Wikileaks

[bloodyminded]

What I mean is that by simply disclosing information with no concern for all parties involved, Wikileaks has very likely assured peoples' deaths. What you're trying to do is misdirect that back on to us.

Officials, including of the military, have repeatedly been claiming that it's all "old news" and not "terribly serious."

So...they're lying to us about the war?

Again?

Or the people who are saying this is a terrible threat are lying to us?

Again?

[bloodyminded]

Has the Pentagon or the Whitehouse produced any names or numbers of informants, collaborators, U.S. forces etc. that they claim have been killed because of the leaks? They and their puppets in the mainstream media claim that nothing new has been learned from wikileaks document-dump, and yet lives are in danger! Anyone else smell bullshit here?

they can make shit up, if they feel so inclined. And they probably will. We DO know they've been lying to us thus far; that's not even a controversial assertion.

And how about when those we are helping are also working with the Taliban....should we be kept in the dark about that too?

For Our Own Good.

Get with the program, man!

[dre]

I find it pretty ironic that people who support OPERATION: "OOPS! Shoulda thought THAT through better!" are whining about the possibility that a few people might die due to information being released.

I mean... these people were will to casually write off tens of thousands of Afghan deaths in the name of a response to 911. Its a outright lie that the lives of people over there mean a gawd damn thing to them.

[Bonam]

I think the concern over possible exposure of information about current agents working for us in Afghanistan is certainly important. However, I've yet to see any news story nor report (I've downloaded and read through about 50 of them) that names any of our "collaborators". Has any such information actually been released? Anyone have any links?

[bloodyminded]

I find it pretty ironic that people who support OPERATION: "OOPS! Shoulda thought THAT through better!" are whining about the possibility that a few people might die due to information being released.

I mean... these people were will to casually write off tens of thousands of Afghan deaths in the name of a response to 911. Its a outright lie that the lives of people over there mean a gawd damn thing to them.

Well, they're awfully sanguine about civilian casualties ("They always happen in war!"...evidently, this is broad justification for them).

So no, you're right. They don't actually seem to give a good fuck. The convenient raising of a sudden, revelatory concern for Afghan civilians seems more a politicized concern than a moral one.

[GostHacked]

Well, they're awfully sanguine about civilian casualties ("They always happen in war!"...evidently, this is broad justification for them).

So no, you're right. They don't actually seem to give a good fuck. The convenient raising of a sudden, revelatory concern for Afghan civilians seems more a politicized concern than a moral one.

Always has been. Democracy brought to you by a bomb and a gun.

[Bonam]

Well, they're awfully sanguine about civilian casualties ("They always happen in war!"...evidently, this is broad justification for them).

So no, you're right. They don't actually seem to give a good fuck. The convenient raising of a sudden, revelatory concern for Afghan civilians seems more a politicized concern than a moral one.

Well, to be blunt, they are important because they are civilians working for us, rather than just any old civilians. These are people who are putting themselves at risk in order to help us achieve our goals in Afghanistan and to help to build a better country for themselves. We owe them our best effort at keeping them safe in exchange.

That being said, I'd still like to know whether the names of any such individuals have actually been released and whether any have actually been put in danger as a result.

By the way, the term "collaborator" in reference to such individuals is extremely derogatory.

[DogOnPorch]

bloodyminded's goals run contrary to "our" goals.

[bush_cheney2004]

....That being said, I'd still like to know whether the names of any such individuals have actually been released and whether any have actually been put in danger as a result.

Despite efforts to redact such names and context before leaking the documents, some names and/or indentifying attributes were released:

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/wikileaks-document-release-endangers-afghan-lives-us-jd-03

[bloodyminded]

Well, to be blunt, they are important because they are civilians working for us, rather than just any old civilians.

Those who aren't working with us are of exactly equal worth as human beings.

Even the ones we have killed are of equal worth...though it's prettier, easier not to think so.

By the way, the term "collaborator" in reference to such individuals is extremely derogatory.

Why are you addressing this to me?

[bloodyminded]

bloodyminded's goals run contrary to "our" goals.

Yes...because your goals are to openly and outright support and defend terrorism, as you did when we discussed Indonesia's state terrorism against East Timor.

I, on the other hand, oppose terrorism in totality.

So yes, we have different "goals."

[WIP]

I would like to know why the warhawks here want to direct all focus on whether the lives of collaborators are in danger because of the leaks, and attempt to divert our attention from the fact that the docs add further evidence that the war is a lost cause, and more lives are put in danger by prolonging the war than from having revealing information about the scheming that is going on there at the ground level.

The reason why the Afghanistan documents and the Iraq video of targeting civilians is out there in the first place is because there are thousands of American personal with security clearances that have access to this information....and apparently some of them have either lost confidence in the war policy, or want to make sure evidence for war crimes isn't completely covered up. Wikileaks is merely exposing a major security flaw in information control that already exists; and what is the Whitehouse trying to do about it, besides the usual attempts at a cover up?

The documents dump I want to see is one from Pentagon and Whitehouse sources, that reveal the decisions going on up the chain of command.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes...because your goals are to openly and outright support and defend terrorism, as you did when we discussed Indonesia's state terrorism against East Timor.

I, on the other hand, oppose terrorism in totality.

So yes, we have different "goals."

The usual BS from the Strawman.

[dre]

Well, they're awfully sanguine about civilian casualties ("They always happen in war!"...evidently, this is broad justification for them).

So no, you're right. They don't actually seem to give a good fuck. The convenient raising of a sudden, revelatory concern for Afghan civilians seems more a politicized concern than a moral one.

Not just a politicized concern but an operational one. The only way that projects like Iraq and Afghanistan can continue happening, is by carefully controlling the data... if the people in places like the US and Canada had a complete picture of WHY these projects are being undertaken and HOW then they pull support for them in a heartbeat and refuse to keep funding them.

This dynamic has been in play for a long long time. Its essentially Platos "myth of the cave"... its important that the people dont really see whats IN the cave. Its important that the "government/philosophers" control the data.

A new take on it would the following quote from Herman Goerring.

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

In the case of the GWOT the balancing act is even more tenuous and controlling the data is even more important because any critical thinker is going to find the entire premise that its based on highly dubious (that premise being that its truly in our best interest to spend trillions of dollars worth of borrowed money on blowing up stuff in the middle east then rebuilding it).

If they dont control the data this whole house of cards comes crashing down.

[bloodyminded]

Not just a politicized concern but an operational one. The only way that projects like Iraq and Afghanistan can continue happening, is by carefully controlling the data... if the people in places like the US and Canada had a complete picture of WHY these projects are being undertaken and HOW then they pull support for them in a heartbeat and refuse to keep funding them.

This dynamic has been in play for a long long time. Its essentially Platos "myth of the cave"... its important that the people dont really see whats IN the cave. Its important that the "government/philosophers" control the data.

Yes...and while people will claim "conspiracy theory," such behaviour is actually nothing more than a predictable performance of institutionalized power.

The indoctrinaiton runs very deep, and yields some surprising effects. I have debated with more than a couple of liberals on this board who have openly and explicitly defended state terrorism, even attempted genocide....so long as words like "Cold War" or Soviet" could be summoned (irrelevantly, in the particular case I'm thinking of).

As for conservatives, well, they just throw a tantrum and shout "freedom!" or something.

But specifically I'm thinking of Christopher Hitchens, once a relatively big figure on the critical-of-government Left, whose post-9/11 remarks are often truly jaw-dropping.

For example, when questioned about his vigorous, angrily-defensive support of the Bush administration (the quesiton based on his many years of institutional critiques of government), he claimed that, under Bush, the US government had "reformed itself"--just like that!--and that he knew this because of "conversations I've had in Washington."

Well, there's no way to responsibly answer this; only falling to the floor in laughter suffices.

But more directly to your point, Dre: his remarks about how the administration was forced to lie everyone into the Iraq War (keep in mind that Hitchens himself was unambiguously one of the "supporters" which he coyly places in third person):

Part of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Straussand appears in fictional guise as such in Saul Bellow's novel Ravelsteinone may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate.

This is real philosopher king, lie-to-'em-for-their-own-good type of stuff.

It's the worldview of the Commissar, in short.

Edited August 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

...In the case of the GWOT the balancing act is even more tenuous and controlling the data is even more important because any critical thinker is going to find the entire premise that its based on highly dubious (that premise being that its truly in our best interest to spend trillions of dollars worth of borrowed money on blowing up stuff in the middle east then rebuilding it).

Yet this was exactly the strategy for other "Great Wars".

If they dont control the data this whole house of cards comes crashing down.

Not unless you also crash the economics that drive it...good luck with that.

[Oleg Bach]

60 YEARS ago if CNN reported the movement and status of our troops - the feds would have swarmed their offices and put them all in chains for treason.

[bloodyminded]

60 YEARS ago if CNN reported the movement and status of our troops - the feds would have swarmed their offices and put them all in chains for treason.

The leaks are not of current status.

[DogOnPorch]

The leaks are not of current status.

What are they current to then? The Battle of Marathon?

[bloodyminded]

What are they current to then? The Battle of Marathon?

The documents stop in 2009.

I was under the misapprehension that people were aware of this.

[DogOnPorch]

The documents stop in 2009.

I was under the misapprehension that people were aware of this.

Oh, well...2009...we didn't even have colour TV.

[bloodyminded]

Oh, well...2009...we didn't even have colour TV.

Yep, troop movements are precisely the same now as they were nine or ten months ago. Your military expertise at work.

[DogOnPorch]

Yep, troop movements are precisely the same now as they were nine or ten months ago. Your military expertise at work.

Shows what you know.

[bloodyminded]

Shows what you know.

There's been no movments and reconfigurations in ten months?

Man, those McChrystal and Petraeus guys sure are incompetent losers, then, aren't they?

[DogOnPorch]

There's been no movments and reconfigurations in ten months?

Man, those McChrystal and Petraeus guys sure are incompetent losers, then, aren't they?

Again shows what you know. It also shows you have no family connection to the Canadian Armed Forces. It's OK if our guys die because of this is what it says. Which is why you're my enemy and a terrorist supporter.