Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
ubernerd845
8 Followers
compulsive1
44 Followers
compulsive1
44 Followers
ellieelliott
1905 Followers
markstructureJul 26, 2010
it is time to shut down the war machine!
sanmanJul 26, 2010
Unfortunately, the US has an alliance with a country that is busily killing US troops. Pakistan's ISI has worked tirelessly to kill US troops, even while clamoring for billions of dollars in military aid.
"Please send me more $$$ gringoes - we need to buy more bullets and bombs to kill you!"
This is on top of their culpability in causing 9/11, by creating Taliban and supporting AlQaeda.
With "friends" like this, who needs enemies?
stikytJul 26, 2010
On the other side of the coin, the US regularly carries out drone attacks in Pakistan often killing many civilians despite Pakistan being a ally and assisting in the war on terror.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Somehow I have a feeling that all those $$$ are going into a nuke thats pointed at India
grazzhopperJul 26, 2010
I dont think so anyone has a problem with US troops being killed as long as the money keeps rolling for some.
themadrammerJul 26, 2010
"This is on top of their culpability in causing 9/11, by creating Taliban and supporting AlQaeda."
Are you talking about the US or Pakistan? Becuase both created and Support Al-Qaeda. Osama was a US Ally in the 80's. (As was Saddam) Get your facts straight.
mnocketJul 26, 2010
Good luck with that. Obama can't even shut down Guantanamo.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
We pay to train them
someone else gets rich to kill them
USA child soldiers. Their lives are stolen as they are taught nothing but how to take a life and dehumanize others. f**k you america for allowing your country to con you into another pointless war.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Wikileaks ftw.
spuy767Jul 26, 2010
This could potentially cost the lives of a
Americans. How exactly is this for the win?
hewhopoopsJul 26, 2010
How?
inactiveuserJul 26, 2010
Valerie Plame is ok and so is Cheney, what's your point?
verchiel77Jul 26, 2010
Someone conveniently claiming that "this puts American lives at risk" doesn't make it so.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
I'm not a military buff but I think these documents only have records of what has happened. "The AWD contains the relevant events, occurrences and intelligence experiences of the military". As far as I'm aware, it hasn't got any plans on future operations...
quaxonJul 26, 2010
Better them than even more innocent civilians. At least they had a choice in all this.
hewhopoopsJul 26, 2010
@ quaxon
The entire point is to preserve life, and your remark by and large are idiotic and offensive.
Anyway, simply because we have a voluntary force doesn't mean that Americans aren't economically drafted.
spuy767Jul 26, 2010
Yes, there are no future plans in the released documents, but anything that jeopardizes the Pakistani relationship potentially puts lives at risk. The documents that wikileaks releases are not covered by the freedom of information act S they are relevant to surest, clandestine military operations.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nosecohnJul 26, 2010
They held back 15,000 of the reports under their "harm minimization process." The idea that any information released about the war could bring about harm to the troops is really just Pentagon propaganda for "if you really knew what was going on, you might make us stop."
It amazes me how many people will argue for keeping themselves uninformed about violence that takes place in their names and with their tax dollars.
overridemymindJul 26, 2010
"I'm not a military buff but I think these documents only have records of what has happened. "The AWD contains the relevant events, occurrences and intelligence experiences of the military". As far as I'm aware, it hasn't got any plans on future operations..."
The knowledge of how US forces conducts operations puts Soldiers at risk because it can be used to find / exploit weaknesses in those operations. Think of it like having a map of the network security of a telecom corp. You may look at it and say "Hmm, that's nice" -- but give it to the right person, and he/she will exploit that information to break into, take down, or otherwise do harm to that network and/or its users. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bonmot5Jul 26, 2010
.... "but give it to the right person, and he/she will exploit that information to break into, take down, or otherwise do harm to that network and/or it's users"...Hmmm... Kinda like the federal government did to U.S. citizens when they passed 'the patriot act?'
overridemymindJul 26, 2010
bonmot5 - there's a HUGE difference there. The PATRIOT Act was complete bulls**t that inhibited / alienated the rights of US citizens to prevent an isolated incident from happening again. It was a knee-jerk, fear-induced reaction. 9/11 was horrible, yes -- but 9/11 doesn't happen every day. Soldiers, on the other hand, are shot at on a daily basis - there's a tangible threat to us EVERY SINGLE DAY -- and the enemy is always looking to "build a better mousetrap" so to speak. By limiting the release of operational information, the enemy has to look for weaknesses based on their experience. If we show them how we operate, it takes away a good portion of the guesswork on their end.
I'm not just referring to the wikileaks information, either. You think that cables regarding civilian casualties are the ONLY things kept hush-hush? Wikileaks and organizations like it don't get attention from "Documents regarding HMMWV blinkers leaked today" -- they get it from posting "US military kills 100 civilians".
darrelcJul 26, 2010
Objectiveness FTW!
/s
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Wikileaks must go on.
skiingpowder10Jul 26, 2010
try going on wikileaks through google and you will not have any luck... i guess freedom of information is not that free today
kaelyiestaJul 26, 2010
The site is probably taking tons of traffic right now. I suspect that their servers aren't sufficient to handle all the attention.
There are a few news organizations that are absorbing some of the traffic, though. Check out the brief interview about this release: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9uSd-CiD0c
There is another good one where Assange talks about a particular example of soldiers finding some unexploded ordinance/IED and instead of using normal procedure of disarming the explosive, they decided to have some fun and call in an air strike for a tiny roadside like bomb. The plane overshot its target and killed several civilians.
veriixJul 26, 2010
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength.
veriixJul 26, 2010
The people burring me probably haven't read a book since 1984...
...oh wait...
roddackJul 26, 2010
Who are we fighting again I get so confused if its Eurasia and Eastasia this week
shoebox639Jul 26, 2010
We are fighting whomever big brother tells us we are fighting.
subvertzJul 26, 2010
This is the longest war US has ever been in, depending on when you define the start and end of Vietnam. We are not switching sides for no reason, we stopped supporting mujahadeen when they stopped fighting our enemies and started harboring our attackers. This has been going on for 9 almost nine years. Quit with the Eurasia crap.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sanmanJul 26, 2010
Enemies are "allies"
sgc1020Jul 26, 2010
overused quote. Buried.
richmomzJul 26, 2010
Any day now we'll find that dirty Emmanuel bin Laden!
xack10Jul 26, 2010
Fair and Balanced
opus1one1Jul 26, 2010
At the risk of sounding dense, I have to ask what an out of context Orwell quote (albeit, a great one), has to do with the Afghan war leak?
rodneyws1977Jul 26, 2010
The wizard certainly looks different when you pull back the curtains.
cubicrystalJul 26, 2010
I really like that comment.
solkreJul 26, 2010
Does he have a hat?
richmomzJul 26, 2010
There is more awesomeness in this comment than most diggers will probably understand...
caramba421Jul 26, 2010
I cast lvl. 55 f**k of the Infinite. Your body explodes into a fine mist.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Sunday July 26th?
jguy584Jul 26, 2010
The media is gonna have a field day with this one
rmxzJul 26, 2010
You forgot your /s and a lot of diggers didn't notice.
I assume what you meant is "the media's going to pretend this never happened so they don't get uninvited from the next 'embedded journalist' trip where they're spoon-fed what to print".
verchiel77Jul 26, 2010
And by "have a field day" you mean "report only what they have to so as not to look utterly negligent," right?
cubicrystalJul 26, 2010
And admit failure? What kind of field day did they have in any other failed war?
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Not as long as they continue to swing from Obama's jock. This is his war and they're not ready to remove him from the throne just yet. Give them another year and they'll start in on him. The only thing they like better than liberalism is political drama so they'll want to stir up some muck on him for the next presidential election.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
propethicJul 26, 2010
It's the other way around. And please stop calling Obama liberal or a representative of liberalism. The only candidate who is actually a liberal is Nader.
rsm33Jul 26, 2010
You sound like a moron when you call Obama a liberal, and when you call the media liberal. Neither Obama nor the media are liberal. Both are establishment guardians who firmly believe in many, if not all of the "conservative" platforms visited on us regularly in this country. This war being just one of them.
rsm33Jul 26, 2010
I bet you the media talks mostly about whether or not it is "right" to leak this information, not about the actual details the information contains.
rassaJul 26, 2010
Here is a glossary for "key acronyms that appear in the original logs"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/2010/jul/25/wikileaks-afghanistan-war-logs-glossary
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Pretty helpful.
White Eagle = Polish Task Force,
I just fund that a little funny.
predatorpastaJul 26, 2010
why is that funny?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Poland
The White Eagle is a huge part of Polish tradition in the same way the Lions on the English Coat of Arms are iconic.
caramba421Jul 26, 2010
That is also funny, because last time I checked there weren't a whole lot of lions roaming around England.
dirtyfriesJul 26, 2010
It's time to come home.
cubicrystalJul 26, 2010
Why now?
techoboJul 26, 2010
What happened to finishing what you started? It'd be irresponsible to leave now.
lioozherJul 26, 2010
I'm guessing you weren't around when we heard the same thing for 13 years during the war in Vietnam. The domino theory didn't prove to be true then either...
roguebladeJul 26, 2010
Are you really comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan??? Might as well find the similarites between beef and mango
diguptruth77Jul 27, 2010
mmmm Beef Fajitas with Mango Salsa...
v0iderJul 26, 2010
The real hero in this is Bradley Manning, the soldier who allegedly leaked these documents. He's currently being held in a military prison somewhere in the Middle East.
rmxzJul 26, 2010
“It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but a great deal more to stand up to your friends.”
inactiveuserJul 26, 2010
We need Jason Bourne to break him out..
ftx437Jul 26, 2010
And as he should be.
bohicatwentytwoJul 26, 2010
He will be in jail for the rest of his life for this.
skiingpowder10Jul 26, 2010
treason can get you killed. if he really did it and he was in uniform.... he could be sentenced to death for treason along with other charges
jasvllJul 26, 2010
He didn't get charged with treason and his maximum sentence is 52 years, no death penalty on the table.
zimarooskiJul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
No, he's a f**king traitor and deserves to rot in that hole forever.
sports2012Aug 14, 2010
agreed.
jasvllJul 26, 2010
Manning has been tied to leaking diplomatic cables from the state department, not action reports from the military. Not that he isn't/couldn't be behind them, just that he isn't alleged to be, at the moment.
cgradoJul 26, 2010
Hero my ass. A good soldier wouldn't leak documents.
v0iderJul 26, 2010
If you look at the alleged conversations he had with Adrian Lamo, you can see that he alleged to have the history of the war between 2004 and 2009.
jasvllJul 26, 2010
I have. Point me to what you're referring to.
elevenerJul 26, 2010
Any American that applauds this by default is cheering for the defeat of their own country. No good can come from this.
BarryMenilowJul 26, 2010
I cheer for the honesty and transparency of our people. I cheer to the fact that we can prevent ourselves from becoming corrupt monsters. What is there to be proud of without that?
hewhopoopsJul 26, 2010
No good can come from knowing what our leaders do and how they do it. Right.
zimarooskiJul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
zimarooskiJul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
dalhectarJul 26, 2010
I cheer that these reports can being people to justice.
I cheer that the US military can repent of human rights abuses and behave to a higher moral standard than its enemies.
History has already happened, and the deplorable actions are now historical events. Regardless of whether or not they get reported here in the West or not, people in Afghanistan already know whats going on becuase they are the ones burying the dead bodies. My ability to demand greater accountability depends on the release of this information.
nosecohnJul 26, 2010
Ha! Being informed in a democracy is now un-American!
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
It's a f**king war, who doesn't expect this kind of s**t is happening. We don't need to know specifics. These reports can be used to extrapolate US military strategy in terms of deployments and how special forces engage enemy positions. This is a f**king gold mine for our enemies and a blow to US national security. Ya, REAL American.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mhuntJul 26, 2010
The US is not a democracy. It has always been a republic. (Do not confuse these terms with the democrat and republican political parties. Those names appear to have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nosecohnJul 26, 2010
The US is a republic based on democratic principles. Of course it's not a true democracy. Most people know that, so I don't think we need to get caught up in technicalities. The point is, any system whereby the people vote for their representatives requires that the electorate be informed.
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
People applauding this are ignorant f**ks. They think the world is gumdrops and rainbows and that is the US became an isolationist country then all these f**ked up regimes in the world would naturally clean themselves up and there would be world peace.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
newesJul 26, 2010
I don't think the world would clean it's self up and there would be peace I just don't think it's my job to pay for it. I also don't think my money should be spent on conducting war crimes. I dont' give a s**t what the rest of the world does.
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
"I dont' give a s**t what the rest of the world does."
That ideology worked out real well for Europe in the 1930's.
elevenerJul 26, 2010
You'll get buried down as far as my original post ieatskunk, sorry. These people think America should be run like Digg is. For the record we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Representative Republic.
Bury this like you want to bury your heads in the sand. The world is dangerous and it is not because of America. We may not be perfect, but stealing classified documents and posting for our enemies to see and learn from is not helping anyone except the enemy. Its that plain and simple.
newesJul 26, 2010
When there is a power in place with the ability to take over an entire continent and commit genocide like there was during WW2 then I'll change my stance. Germany and it's allies were also a direct identifiable threat to the U.S. so it's not even comparable. But as far as the middle east goes and even South America there is no force with that capability. It's not our job to make sure dinky little nations don't kill each other.
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
newes: The problem with your analogy, and with the isolationist theory in general, is that a state doesn't become a real threat to you until they are a real threat. Nazi Germany didn't wake up one day with a major military industry, they build that industry up, at a reasonable enough pace the European powers could stomach it.
And the game board is different today than it was back then. You don't really need a massive army or military industry to be a major threat, you just need some nuclear weapons and a means to deploy them. So how long would you sit idle as countries like N Korea and Iran build nuclear capability? When do we draw the line?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
elevener: Aye, it is hard to be a realist in a sea of idealists.
wrs123Jul 26, 2010
Newes: Ask a family member of someone who died on September 11th or in the London or Madrid train bombings if Al Queada and similar extremist groups are a "direct identifiable threat to the U.S."
In response to your earlier post in this thread, it may not be "our job" to pay for and clean up the rest of the world, but as the greatest military power on earth and the strongest economy is it not our moral obligation to do so? If you knew your neighbor was bullying your other neighbor and you had the ability to stop them, would it be right to sit by and let it happen?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
newesJul 26, 2010
No, it's not our moral obligation to meddle in the affairs of nations on the other side of the planet. It's our obligation to improve the standard of living for our own citizens and push our own growth forward. We can effect change in other coutries by leading by example. There's no point in overthrowing governments in other countries and forcing democracy down their throats if we are sacrificing our own ideals and pricipals to do it. As far as Al Queda goes they are not an identifiable threat with identafiable targets to hit they are random people hiding in caves. There are very few of them left and it doesn't require the occupation of 2 countries to get them.
shayan2703Jul 26, 2010
This war is being fought by kids my age who have been raised on Call of duty and quake 3.
moderndaydarwinJul 26, 2010
I think that's one of the most horrifying things I've ever heard.
solkreJul 26, 2010
Yah, well your gay!
poolshark19Jul 26, 2010
im 25...not so much a kid anymore, but ive fought this war, getting ready to get me some more war soon, and i STILL play COD. is that bad?
craigwebJul 26, 2010
Not so much. Saying stuff like 'get me some more war..' though probably is cos it makes you sound like one of those guys who says s**t like "BOOYAAA" and listens to heavy metal when going into battle.
solkreJul 26, 2010
I personally like "Come get some!"
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
I saw an in depth report a while back on what US troops were doing in Iraq now that Iraq's own security forces were taking over (and US troops had more idle time). They all had different views but the one thing they were all extremely adamant about was the willingness and desire to go to Afghanistan and finish that war. Gotta love the troops.
for3manJul 26, 2010
What should you listen to before battle, Phil Collins?
wrs123Jul 26, 2010
Men have a natural inclination towards war and violence, especially when they have just finished puberty, that's why shooter video games sell so well. Coincidence: most of the people who join the military do so for financial need when they are a) no longer supported financially and b) old enough to join the military, which is at about 18 years old or right after puberty.
Just because a kid plays counter-strike and joins the army doesn't mean he will run around with his knife out and jump as high as he can every time he gets engaged by the enemy.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
@craigweb it's always a good time to listen to metal. I blasted lamb of god during my first colonoscopy.
sirshockalotJul 26, 2010
Much rather prefer Pantera, lamb of god =sell out.
tntbassJul 26, 2010
@FOR3MAN
I know of nothing that would terrify me as much as that.
Well, unless they rode into war listening to the My Little Pony song.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
At least in the US, you have to be 18 to enter the military.
merkin0Jul 26, 2010
http://www.newamerica.net/node/25883
"Throughout 2009 the military has aggressively expanded its marketing campaign targeting teenagers. Efforts include the release of Version 3 of the taxpayer-sponsored video game America’s Army, two graphic novels that look and read like comic books, and a unique 14,500-sq.-ft. arcade – or “Army Experience Center” – in a Philadelphia mall that is filled with simulators and shooter video games."
savethemindJul 26, 2010
how will they win without the cheats ?
nori0300Jul 26, 2010
Glitches in spawn points, weapons, and lots of camping.
gibbonsbeardJul 26, 2010
they should have a good K:D ratio then
spatialtimeJul 26, 2010
Everybody is protecting their interests. Expect that Pakistan supports Taliban to let the country stay unstable so it can influence it. But expect also that the US is doing some nasty stuff (CIA isn't affraid to make its hands dirty). So that aspect doesnt really surprise me.
War is always dirty, both parties. However the US + Europe media (Fox News) tends to let the US Army shine as being angels with guns. Of course the winners, those who will be writing the history, will not like to write too bad stuff about their actions...
lioozherJul 26, 2010
I'm pretty sure I know something of what the German public experienced as their military went east in 1941.
wrs123Jul 26, 2010
There pretty much aren't any Abrams tanks in Afghanistan... but I see what you're saying. I completely agree.
The link between the military and the media is a very tenuous but critical relationship that has a very delicate balance to it. The public needs to know what THEIR military is doing (the military is a servant of the people, or at least it should be) and military operations should be transparent enough to keep leaders honest, but the military needs to be able to conduct operations with information security as well as the privacy of its soldiers protected.
Military leaders need to be willing to allow media outlets into their units and allow them to report what they see. Media outlets need to be responsible and only report on what they view in context and not make conjectures that are designed to turn a profit.
I just hope we can get to that point some time soon :-/
warlok480Jul 26, 2010
This is "The Pentagon Papers" for the 21st century.
I personally don't support it (nor did I support the NY Times expose on the Pentagon Papers) but whats really galling is seeing folk that support the Obama Administration blasting this when these same liberals were all over supporting the New York Times back in the day...I guess it just depends which president is damaged...Obama or Nixon...to determine if 'dissent is patriotic' :(
inactiveuserJul 26, 2010
rant rant rant
Keep the government of this planet for this people honest, open and accountable regardless of border, colour or creed.
No more secrets and stop playing games with peoples lives.
6502samJul 26, 2010
What liberals are you talking about?
I haven't seen nor heard any liberals blasting this.
stikytJul 26, 2010
I support both Obama and transparency of recent military operations. I don't believe that most of these leaks are directly his responsibility. Anything from the past presidency obviously not and anything since partly due to the decision stay. Having said that it's a tough choice, but I believe the commitment to finish a job in a country that would otherwise quickly get swept back into oppression is commendable. Although it's still important for the American people to see how the war is really being played out and whether it's really worth it. That's why I believe it's important for this kind of information to be leaked, so there are no secrets about the situation in Afghanistan.
warlok480Jul 26, 2010
on that, well said..but I still stand by my disgust at the hypocracy of 'liberals' who cheered the Pentagon Papers who feel Wikileaks is 'undermining america' Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rsm33Jul 26, 2010
You keep referring to people who support Obama as "liberals." They are not liberals, and neither is Obama. The people whom you are complaining about are not liberals!
A liberal will have a problem with something that is not liberal, no matter the political circumstances. You are confusing Democratic partisans with liberals... They are not even close to the same thing.
mhuntJul 26, 2010
I assume you're referring to this quote:
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." -Thomas Jefferson
Hopefully you know that Jefferson never said this. It's very popular to attribute this to him. It appears this quote was first uttered in 2002 by historian/author Howard Zinn during an interview with TomPaine.com. http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/5908.html
iamzedJul 26, 2010
Question everything, including Wikileaks. How will we know when the government starts leaking disinformation to them?
6502samJul 26, 2010
So, the Government leaked information about civilians being killed and war crimes committed by US soldiers, making themselves look completely barbaric and moronic in the process, to WikiLeaks because ....?
v0iderJul 26, 2010
Many governments probably have been doing that. Wikileaks puts a lot of effort into vetting the documents and determining if they are credible or not.
6502samJul 26, 2010
I wish more people had that attitude in 2002 during the Bush Administration.
wf80diditJul 26, 2010
How do we know Wikileaks wasn't created by the CIA/DHS or something similar in the first place? It could be used as a lighthouse of sorts that people flock to in these uncertain times, but unknowingly all along it's a one stop disinfo and subterfuge shop.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lioozherJul 26, 2010
That's entirely possible and it's also why it's always a good reason to check things against many sources -- especially ones that have proved previously reliable.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
i got a better idea...how about getting out from behind your computer and getting out there...
frequentflyerJul 26, 2010
Exactly... we just sold Pakistan 18 upgraded F-16s.
richmomzJul 26, 2010
I'd be more worried about the disinformation the government floods our media with, personally.
itislateJul 26, 2010
Looking forward to seeing how the Media, American population and the world responds to this.
cubicrystalJul 26, 2010
There will be no response.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Could not agree more!
Welcome to the "Brave New World" ... the truth will drown in a sea of irrelevance.
wf80diditJul 26, 2010
We'll respond in November after the genpop becomes convinced the Republicans will move to get us out of the wars that Obama needlessly continued.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
richmomzJul 26, 2010
There will be, but it sure as hell won't come from our controlled mainstream media - THAT I can assure you.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
The Media will quote it out of context to push their own agenda.
The American population won't bother to read it. They're not exactly a bunch of 'readers'.
The World will use it as 'better-than-thou' propaganda to vilify the US and bolster their own patriotism.
cubicrystalJul 26, 2010
Very good.
Someone is doing their homework.
richmomzJul 26, 2010
True, but there are enough of us paying attention to dig out the truth and share it among the relatively small community of people online that really do give a s**t what's happening in the world.
Eventually the truth will become so overwhelming that even the most zombified, disinterested citizen will have to sit up and take notice.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Think the response will be something like,
"OMG! Did you read about Lindsay Lohan?"
thelakeshowJul 26, 2010
Amazing.
Seriously though, what happened to her?
andrewridgelyJul 26, 2010
"this is awful it puts our troops in danger", "accidents happen when our boys are under fire", "it's those lousy Afghans' own fault, why can't they just love and accept our guidance and leadership?", etc...
pathouston22Jul 26, 2010
Too bad Obama won't do anything because he's the same s**t as Bush. Different color, different name, different party - same policies.
Supporter of the military industrial complex.
dsmxJul 26, 2010
He can't do anything, if he stopped it right now the economy would crash again putting thousands of people out of work destroy the stock market.
arkwaldJul 26, 2010
Well I do agree he can't make it stop on a dime, he can put up a planned withdraw and stick to the time table.
dsmxJul 26, 2010
Really and how do you think fox news would spin that?
wf80diditJul 26, 2010
Eisenhower gave his famous farewell address in 1961. Look at us now. Didn't learn a damn thing. Now it's the Military Industrial Governmental & Media Complex
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Don't forget the Secrecy Complex
savethemindJul 26, 2010
if obama pulled out immediately, whoever did what they had to do to get us to war, will do it again and obama will go down in history for "letting it happen"
everything is deception, he HAS NO CHOICE
alienkidJul 26, 2010
This is Information Warfare at it's finest.
rrifeJul 26, 2010
How is this not treason? And seriously, somebody would have to see somebody walk out with 75,000 secret documents.
verchiel77Jul 26, 2010
A.) "embarrassing the government" =/= "treason"
And B.) You are aware there are alternatives to paper hard copies, right?
rrifeJul 26, 2010
You are correct embarrassing the govt. is not treason and they should not be punished for that, however stealing classified information is and it's punishable by death.
Yes, and having worked with the govt with classified information I know it is very difficult to remove electronic copies of the documents unless you are a very trusted source and multiple people are aware that you have copies of the information.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Not if they're stored on a flash drive.
rrifeJul 26, 2010
The govt. is smarter than that....all of the classified computers I've seen have had the USB ports removed or glue in the port to prevent the insertion of a flash drive. I'm sure some of the highly trusted employees and higher level politicians don't have as many security measures on their systems, but those are few and far between so figuring out which one of them leaked the info shouldn't be too difficult.
v0iderJul 26, 2010
You know who committed treason against the United States? The politicians who voted for the wars that have killed thousands of American soldiers and cost us trillions of dollars. They're the ones who should be getting thrown into prisons.
bohicatwentytwoJul 26, 2010
There were downloaded off a classified computer to a CDROM labeled Lady Gaga.
bawbzillaJul 31, 2010
Right where nobody would look. Damn! That's pretty smart.
verchiel77Jul 26, 2010
"it is very difficult to remove electronic copies of the documents unless you are a very trusted source and multiple people are aware that you have copies of the information."
--------------------
Well, the green 22 y.o. analyst that they've thrown in a hole must be a tech genius since no one knew a thing until he--allegedly--confessed to a publicity whore hacker who likes seeing his name on the Wired website.
Rest assured, PFC Manning will be strung up by his toes whether he deserves to be or not.
bohicatwentytwoJul 26, 2010
Classified computers are no different from regular PCs except they are connected to a classified network. Recently, the DOD started deactivating the USB ports on the computers so flash drives can no longer be used, but the CDROM drives are still hooked up.
verchiel77Jul 26, 2010
My point exactly.
monkeyoverlordJul 26, 2010
The problem with this war is that the US doesn't even want to know how the culture works there. It's tribal, and like all tribal societies, there are never permanent allegiances except to one's tribe. That's why our friends today are our enemies tomorrow and why many tribes sided with us when we and the Northern Alliance gave a taste of the wrath of God to the Taliban in 2001.
The only way for the US to maintain its goals there is to be the baddest motherf**ker on the block. The only way to do that is to compromise our values. We have to ask ourselves which are more important: our values or these peoples.
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
We need a WW2 style goal of forcing unconditional surrender of all enemy forces at any cost.
netantJul 26, 2010
I dugg your comment presuming you forgot the /s
slippehJul 26, 2010
Your post made me think of this story I read recently in the Toronto Star, http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/837190--riding-with-ghosts
I found it interesting, perhaps you guys will as well.
slippehJul 26, 2010
/s/story/article ..
czajaJul 26, 2010
Real good story, thanks for sharing.
arkwaldJul 26, 2010
Then ultimately our country was founded on a lie. People can't rule themselves. Then when it comes down to it all that really pushes us forward is defending against or perpetrating oblivion. If war is just the continuation of diplomacy, by other means then is genocide a continuation of justice by other means? I mean ultimately if your idea of what is just is so contradictory to another then there really can't be any other solution. Someone has to go or both sides have to agree to live with injustice. No one has the balls or strength to go to either conclusion. So we are left dangling between war and peace... bleeding out all the while.
spazattack5000Jul 26, 2010
The Afghans are basically like the Krogans!
elohirJul 26, 2010
An enemy combatant leaks information detailing atrocities and cover ups = Hero exposes negligence of corrupt regime!
A domestic combatant leaks information detailing atrocities and cover ups = Evil traitor risks the lives of our boys!
2bdtrmndJul 26, 2010
Well put!
cgradoJul 26, 2010
No s**t sherlock. We don't want people exposing us, but we want to expose others. There is nothing odd about that.
domainhosting1Jul 26, 2010
that not good sound I don t like.
xsecretfilesJul 26, 2010
Last week story
US intelligence system is a failure
This week
Afghan war leak
I wonder what's next.....
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
These 75,000 reports will be the most quoted out of context reports ever in the history of man.
2bdtrmndJul 26, 2010
What more out of context than "Iraq" and "9/11" and "WMD's" and "mobile bio labs"?
shadicJul 27, 2010
(The Bible)
cubicrystalJul 26, 2010
If it's any consolation - Afghanistan never lost a war. Ever.
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
And if it matters, they haven't done jack s**t to advances their country or society, ever.
cubicrystalJul 26, 2010
Define *advance* because what you call advancement is foreign to them. The things you hold to as being *advancements* what is that exactly? *Democracy*? *Money*? *Liberty*? Where are those values now? These people hold on to the backward ways - things that have lost meaning to the *new* world - things that have virtually disappeared from the landscape in the West - it's called values. Love and commitment for family and community. Working together towards the common good. However strange that may seem to you.
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
Oh i dont know, how about joining the global economy.
And I'm pretty sure the warlords in power in various regions do not share in the values you blindly label them with.
richmomzJul 26, 2010
I guess it hasn't occurred to you that maybe they WANT to live that way.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
You're saying the Afghan people "want" to live in constant violence in bloodshed? Balderdash. I'm sure most of them would prefer not to be in mortal danger 24/7, that's just hard to accomplish when every desperate fanatic in the country has an RPG or an AK-47.
arkwaldJul 26, 2010
@cubiccrystal Look at the trouble their working together for the common good has gotten them. First they were a cold war pawn and then they failed to actually work together to rebuild their country until order was IMPOSED on them by religious zealots. We got rid of the people IMPOSING their order on them and we have the current cluster f**k. All because they either agreed with the zealots and their malicious actions or because they are trying to individually profit from the chaos.
The idea that the Pashtuns and other ethnic groups who live in that area are anything but stubborn small minded mules is naive at best.
techoboJul 26, 2010
I hope people will be able to go through this stuff with a critical mind. Some of these issues are not as simple as they may appear. Coming up with better solutions to problems or criticizing the actions of servicemen from your office computer is much different than making decisions down range.
hetmanJul 26, 2010
They sahould not be there in the first place. So they should not even have been put in a position to make those decisions.
bohicatwentytwoJul 26, 2010
As interesting as the information is, there really isn't anything here that we didn't know about.
smargJul 26, 2010
This is disgusting. Some Army Abu Ghraib sellout bitch funnels everything to this left wing, Anri-American site, and the ducking figgers on here go apes**t happy.
Stick a fork in us.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
buckrogers1965Jul 26, 2010
In a democracy every citizen knows everything the government is doing.
Only fascist states keep secrets. The more fanatical the government the more secrets.
phaedrynJul 26, 2010
"In a democracy every citizen knows everything the government is doing."
Not if you expect that government to be even remotely functional.
Every nation/government has ‘off the books’ operations. The US has been doing it since it’s inception.
mhuntJul 26, 2010
That is why governments generally aren't democracies. Too many people would be required to be involved in too much stuff. Republics, on the other hand, are workable.
atsguyJul 26, 2010
I f**king LOVE tHe INTerNETZ< where else can you release these documents..2-3 seconds after they are uploaded, 75,000 monkeies quickly start bloggining, and copying files to external harddrives and flinging poo on their computer screens just so no gov. agency decides to take down wikileaks!
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smargJul 26, 2010
Bradley Manning = human garbage.
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
If anything the US is being too "nice" and too politically correct over there. We need to go back to WW2 mentality and force unconditional surrender of the enemy at any cost.
verchiel77Jul 26, 2010
Interesting strategy, considering there is no definitive territory to take, no recognizable army to defeat, and no unified enemy to surrender.
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
They will not do what it takes because the US govt wants to get the Afghans to choose to side with us. "Doing what it takes" would no doubt galvanize the population against us.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
richmomzJul 26, 2010
I think the last 5 military superpowers that tried to subjugate the region employed that tactic - remind me how that turned out.
ieatskunkJul 26, 2010
f**k I'm sick of giving history lessons to people on digg in response to comments like this.
richmomzJul 26, 2010
Well aren't you clever.
rsm33Jul 26, 2010
No, please give us your history lesson, ieatskunk, I would love to read your account of the soviet/afghan conflict with sources showing how the victorious soviets are enjoying the fruits of their successful campaign in Afghanistan...
As to your original point: What enemy are you referring to? Terrorists? What will they surrender to us? There is no army to force surrender on...
We are trying to do law enforcement work with an army, and we will discover (hopefully very soon) how impossible it is to succeed with this strategy.
When we declared a "War on Terror," what they really meant was "Eternal profits for the Military Industrial Complex," because that is all we are doing this for. There is nothing to win...
siskorabanJul 26, 2010
I want to hear it. I really do. I can't f**king wait. Need some popcorn, though.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
That was a mistake then- a Cold War pissing contest.
Now it would be an absolute clusterf**k, and probably impossible without utterly annihilating their country.
rockdevourerJul 26, 2010
You guys act like friendly fire never happens or that civilians never get killed. Sure, it sucks a lot, but you guys blow everything way out of proportion. 5,581 deaths to date between Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; those are the numbers from October 7, 2001 Through July 17, 2010. My condolences go out to those families that have either lost a loved one or had a loved one injured in the line of duty, but statistically speaking it has relatively few casualties.
Comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war
Causalities to date as provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/gwot_component.pdf
Now starts my thumbs down into oblivion
mcmaster88Jul 26, 2010
You don't get it do you. This isn't about war crimes. This is about ending a loosing war against an invisible army. We keep throwing money at it when we have no money to spend. It is getting stupid. It is time to end the war and start rebuilding our own country.
rockdevourerJul 26, 2010
I do get it. I agree that we need to end it and start rebuilding here, but I also think that we need to finish what we have started. It's definitely not gonna be this year, but within the next 2 if I had to guess. It's not that we can't accomplish it, it's just that we need different tactics. We haven't really changed them drastically since WWII and we need to.
richmomzJul 26, 2010
This is just a tiny tip of the iceberg - they've already found documents that prove elements of Pakistani intelligence are actively working with the Taliban in fighting American troops and there's no telling what other little goodies are in there that the public has been kept in the dark about.
rockdevourerJul 26, 2010
No doubt. It's no secret that any government has kept things from people; what I'm wondering is why people act so surprised when stuff like this comes out. GENERALLY speaking (and I use that term loosely) the govt. knows what the right thing to do is, but they might not see it right away, nor act upon it, or share any of the intel with others (including the citizens).
richmomzJul 26, 2010
"GENERALLY speaking (and I use that term loosely) the govt. knows what the right thing to do is"
This is where I think we disagree - although I understand the need to keep some things from the public it's easy to abuse that privilege to do things that AREN'T right.
rockdevourerJul 26, 2010
Yeah, I can see where you're coming from there. Unfortunately, there will never be true transparency (which it seems you understand that). But looking on the last ~100 or so years in America, the government has really only recently started giving people reason to doubt or second-guess the decisions. You could argue that it has been this way since the early 1900's (prohibition, the Great Depression) but in those 2 cases prohibition was repealed and FDR took over Hoover's mess (although it was the American citizens fault of buying stocks on credit that lead to the Great Depression, definitely not Hoover's wrong doing).
That was a bit of a tangent I suppose; the real doubt in the government started in the 60's, kinda dropped off in the Carter/Reagan years, but picked back up after that.
rabidrabitJul 26, 2010
What a great resource for the Taliban! WTG Wikileaks! I'm confused. War sucks and people die. It is a means to an end. By giving so much to the Taliban, WIkileaks is throwing in it's lot with the Taliban as they clearly will benefit and USAF and the rest of the international community will be hurt. Furthermore, many more will die because of them stirring the pot to incite the Taliban and Al Qaeda because that's how war works. The more you stir the pot, the more die. There is a time and place for the truth. Exposing it now in such a biased fashion only serves to let the despicable pot of Wahhabism fester to murder tens of thousands of innocent victims in the future. Ideals are great, too bad many lose site of the results of those ideals in favor of self promotion and selfishness. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
netantJul 26, 2010
Its not as ridiculous as it sounds. All it takes is a Muslim geek to pore through the reports, sort each report to village location, and synopsize it for the local taliban leaders. If villager names get mentioned, they can be executed, with the Taliban waving the wikileaks paper as "proof". Name isn't even necessary, "tribal leader X" is enough to target the individual, or wipe out the entire village, if its small enough.
stubearJul 26, 2010
What I'd like to know is how was Assange capable of vetting all 75,000+ documents to ensure what he released was credible, and relevant? Releasing classified documents at will can be very harmful and redacting information not relevant to proving war crimes is critical. The NY TImes spent quite a bit of time doing this and encouraged Assange to do the same. It appears he took the advice but a little too late as he's holding back some 15,000+ documents for further review.
richmomzJul 26, 2010
They've been sitting on these documents for months.
mcmaster88Jul 26, 2010
http://www.rorr.im/
richmomzJul 26, 2010
God bless Wikileaks - the truth will set us free.
badfish2Jul 26, 2010
This is an absolute wealth of information. I just read a report where they found an IED and disabled it. It then mapped it out for me.
Someone tell me how I should feel because I really don't know if I should be reading this or not.
cubicrystalJul 26, 2010
Add another 45 to the list
NATO rocket killed 45 Afghan civilians: government
KABUL | Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45am EDT
KABUL (Reuters) - At least 45 civilians, many women and children, were killed in a rocket attack by the NATO-led foreign force in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province last week, a spokesman for the Afghan government said on Monday.
The incident happened in Helmand's Sangin district on Friday when civilians crammed into a mud-built house to flee fighting between NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops and Taliban insurgents, Siyamak Herawi told Reuters.
Reports of civilian deaths and casualties caused by foreign troops are a major cause of friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his Western backers and often lead to street demonstrations.
If confirmed, the Sangin incident would be among the worst of its kind during the war. At least 30 civilians were killed in a NATO air strike called in by German forces in northern Kunduz in September last year.
A spokesman for ISAF said the alliance had conducted an operation against insurgents in Sangin on Friday and was investigating the reports of civilian deaths.
"We have an assessment team there right now," Major Michael Johnson told Reuters.
Civilians were also wounded in the attack, Herawi said after a separate investigation by the Afghan government was completed.
"The investigation shows that the rocket was fired by NATO and 45 civilians, many of them women and children, have been killed," he said.
(Reporting by Sayed Salahuddin; Editing by David Fox)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66P35Y20100726
phaedrynJul 26, 2010
Oh look, another wikileaks article to bury.