|
Wikileaks releases over 90,000 secret cables related to the war in Afghanistan!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Joss Weatherby |
http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/
I don't really care about anything "incriminating" or whatever that people are going to be looking for in here, but it certainly is an interesting look into the prosecution of this war so far. |
|
|
| bananas |
| wikileaks is in awesome |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| Now it's time to wait for someone to post a c0r version of these documents. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
The New York Times, Der Spiegel, and The Guardian among other news organizations have had access to these documents for some time now. They haven't reported on it due to condition that they do not till after the public gets to see them.
Tomorrow is going to be an interesting news day to say the least. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
The New York Times, Der Spiegel, and The Guardian among other news organizations have had access to these documents for some time now. They haven't reported on it due to condition that they do not till after the public gets to see them. |
Source? |
|
|
| The17sss |
Politico's got a release out with the white house administration ripping Wikileaks for their irresponsibility. From the U.K. Guardian's report on the matter:
| quote: | “For all their eye-popping details, the intelligence files, which are mostly collated by junior officers relying on informants and Afghan officials, fail to provide a convincing smoking gun for ISI complicity. Most of the reports are vague, filled with incongruent detail, or crudely fabricated. The same characters – famous Taliban commanders, well-known ISI officials – and scenarios repeatedly pop up. And few of the events predicted in the reports subsequently occurred.
“A retired senior American officer said ground-level reports were considered to be a mixture of ‘rumours, baloney, and second-hand information’ and were weeded out as they passed up the chain of command. ‘As someone who had to sift through thousands of these reports, I can say that the chances of finding any real information are pretty slim,’ said the officer, who has years of experience in the region.
“If anything, the jumble of allegations highlights the perils of collecting accurate intelligence in a complex arena where all sides have an interest in distorting the truth.” |
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40204.html
Makes sense since the Wikileaks founder is an anti-war hack vehemently against military efforts in Afghanistan. Don't mistake this for journalism. |
|
|
| jester |
I am quite surprised that the DOD, DOJ, CIA, NSA and others haven't tried to hack wikileaks.
I am just happy Wikileaks is around though. Makes the US government way more transparent :D |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Politico's got a release out with the white house administration ripping Wikileaks for their irresponsibility. From the U.K. Guardian's report on the matter:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40204.html
Makes sense since the Wikileaks founder is an anti-war hack vehemently against military efforts in Afghanistan. Don't mistake this for journalism. |
Wait. I'm confused now. So wikileaks is irresponsible. But also all the reports they released are bogus and just rumors. If they're untrue rumors than it doesn't seem like a big deal?
Transparency is a good thing. They don't seem to have released any highly classified information (I think I read the anti-war hack said somewhere he has been given a lot of CIA reports and the like also that he refused to release because it might end up hurting the troops), so what's the problem? |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Wait. I'm confused now. So wikileaks is irresponsible. But also all the reports they released are bogus and just rumors. If they're untrue rumors than it doesn't seem like a big deal?
Transparency is a good thing. They don't seem to have released any highly classified information (I think I read the anti-war hack said somewhere he has been given a lot of CIA reports and the like also that he refused to release because it might end up hurting the troops), so what's the problem? |
That's the point- the irresponsibility lies in the release of so much data that a large portion of had already been discredited as being bunk and of no merit. Knowing this, it was released anyway adding potential napalm to a small dumpster fire. It's not an objective person with no agenda doing this, so you must take that into account.
Transparency is good, but the information itself must be good. Most of the data released is from 2004-2009, mostly Bush years... so if the current white house administration is blasting the move, than you know there's quite a bit of irresponsibility involved. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
Yea I been reading through a lot of these and most is low level paper work that has not been established through the normal processes. Its raw reports from the field which are not always accurate, especially for things like Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) from air strikes and artillery. Those are often not confirmed for some time due to the nature of those operations (often being behind the line of engagement) and you might not get BDA on it for a couple of days till forces take that ground. As such you get a lot of disconnected information and in some cases it looks like there might be more of an impact than there really is due to duplicates and triplicates of information being reported.
I trust though that large news organizations will have for the most part established clear lines of events when reading through these. Now that I think about it more, it might be a few weeks before we see any hard stories coming out of these documents. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by bananas
wikileaks is in awesome |
Indeed. |
|
|
|
|
