WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants

[zimok]

Pretty fucked that they're so excited to leak information that they didn't properly filter critical information like this. Very sad for the deaths that will result.

Julian Assange already said that eventually there will be blood on his hands. He's not ignorant of that.

Wikileaks is already a 'hydra' of networking/redundancy on the IT side.. Whether Assange ends up with a pike in his ass or not, wikileaks will likely survive. The only thing that can really stop it is if all countries harboring the servers have a shift in opinion about it. I'm sure the people lobbying for that shift in opinion will have a field day if 100 of our informants end up dead.

 

[tangy]

crazy extremists

That's your opinion of them.

It's so funny to read all the pro-war / anti-war Americanisms that come up on WF.

I remember having an argument with this guy once about how these Taliban rebels need to be crushed and all this shit, and then watching his brain explode when I asked him why he didn't feel the same way about Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie and THOSE rebels. Because they were just a rebellion against a government, too.

It's all about perspective, and the point of view that gets passed on is typically that of the country that spends $700 billion a year of other countries' money to buy weapons.

I can't wait to see how much y'all Amurricans agree with crushing the Taliban when you're $20+ Trillion in debt.

 

[Simplepro]

Its seriously bad, that these guys probably have no idea what is coming for them now

 

[justo_tx]

if he leaked some Russian top secret you ppl will think he is a hero. American lol American

No, we probably wouldn't care (our intelligence community might but they would never make that known). And if some Russian intel agency took him out we still wouldn't care. Nice job talking out your ass though, you should do it more often.

 

[m0rtal]

Can someone please point me to a thread on here where everyone is outraged that hundreds of thousands (yes you read that right) of civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the wars?

Well then, surely a few hundred informants won't make much of a difference will it. Cry me a fucking river. They knew what they were signing up for.

 

[jfreeberg]

How the fuck does something like this happen? Unreal how irresponsible this guy was/is

 

[justo_tx]

I remember having an argument with this guy once about how these Taliban rebels need to be crushed and all this shit, and then watching his brain explode when I asked him why he didn't feel the same way about Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie and THOSE rebels. Because they were just a rebellion against a government, too.

Lol. I don't know what's worse, your nonsensical comparison or the fact that the comparison is inaccurately stated.

We aren't attacking the Taliban because they are rebelling against the government. We attacked the Taliban because after 9/11 the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan and harboring bin Laden, hence they were an enemy state. Only now that a new government is in place can the Taliban be framed as "rebellious". Your comparison implies the Taliban woke up one morning to find the the U.S. Army at its doorstep for no reason whatsoever. Being a "rebel" doesn't automatically equate to justification.

 

[zimok]

That's your opinion of them.

It's so funny to read all the pro-war / anti-war Americanisms that come up on WF.

I remember having an argument with this guy once about how these Taliban rebels need to be crushed and all this shit, and then watching his brain explode when I asked him why he didn't feel the same way about Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie and THOSE rebels. Because they were just a rebellion against a government, too.

It's all about perspective, and the point of view that gets passed on is typically that of the country that spends $700 billion a year of other countries' money to buy weapons.

I can't wait to see how much y'all Amurricans agree with crushing the Taliban when you're $20+ Trillion in debt.

Completely agree with this. I've pictured myself plenty of times being on the 'other' side.

I'd wager the invasion created/creates more terrorists than were there before. Think about it, it's a sick amount of civilian death in both Iraq and Afghanistan.. if you're entire family gets slaughtered, you'd become an insta-terrorists simply out of spite.

 

[kingofsp]

Clearly the internet needs heavier regulation.

 

[mattfca]

leaking that information is a direct security risk. no matter how you stand on the war or anything this shouldnt be tolerated (and i dont think it will be..)

 

[zany zoroaster]

Once the US withdraws from Afghanistan, every translator, policeman and politician will be killed for being a collaborator. Cheer up emo kid.

 

[Aplchian]

Kabul War Diary

 

[kblessinggr]

Clearly the internet needs heavier regulation.

That would suck in the end, we'd be no better than China after a while when topics and sites are censored for "national security", or better yet for the good of the american people and promoting healthy morals...

 

[guerilla]

no matter how you stand on the war or anything this shouldnt be tolerated (and i dont think it will be..)

I would say more during times of war than any other, freedom of the press (speech whatever) is necessary.

Can you imagine how many lives might have been saved if there was active and vociferous dissent under the Nazis?

People are crying about some informants. If someone invaded your country and your neighbor worked with occupiers by passing them information, you wouldn't call him an informant, you would call him a collaborator, or possibly a traitor.

 

[zylotron]

US $$ >> Pakistan >> ISI >>Taliban

And you thought Iraq was the war that was supposed to pay for itself...

 

[-Matt-]

Yea, it sucks that the informants' info wasn't properly taken out. But that's the risk they take.

These docs have a ton of other sickening crap in them that no one seems to give a shit about for some reason. Civilian deaths are ok, but a rat getting ratted out is the end of the world? This thread is full of lulz

 

[MikeT3]

It doesn't matter if you agree with the war, think the informants knew what they were getting into or not. That information is confidential for a reason. You want to publish about civilian deaths, war crimes, etc that's fine. But you don't put peoples lives on the line for an exclusive. By publishing the information the guy is responsible for the lives of those people.

You want to out people / governments for secrets that's one thing. Risking peoples lives is wrong. The guy deserves to sit in a prison for the rest of his life.

 

[justo_tx]

I would say more during times of war than any other, freedom of the press (speech whatever) is necessary.

Can you imagine how many lives might have been saved if there was active and vociferous dissent under the Nazis?

I've got mad respect for you Guerilla but I think your perception of what could have been accomplished had there been dissent to Nazism suffers from selection bias. Your perception of the non existence of dissent arises (I presume) from the lack of Germans who spoke against Nazi aggression, but thousands (or tens of thousands) of non Jews, including intellectuals of that type that would speak against aggression, ended up in concentration camps (along with actors, artists, gypsies, etc... also the type that would speak out against war.) The dissent could have (and probably did to some extent) existed but the dissenters were shipped off and executed.

 

[subigo]

People are crying about some informants. If someone invaded your country and your neighbor worked with occupiers by passing them information, you wouldn't call him an informant, you would call him a collaborator, or possibly a traitor.

People are crying about some informants. If someone invaded your country and your neighbor worked with occupiers by passing them information, you wouldn't call him an informant, you would call him a collaborator, or possibly a traitor.

People are crying about some informants. If someone invaded your country and your neighbor worked with occupiers by passing them information, you wouldn't call him an informant, you would call him a collaborator, or possibly a traitor.

People are crying about some informants. If someone invaded your country and your neighbor worked with occupiers by passing them information, you wouldn't call him an informant, you would call him a collaborator, or possibly a traitor.

People are crying about some informants. If someone invaded your country and your neighbor worked with occupiers by passing them information, you wouldn't call him an informant, you would call him a collaborator, or possibly a traitor.

People are crying about some informants. If someone invaded your country and your neighbor worked with occupiers by passing them information, you wouldn't call him an informant, you would call him a collaborator, or possibly a traitor.

....

 

[guerilla]

It doesn't matter if you agree with the war, think the informants knew what they were getting into or not. That information is confidential for a reason. You want to publish about civilian deaths, war crimes, etc that's fine. But you don't put peoples lives on the line for an exclusive.

So if a Jew was collaborating with the Nazis to round up other Jews you think he has a right to privacy?

Risking peoples lives is wrong. The guy deserves to sit in a prison for the rest of his life.

I don't understand how what he did is more wrong than invading a country or overthrowing a government. Fine, if you believe he deserves to go to jail for exposing secrets, but then what do you think should be done to the people who actually kill, or order others to kill?

I'm not judging anyone, I am just trying to figure out people's value scales here.