The Taliban is 'hunting down informants' named on Wikileaks

Maybe it is more personal to me because I have a cousin over there, but now he is at a heightened risk of being harmed because of this scumbag.

No, he's at heightened risk of being harmed because he's over there. Ask yourself why anyone is still over there this long after the start of the war.

Your cousin is not likely to be anyone named in the WikiLeaks documents. Also, I'm no scholar, but "PFC" seems to denote a "scumbag" who was likely "over there" at some point as well, no?

Take a very deep breath, think carefully about what the documents say and why we're over there, and wonder if the first step towards bringing people home (since none of the politicians want to do it on their own) isn't airing out the Government's dirty laundry? There's a very fine line, and no one's ever going to be happy either way. I'd release the documents, personally, but I'd change the names entirely before doing so.
 
Maybe it is more personal to me because I have a cousin over there, but now he is at a heightened risk of being harmed because of this scumbag.

I had the same situation.

Ask yourself if you'd prefer that your cousin has all the information when he's putting his ass on the line, or if you'd rather that he's deluded into believing that he's fighting for some great cause.

Shouldn't a person know what they're fighting and dying for?
 
Yes, I demand someone be killed for harming our troops and our spies, absolutely. And what they showed, other than the informants, wasn't anything new, and won't change policy, it will only hurt troops, and the reason I oppose the wars is because we are driving up the debt and putting our troops who have families in harm's way in unnecessary wars. I am pretty much anti-war, so it would be hypocritical of me to support the other side, otherwise I wouldn't be anti-war, I would be for war against our troops.

What information specifically "puts our troops in danger?" Or are you just repeating neocon/White House propaganda?
 
What information specifically "puts our troops in danger?" Or are you just repeating neocon/White House propaganda?

exactly. -in YouTube - WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange talks to RT video it states that since the material is 7 months old, any tactical planning is outdated-- meaning no threats to U.S. troops.

additionally, 'some' media have published bs about informants names being in the documents that could harm afghan informants; this is pure bs. -Bradley Manning told Assange to withhold 15,000 of the documents until a time when informants would no longer be threatened or until a time when those informants names could be blocked out of the documents; those 15,000 documents have not been published.
 
Yes, I demand someone be killed for harming our troops and our spies, absolutely. And what they showed, other than the informants, wasn't anything new, and won't change policy, it will only hurt troops, and the reason I oppose the wars is because we are driving up the debt and putting our troops who have families in harm's way in unnecessary wars. I am pretty much anti-war, so it would be hypocritical of me to support the other side, otherwise I wouldn't be anti-war, I would be for war against our troops.

So then, do you support the death penalty for all the politicians and generals who have put our troops in harms way? I doubt it, in which case that would make you a hypocrite because the politicians and generals are certainly more guilty of this than any leaker.
 
Last edited:
^exactly. Just got into heated debate with an in-law over this, I swear people are so fucking stupid and believe anything they hear on the news.

Funny thing is, i got him by saying the following:

"Ya know, it's funny that your generation was telling us as kids growing up to not believe anything thing you see on the news, and now you follow it as gospel...":rolleyes:;)

truly pathetic.
 
in favor of Bradley Manning:

Washington fears it may have lost even more highly sensitive material including an archive of tens of thousands of cable messages sent by US embassies around the world, reflecting arms deals, trade talks, secret meetings and uncensored opinion of other governments.

...

He described how his job gave him access to two secret networks: the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, SIPRNET, which carries US diplomatic and military intelligence classified "secret"; and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which uses a different security system to carry similar material classified up to "top secret". He said this had allowed him to see "incredible things, awful things … that belong in the public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC … almost criminal political backdealings … the non-PR version of world events and crises."

Bradass87 suggested that "someone I know intimately" had been downloading and compressing and encrypting all this data and uploading it to someone he identified as Julian Assange. At times, he claimed he himself had leaked the material, suggesting that he had taken in blank CDs, labelled as Lady Gaga's music, slotted them into his high-security laptop and lip-synched to nonexistent music to cover his downloading: "i want people to see the truth," he said.

He dwelled on the abundance of the disclosure: "its open diplomacy … its Climategate with a global scope and breathtaking depth … its beautiful and horrifying … It's public data, it belongs in the public domain." At one point, Bradass87 caught himself and said: "i can't believe what im confessing to you." It was too late. Unknown to him, two days into their exchange, on 23 May, Lamo had contacted the US military. On 25 May he met officers from the Pentagon's criminal investigations department in a Starbucks and gave them a printout of Bradass87's online chat.

On 26 May, at US Forward Operating Base Hammer, 25 miles outside Baghdad, a 22-year-old intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning was arrested, shipped across the border to Kuwait and locked up in a military prison.

News of the arrest leaked out slowly, primarily through Wired News, whose senior editor, Kevin Poulsen, is a friend of Lamo's and who published edited extracts from Bradass87's chatlogs. Pressure started to build on Assange: the Pentagon said formally that it would like to find him; Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, said he thought Assange could be in some physical danger; Ellsberg and two other former whistleblowers warned that US agencies would "do all possible to make an example" of the Wikileaks founder. Assange cancelled a planned trip to Las Vegas and went to ground.

...

Today's stories are based on that batch of logs. Wikileaks has simultaneously published much of the raw data. It says it has been careful to weed out material which could jeopardise human sources.

Since the release of the Apache helicopter video, there has been some evidence of low-level attempts to smear Wikileaks. Online stories accuse Assange of spending Wikileaks money on expensive hotels (at a follow-up meeting in Stockholm, he slept on an office floor); of selling data to mainstream media (the subject of money was never mentioned); or charging for media interviews (also never mentioned).

Earlier this year, Wikileaks published a US military document which disclosed a plan to "destroy the centre of gravity" of Wikileaks by attacking its trustworthiness.

Ellsberg has described Manning as "a new hero of mine". In his online chat, Bradass87 looked into the future: "god knows what happens now … hopefully, worldwide discussion, debates and reforms. if not … we're doomed."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/wikileaks-war-logs-back-story


Further evidence that the U.S. Gov't is trying to smear wikileaks was in an article where the MIT Student who met Bradley Manning last January said that Pentagon investigators interviewed him and: "The computer expert also said the Army offered him cash to, in his word, "infiltrate" WikiLeaks. "I turned them down," he said. "I don't want anything to do with this cloak-and-dagger stuff." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/31/AR2010073103058.html

So it's obvious the media (who for all intensive purposes has become just another arm of the Federal Government) as well as the Government itself (the Pentagon, etc.) is doing _everything_ possible to smear both Manning and wikileaks and making claims which simply are not true.
 
No, he's at heightened risk of being harmed because he's over there. Ask yourself why anyone is still over there this long after the start of the war.

Your cousin is not likely to be anyone named in the WikiLeaks documents. Also, I'm no scholar, but "PFC" seems to denote a "scumbag" who was likely "over there" at some point as well, no?

Take a very deep breath, think carefully about what the documents say and why we're over there, and wonder if the first step towards bringing people home (since none of the politicians want to do it on their own) isn't airing out the Government's dirty laundry? There's a very fine line, and no one's ever going to be happy either way. I'd release the documents, personally, but I'd change the names entirely before doing so.

When did I ever dispute being an Army Ranger isn't a risk, but he is more at risk than he was before. And I don't think we should have a large army over there, just special forces hunting down Al Qaeda in Waziristan. And this Manning f*ggot is putting my cousin in more danger, because the army depends on spies to know the capabilities and positions of the enemy, so as to lower the risk.
 
So then, do you support the death penalty for all the politicians and generals who have put our troops in harms way? I doubt it, in which case that would make you a hypocrite because the politicians and generals are certainly more guilty of this than any leaker.

No, I do not support the death penalty for those congressmen, because they are not committing treason. Bradley Manning is committing treason, and is putting our armed forces at a heightened risk, and needs to die.
 
See this is what I was afraid of. Some innocent people are going to get hurt over this. I don't like secrets any more than the next guy but the names of people or families should not have been leaked.

If you choose to be an informant, you just entered into the conflict whether you intended to or not. Now I'm aware that people have been tortured to the point where they'd name anyone just to prevent their own suffering, but once again that's not Wikileak's fault. No matter how you look at the situation, Wikileaks is not responsible for any deaths. The Taliban and US military are responsible!!
 
No, I do not support the death penalty for those congressmen, because they are not committing treason. Bradley Manning is committing treason, and is putting our armed forces at a heightened risk, and needs to die.

Might I be the first (?) to humbly suggest that you abandon ronpaulforums. I really feel you'd be much more at home at a site such as

rightwingracistreactionarynutjobs.com

Just a thought.
 
No, I do not support the death penalty for those congressmen, because they are not committing treason. Bradley Manning is committing treason, and is putting our armed forces at a heightened risk, and needs to die.

Wow you are awfully quick to try and sentence people to death, based on what seems to be mostly assumptions. Hath the judge and jury tried Mr Manning yet? The investigation has been finished already? What a silly charge anyways, "treason" for trying to shed light on a bankrupt war. Yet you are quick to forgive scumbag politicians it seems, who have easily done a million times more harm to the troops than the leakers presumably have (even going by the most hysterical hyperbolic accounts from the Pentagon and media, both who would have an agenda to act in such a way).

But Assange shot back Friday that if the names of any Afghan informants were identified in the WikiLeaks documents, the U.S. military has only itself to blame for what he said would be a “disgraceful” lapse in security by allowing easy accessibility to such material. While declining to identify any of the organizations sources, he said the documents were available through SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network) — the Defense Department’s standard classified Internet network that is widely accessible to “hundreds of thousands” of soldiers and defense contractors around the world.

Even WikiLeaks internally uses “code names” and code words to shield the identities of its sources, he said.

'Sloppy lack of professionalism'
“We treat these allegations seriously,” Assange said of the accusation that the leaked documents contain the names of informants. But “we don’t engage in the kind of sloppy lack of professionalism that the U.S. military appears to have engaged in.” The information posted by WikiLeaks “was available to every member of the U.S. military and every U.S. contractor — not just in Afghanistan — but all over the world. The military has acted in a disgraceful and careless way.”

At least one veteran former U.S. intelligence officer said Friday that Assange “absolutely has a point” that the identities of Afghan informants should never have been so widely accessible in the first place.

“It’s plain sloppy, there is no other interpretation of it,” said Robert Baer, a former CIA clandestine officer in the Mideast. “You never, never, never have the names of informants” in reports that are widely accessible throughout the government. When he was at the CIA, the standard rule was that information about informants was strictly compartmentalized and “stove-piped” so only a handful of supervisors at headquarters would know their real identities, he said.

Whats this, so the military henchman and bureaucrats didn't really give a shit about protecting the Afghan informants in the first place? Oh but I'm sure you don't mind if they only receive a slap on the wrist, and then a second perhaps harder slap on the wrist for unjustly sending the troops in to harms way to begin with.


Navy Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for Adm. Mullen, said the Pentagon is now “reviewing” its policies and procedures that govern how classified information is made available throughout war theaters. There had been an effort in recent years to make more classified information quickly available to troops in the field for tactical purposes, but that “we are now looking at that” to see if procedures should be tightened.

Aww yeah, thanks, keep up teh good work master chief. Hope more incompetence in the military brings about more leaks.

If anyone gets hurt in Afghanistan its because they are at war, not because someone leaked something. Going in to it the soldiers and the Afghan informants knew the danger. Only those guilty of killing, or of directing the killing are to blame. Cut this treason bullshit, the leakers were doing more of a public service than the criminal politicians and generals ever will in waging the war. Who by the way only care about burying the truth and continuing business as usual.
 
Last edited:
You must be aware then that supposedly the names were redacted? In other words: not leaked. So any informants being killed would not be the fault of this supposed "leak".

I actually agree with this. Wikileaks apparently (I haven't read the documents) redacted names, but Manning didn't. He said he knew he could face the death penalty for this, and he did it anyway.

I think doing what he thought was right - fighting enemies from within - makes him a hero.
 
When did I ever dispute being an Army Ranger isn't a risk, but he is more at risk than he was before. And I don't think we should have a large army over there, just special forces hunting down Al Qaeda in Waziristan. And this Manning f*ggot is putting my cousin in more danger, because the army depends on spies to know the capabilities and positions of the enemy, so as to lower the risk.

I wasn't aware Manning was a homosexual. You appear to have intimate knowledge of his sexual habits that the rest of us do not.

*waits for the Gay Resort ad to pop up at the bottom of the page*
 
In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”

Somebody needs to release a document on Wikileaks saying Zabihullah Mujahid is a US spy. Seems like that would solve some problems.
 
Maybe if the government was anything near honest we wouldn't be there at all.

Maybe if
Maybe if,,,

Maybe if we suffered some truly massive defeats (and loss of lives,unfortunately) the people of this country would be outraged enough to demand an end to this madness.

Maybe if,,

Not that you want that of course... you're speaking hypothetically right? You don't want American troops to be killed "for the greater good" right?
 
Not that you want that of course... you're speaking hypothetically right? You don't want American troops to be killed "for the greater good" right?

Of course I don't want it.
I would like our military brought home, then disbanded.

never get what I want anyway, so it's irrelevant. :(

but,,
Would it be better for the US to suffer 100,000 casualties to save the lives of several Million children?
It's a triage thing.
 
Back
Top