The war on drugs is won, all terrorists are wiped out and then suddenly! A city is wiped out by an asteroid when something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event happens over a city!
And so the War With The Sky is begun, massive amount of money are spent on orbital nuclear weapons, people are inspected for hidden meteors at boarders. people are encouraged to do their part*Short clips of people shooting into the air and throwing rocks upwards*. TV shows are run showing the casualties in the war with the sky *slow pan over the same field littered with bloody rocks and crumpled bodies*.
If you build a fortress and are the victim of a successful invasion the fault lies with you for not securing your fortress properly. This is the military. They are supposed to expect attempts to steal the information. That one guy could grab the entire database and release it into the wild shows how pisspoor their systems, both human and electronic, were.
They're supposed to keep their information secure, if they fail that means they fucked up.
For every oddball with an urge to release the information into the wild for everyone to see there's going to be many who are willing to quietly swap a memory stick for a large bundle of cash or to get their child back safe. Wikileaks may be an amateur run organisation but the Taliban certainly are not.
So the Taliban kills lots of random people they suspect might be working with the US, they don't really care how accurate they are, they just want to send a message that it isn't safe to work with the US. If they kill lots of random people who are just unpopular in their communities.
The US fails to keep the identities of it's sources secure, documents are stolen and sent to a foreign newslike activist organisation.
the Taliban continues to kill lots of random people they suspect might be working with the US.
The documents are leaked to the public mostly redacted.
the Taliban continues to kill lots of random people and some who are more likely to have been involved with the US but from this point every death is the fault of the activist organisation. and somehow the US army who promised these people their identities would remain anonymous somehow hold no responsibility?
Honestly I'd be very surprised if this is the only leak of these documents, I've heard claims that thousands of contractors and servicemen had access to these files and old fashioned bribery or blackmail has historically been better at getting information out of people than the urge to tell the world and the taliban and Al-Qaida aren't exactly amateur organisations.
There's far less there than the hundreds of entries for the UK or the thousands for the US but wikileaks leaks whatever it gets and if more US citizens are interested in that kind of activism then more US material will end up on there.
A spy? Cut the bullshit. He's no more a spy than the editors of the guardian or the new york times.
Wikileaks received a large number of documents, what did they do? they released most of them to the public with some redaction.
The guardian received a large number of documents, what did they do? they released most of them to the public with some redaction and wrote a load of stories about it.
If some chinese person emailed you classified chinese tank plans and you published them on your website for the public to see would that make you a spy? unless you're in china, no, it would not.
Well he's willing to accept help, with the last lot he was willing to let the pentagon help with redaction (of course you can assume with the implication that if they played silly buggers and returned 90K black sheets of paper or redacted things which were merely embarrassing it would be ignored) rather than counting their blessings at getting a second chance to remove sensitive info from a leak after it has happened(how often do you think organisations get a chance at that) they sat back, firmly lodging their thumbs in their rectums and ignored the chance.
if this guy is still running a company that provides anything I use then I'd like to vote with my wallet and go with someone who gives a shit about his customers.
"The entire point of this discussion has been the "civilian deaths" that have been caused by the NATO militaries there."
Since when? I rather thought the topic of discussion was wikileaks, unreported incidents and general army fuckups.
And if you really mean to suggest that losing an arm, losing a leg, being blinded or rendered deaf or any of the other interesting and horrible permanent injuries are irrelevant or no big deal then well, we have precious little common ground for rational discussion, don't we?
There's also the point that the Taliban have been killing anyone they syspected was talking to the US for quite a while. There may be people killed thanks to the pentagon failing to keep their identies from falling into the hands of news organisations and similar groups like wikileaks but I wonder if anyone will end up not being killed because after a rumour that someone unpopular in a local village gets around saying they used to be giving info to the americans they might note that there was nothing at all in the war diaries about anyone near there informing. just a thought though since the taliban aren't exactly known for fair trials, they're as happy to kill based on rumours of collusion.
I'm also noticing that the US is complaining about wikileaks yet both the New York Times and The Guardian mirrored much of the material, the guardian mirrored a lot of the material.
Where are the government calls to shut down those 2 organisations? Where are the calls to have the employees of those 2 organisations arrested?
Wikileaks is just the organisation the documents were given to, they no more stole them than the guardian did.
I was talking about a different bus - one of the cases brought to light was that French troops strafed a bus full of children . not everything is about the US after all.
In the UK there are also some serious questions being asked about a particular british unit involved in a large number of civilian deaths.
So ya, everything in the universe is about the United States because that's the only country in the world that matters.
I feel I should now point to the left of the pages where the dates of the events are all next to a title.
As for the meeting: On the same day, with the same people, talking about the same things?
NYT just seems to have been far less than consistent, blocking out the time of day that something happened(something not exactly unknown to the enemy like the time that a building was bombed) and in many cases more than a little pointless, blotting names of people who from the docs are not from the context on the US side then giving all info to figure out who they are.
I mean really, hiding the day that you raided an enemy location seems beyond pointless- the time and day that a bunch of soldiers busted in and shot some of your friends or the day a load of soldiers kicked down the door of the house next door seems like something that would stick in the mind.
Are you looking at the same one as me? I'm looking at the one under the heading of "Botched Raid".
there's one which blinks up for me for a second when the link loads-"Working Two Sides"(are you running noscript bychance?) where the NYT redacted the name of the owner of the home in which someone who was holding a meeting for enemy soldiers where they were planning some kind of suicide bombing.
Which seems more than a little pointless since NAZIR HALLIMULLAH and MALANG should know what house they had a meeting in.
NOTE: The following information (TF-373 and HIMARS) is Classified Secret / NOFORN. The knowledge that TF-373 conducted a HIMARS strike must be kept protected. All other information below is classified Secret / REL ISAF.
Is the new york times going to be prosecuted for handling and disseminating classified documents now you think?
Apologies, I mixed up this window with one where I was replying to someone who was making broad statements about what the NYT would or wouldn't publish.
In 90K documents how many people have been identifiable? do you even know or are you trusting the hand waving by the newspapers that weren't let in on the scoop that the entire population of afghanistan will now be shot in the back of the head?
The even more time honoured method is, of course as the diaries confirmed, to just open fire on a bus or someone who looks shifty.
Slashdot Mirror
The war on drugs is won, all terrorists are wiped out and then suddenly!
A city is wiped out by an asteroid when something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event happens over a city!
And so the War With The Sky is begun, massive amount of money are spent on orbital nuclear weapons, people are inspected for hidden meteors at boarders.
people are encouraged to do their part*Short clips of people shooting into the air and throwing rocks upwards*.
TV shows are run showing the casualties in the war with the sky *slow pan over the same field littered with bloody rocks and crumpled bodies*.
If you build a fortress and are the victim of a successful invasion the fault lies with you for not securing your fortress properly.
This is the military.
They are supposed to expect attempts to steal the information.
That one guy could grab the entire database and release it into the wild shows how pisspoor their systems, both human and electronic, were.
They're supposed to keep their information secure, if they fail that means they fucked up.
For every oddball with an urge to release the information into the wild for everyone to see there's going to be many who are willing to quietly swap a memory stick for a large bundle of cash or to get their child back safe.
Wikileaks may be an amateur run organisation but the Taliban certainly are not.
so the timeline is
So the Taliban kills lots of random people they suspect might be working with the US, they don't really care how accurate they are, they just want to send a message that it isn't safe to work with the US. If they kill lots of random people who are just unpopular in their communities.
The US fails to keep the identities of it's sources secure, documents are stolen and sent to a foreign newslike activist organisation.
the Taliban continues to kill lots of random people they suspect might be working with the US.
The documents are leaked to the public mostly redacted.
the Taliban continues to kill lots of random people and some who are more likely to have been involved with the US but from this point every death is the fault of the activist organisation.
and somehow the US army who promised these people their identities would remain anonymous somehow hold no responsibility?
Honestly I'd be very surprised if this is the only leak of these documents, I've heard claims that thousands of contractors and servicemen had access to these files and old fashioned bribery or blackmail has historically been better at getting information out of people than the urge to tell the world and the taliban and Al-Qaida aren't exactly amateur organisations.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Israel
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia
There's far less there than the hundreds of entries for the UK or the thousands for the US but wikileaks leaks whatever it gets and if more US citizens are interested in that kind of activism then more US material will end up on there.
A spy? Cut the bullshit.
He's no more a spy than the editors of the guardian or the new york times.
Wikileaks received a large number of documents, what did they do? they released most of them to the public with some redaction.
The guardian received a large number of documents, what did they do? they released most of them to the public with some redaction and wrote a load of stories about it.
If some chinese person emailed you classified chinese tank plans and you published them on your website for the public to see would that make you a spy?
unless you're in china, no, it would not.
Well he's willing to accept help, with the last lot he was willing to let the pentagon help with redaction (of course you can assume with the implication that if they played silly buggers and returned 90K black sheets of paper or redacted things which were merely embarrassing it would be ignored) rather than counting their blessings at getting a second chance to remove sensitive info from a leak after it has happened(how often do you think organisations get a chance at that) they sat back, firmly lodging their thumbs in their rectums and ignored the chance.
it proves he's suited to a fast track to management in a fortune 500 company?
if this guy is still running a company that provides anything I use then I'd like to vote with my wallet and go with someone who gives a shit about his customers.
I'm going to jump in as well with "that's the stupidest thing I've heard all day".
If a lesbian doesn't get off from a man does that make her a heterophobe?
Ditto for a gay man.
if he can't sustain an erection for sex with a woman does that make him a heterophobe?
utterly absurd.
It's possible to simply find sexual contact with one of the sexes unpalatable.
In other news, people who can't stand the taste of broccoli pronounced Brassicaphobes.
"The entire point of this discussion has been the "civilian deaths" that have been caused by the NATO militaries there."
Since when?
I rather thought the topic of discussion was wikileaks, unreported incidents and general army fuckups.
And if you really mean to suggest that losing an arm, losing a leg, being blinded or rendered deaf or any of the other interesting and horrible permanent injuries are irrelevant or no big deal then well, we have precious little common ground for rational discussion, don't we?
Those pussies can just walk it off... oh snap.
Suing not Sewing.
Their not there.
Otherwise... pretty much.
Or an even more fun one- suing for violating patents they expect to have in the future.
You were the only one who decided that getting maimed doesn't count, nobody else.
Know anyone who's regrown a limb?
There's also the point that the Taliban have been killing anyone they syspected was talking to the US for quite a while.
There may be people killed thanks to the pentagon failing to keep their identies from falling into the hands of news organisations and similar groups like wikileaks but I wonder if anyone will end up not being killed because after a rumour that someone unpopular in a local village gets around saying they used to be giving info to the americans they might note that there was nothing at all in the war diaries about anyone near there informing.
just a thought though since the taliban aren't exactly known for fair trials, they're as happy to kill based on rumours of collusion.
I'm also noticing that the US is complaining about wikileaks yet both the New York Times and The Guardian mirrored much of the material, the guardian mirrored a lot of the material.
Where are the government calls to shut down those 2 organisations?
Where are the calls to have the employees of those 2 organisations arrested?
Wikileaks is just the organisation the documents were given to, they no more stole them than the guardian did.
Didn't south park do this one?
http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/clips/sp_vid_255332/
no, that's financing parties, pay a million to a party and get 100 million back in government contracts if that party gets into power.
right, cause kids getting holes shot in them doesn't count unless they die, the occasional arm or leg is no biggie.
I was talking about a different bus - one of the cases brought to light was that French troops strafed a bus full of children .
not everything is about the US after all.
In the UK there are also some serious questions being asked about a particular british unit involved in a large number of civilian deaths.
So ya, everything in the universe is about the United States because that's the only country in the world that matters.
I feel I should now point to the left of the pages where the dates of the events are all next to a title.
As for the meeting: On the same day, with the same people, talking about the same things?
NYT just seems to have been far less than consistent, blocking out the time of day that something happened(something not exactly unknown to the enemy like the time that a building was bombed) and in many cases more than a little pointless, blotting names of people who from the docs are not from the context on the US side then giving all info to figure out who they are.
I mean really, hiding the day that you raided an enemy location seems beyond pointless- the time and day that a bunch of soldiers busted in and shot some of your friends or the day a load of soldiers kicked down the door of the house next door seems like something that would stick in the mind.
Are you looking at the same one as me?
I'm looking at the one under the heading of "Botched Raid".
there's one which blinks up for me for a second when the link loads-"Working Two Sides"(are you running noscript bychance?) where the NYT redacted the name of the owner of the home in which someone who was holding a meeting for enemy soldiers where they were planning some kind of suicide bombing.
Which seems more than a little pointless since NAZIR HALLIMULLAH and MALANG should know what house they had a meeting in.
slashdot weights downmods higher than upmods?
It's bolocks anyway.
A +5 is easy to get.
The only ones I'm happy with are the posts which get both troll/overrated and insightful/informative mods.
If nobody's disagreeing it's not really worth saying.
On that note what's redacted is just the date.
But that date is there again lower down in the page un-redacted.
WTF?
that seems less than consistent.
So you think the new york times wouldn't publish actual documents?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/26warlogs.html#report/15A27543-B022-4736-AC31-71006B18794E [nytimes.com]
From the top of the page
NOTE: The following information (TF-373 and HIMARS) is Classified Secret / NOFORN. The knowledge that TF-373 conducted a HIMARS strike must be kept protected. All other information below is classified Secret / REL ISAF.
Is the new york times going to be prosecuted for handling and disseminating classified documents now you think?
Apologies, I mixed up this window with one where I was replying to someone who was making broad statements about what the NYT would or wouldn't publish.
In 90K documents how many people have been identifiable? do you even know or are you trusting the hand waving by the newspapers that weren't let in on the scoop that the entire population of afghanistan will now be shot in the back of the head?
The even more time honoured method is, of course as the diaries confirmed, to just open fire on a bus or someone who looks shifty.