN. I'm sorry, but even if you don't watch fox news, for them to admit that is... pretty good confirmation.

[Balthamael]

While I do believe that some truths are better off buried, I think government's privilege to classify documents is a tremendous power, and one it is bound to misuse. For this reason I applaud the work Wikileaks is doing. I don't think Wikileaks, and other journalistic organisation for that matter, should use other criteria than veracity when deciding whether to publish. With any classified information you could always come up with scenarios where lives might be endangered or other bad situations might occur if it should be revealed. And so, slowly, gradually, you would become a lapdog of those you were meant to guard against.

 

I think it is the government's responsibility to keep documents it doesn't want published from falling in wrong hands, or preferably avoid doing things that need to be classified in the first place. As for atrocities, the moral responsibility falls upon those who commit them.

[Thorton_AP]

If I were some shady Taliban style organization, I'd actually target the Wikileaks founder. Regardless of the intelligence accuracy and usefulness, if he were to kick the bucket the impression most would get is that he was silenced by a Western state and cause all sorts of brouhaha on the home front.

[lord of flies]

The Ukraine famine was a part of the plan to fight the Nazi menace?

Read "Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution." It covers how collectivization was a crucial element of rapid industrialization in the Soviet Union. The fact that Soviet rapid industrialization was a vital part of the defeat of fascism (absolutely necessary without otherwise huge alterations) is pretty well established by virtually every history book ever written.

 

The Ukrainian famine was a consequence of collectivization policies but killed far fewer than the Nazis did (and even fewer in comparison to the number that the Nazis would have killed).

Yeah, because it doesn't friggin' matter if Afgani's are dying because of the leaks posted on the web.

They aren't though. The whole "Afghanis are dying because of the leaks" deal was just US Army agitprop intended to undermine and discredit Wikileaks, which has been proven false since (and silently swept under the rug).

[Tale]

If I were some shady Taliban style organization, I'd actually target the Wikileaks founder. Regardless of the intelligence accuracy and usefulness, if he were to kick the bucket the impression most would get is that he was silenced by a Western state and cause all sorts of brouhaha on the home front.

Too bad the west is bored of martyrs. I'd be surprised if it was talked about for more than a day. We consume and pass information at about the rate we consume and pass our tex-mex.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Tale

[Thorton_AP]

Read "Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution." It covers how collectivization was a crucial element of rapid industrialization in the Soviet Union. The fact that Soviet rapid industrialization was a vital part of the defeat of fascism (absolutely necessary without otherwise huge alterations) is pretty well established by virtually every history book ever written.

 

The Ukrainian famine was a consequence of collectivization policies but killed far fewer than the Nazis did (and even fewer in comparison to the number that the Nazis would have killed).

 

This doesn't discount the atrocity. All it does is say 'well, good thing we committed these atrocities because it helped us do some good later!'

 

It's rationalization and denial if you refuse to accept that it was still an atrocity because the benefit of hindsight years later showed that they were able to salvage some good of it. This is why that quote you had is so perfect for yourself. The fun thing here is that you will always deny it because you don't believe it to be true. The same way the people you chastised with your previous comments deny their wrong doings.

 

 

 

Too bad the west is bored of martyrs. I'd be surprised if it was talked about for more than a day. We consume and pass information at about the rate we consume and pass our tex-mex.

 

I don't know. I think that if the West thought that some guy was Assassinated by some SAS/Navy SEAL type (and that's probably what they would assume) they'd talk about it simply because we likes "zee dramas."

Edited October 28, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Zoraptor]

AND the fact that the Zoraptor and Kez already pointed out that A) the documents leaked had the names redacted, and B) EVEN FOX NEWS SAID THAT THERE WERE NO REPERCUSSIONS SEEN. I'm sorry, but even if you don't watch fox news, for them to admit that is... pretty good confirmation.

FTR that is pretty much exactly why I picked Fox News, ie solely because it is not likely to be accused of being anti American. It was a report on freely available public comments and I initially read it on the BBC, but a link from there might face an accusation of bias or not telling the whole story.

 

There's no malice intended in the correction- normally a link from Newsweek (or the NYT, for that matter) would be fine as a source and there's no reason to expect it to be inaccurate. It just happened to be 'provably' wrong on this occasion.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Zoraptor

[Walsingham]

What I don't understand is this adolescent obsession with freeing information from 'the government'. 'The government' is elected by us, and bound by rules defined by our elected representatives. If wikileaks steal data from classified sources and share with everyone including the enemy, then they aren't fighting for us. They are fighting against us.

 

No-one appointed wikileaks. No one controls them. That isn't cool. It's lunacy.

 

This has been damaging in two ways. Firstly, I haven't seen anyone able to comment authoritatively in public as to whether people have died. However, I put it to you that publishing names and addresses of informants is almost certain to lead to deaths. Secondly, and in some ways more importantly, the leak has made intelligence sources even more cagey about sharing data - 'stovepiping'. Stovepiping of data is often remarked upon as a leading cause of intelligence failure. Intelligence failures certainly cost lives.

 

And once again I make the point that the actual 'benefit' to the public of this leak has been negligible. It has told us absolutely nothing of any use, and sparked no positive changes whatsoever.

[Nepenthe]

What I don't understand is this adolescent obsession with freeing information from 'the government'. 'The government' is elected by us, and bound by rules defined by our elected representatives. If wikileaks steal data from classified sources and share with everyone including the enemy, then they aren't fighting for us. They are fighting against us.

 

You're describing an ideal situation in there. In practice rules are broken, the average voter just picks a familiar name he can somehow identify with and bureaucracy just buries everything. In your ideal world, the Rules of War would never have been broken, there never would have been any civilian casualties and weapons of mass destruction would have been found in Iraq.

 

Stuff like wikileaks should not be necessary. But in this imperfect universe, I think they do more good than harm.

[Walsingham]

Nepenthe, your argument is coherent, but can you point out (even vaguely) one benefit of the revelations?

[Rostere]

What a cruel bunch of xenophobic bullies you are. I'm actually sorry that the internet came to exist. Before that happened, I actually thought that I liked Australians and western Europeans because I didn't know what self-indulgent blame-mongering pricks they were. I have now been enlightened.

 

What the...

 

I just don't follow the line of reasoning here.

 

You argue that:

 

1. Some people are biased against you for your nationality (that judging people because of their nationality is bad)

 

Therefore,

 

2. All people from those countries are pricks (you judge people because of their nationality)

 

Is it only me or does (1) and (2) contradict each other in a moral sense? The only way you could morally go to (2) from (1) is if you somehow wanted to be a prick yourself. And I don't think that is the case.

 

Although I must add that from the posts that I've read authored by ~Di, she would be classified as a fringe right-winger in the political environment I'm used to. I can't see how that is more of an insult than if ~Di would say that I would vote for Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader if I had lived in the US.

 

Your condescending insult of people with your stereotypes and pompous superiority complex because they aren't YOU, aren't from your so-very-perfect societies, make me glad that although I live in an imperfect country with a government I frequently disagree with, at least I don't live in a country that ignores its imperfections in order to scapegoat others to make myself feel important in a world where I know that I don't really matter.

 

I'm also having trouble interpreting this statement. Somehow it is important to inform some of us that we "don't really matter" and that you're proud of your own country - because we have a superiority complex? I thought, that you had a superiority complex if you were a person who was keen to point out how little others matter, not if you simply criticize the behaviour of others (regardless of who "matters" or not)? This response is of the same category as the one I quoted first. You percieve bias on basis of nationality, so you counter with the same. You percieve a superiority complex, and counter with displaying a superiority complex yourself.

 

It does not surprise me that you are an atheist, because you do not seem to have learned the lesson of turning the other cheek

[Violetta]

It's over though.

[Zoraptor]

Firstly, I haven't seen anyone able to comment authoritatively in public as to whether people have died.

I quoted one, Col. Dave Lapan, a couple of pages back, and he seemed fairly definitive. Also, coalition casualties have actually declined since the release of the first batch of leaks, as opposed to last year when they stayed roughly equal throughout the summer months. While there are certainly other factors at work that does very strongly suggest there has not been a significant increase in risk to coalition soldiers caused by the Afghan release.

 

Lapan could be lying in the belief that admitting to deaths could discourage future/ current informants from supplying information, of course, but at present there isn't enough independent evidence to decide either way. That's something we'll only find out if a media organisation does some proper investigative work to check. So we probably won't find out.

[Orogun01]

Nepenthe, your argument is coherent, but can you point out (even vaguely) one benefit of the revelations?

You said it yourself, they are elected by us and as such the respond to us. For democracy to be effective there is a need for the public to have all available information to make an informed decision. Now we are not ignorant of what is happening over there.

[Nepenthe]

Nepenthe, your argument is coherent, but can you point out (even vaguely) one benefit of the revelations?

You said it yourself, they are elected by us and as such the respond to us. For democracy to be effective there is a need for the public to have all available information to make an informed decision. Now we are not ignorant of what is happening over there.

 

This. Also whistleblowing occasionally leads into the system working for a while, with criminal investigations starting into where laws were broken and not just into the people who revealed the breaking of the law documented in classified documents.

 

Except, I disagree with "all AVAILABLE". I understand the need for classification. I'm sure you also understand it's potential for abuse (ie. protecting the guilty, not the innocent).

Edited October 30, 2010 by Nepenthe

[Walsingham]

Zoraptor, a decline in coalition casualties could be attributable to anything. Moreover, the principal risk is to unprotected informants. But I asked for anything at all and you hit me with it! I'll have to be more careful in future.

 

~

 

Orogun, if we feel we as a people/peoples need certain types of information it's very simple. We go through the democratic process and we demand it. We state that we need certain kinds of data made available to us.

 

What we don't do is rely upon people breaking the law to give us information. Because in rough order:

 

1. How do we stop them sharing information which we don't want shared? (I assume it's self-evident that such a thing exists)

2. It will stop agencies talking to one another for fear of leaks.

3. We can and will be deluged by unprocessed drivel that isn't acted upon.

 

By contrast if we actually want to prevent abuses then simply printing things doesn't stop them. Prevention requires complex and well maintained architectures of oversight and control.

[Nepenthe]

By contrast if we actually want to prevent abuses then simply printing things doesn't stop them. Prevention requires complex and well maintained architectures of oversight and control.

No, but if there is no awareness of the illegal acts and abuses, then nothing will be done to prevent such things in the future, or, Heaven forbid, actually punish the people who have commited criminal acts.

[Monte Carlo]

Who thinks that if Wikileaks had been about in 1944, they'd publish the date and location of D-Day?

[Orogun01]

I understand the concern for security with a leak on information. But if this information were to go through the official channels or if we were to request it, they would only give us the PG version of events. All in the name of keeping the war effort alive.

[Calax]

I understand the concern for security with a leak on information. But if this information were to go through the official channels or if we were to request it, they would only give us the PG version of events. All in the name of keeping the war effort alive.

Either this or a fight through the courts.

 

Personally I don't think they'd even try to pretty it up, it'd just be a censored black sheet with it's, and, then, civilian, and terrorist not blocked out.

[Walsingham]

Would you stop and actually re-read what you'ev written. You've all got sucked into a fantasy Hollywood land. Oversight, reprimand, control of the various security services happens every single day. Certainly we the people don't see everything. But there are committees and bodies who see massive amounts.

 

For pity's sake, this isn't a ****ing computer game.

[Orogun01]

Would you stop and actually re-read what you'ev written. You've all got sucked into a fantasy Hollywood land. Oversight, reprimand, control of the various security services happens every single day. Certainly we the people don't see everything. But there are committees and bodies who see massive amounts.

 

For pity's sake, this isn't a ****ing computer game.

Certainly they happen and so far since it hasn't affected us we haven't cared. But if atrocities are being committed overseas and covered up then we as a people have a right to know, which we wouldn't if the government was the one that released the report. More over these committees have proven themselves useless when it comes to finding and prosecuting these people. I'm pretty sure that every body that oversees anything is up to scrutiny, specially since they have failed so much in the past.