 |
Wikileaks, good or bad? If you ask me the guy is just after attention for himself, a self-serving publicity hog who in his own words, says "I enjoy crushing bastards."
Who else does he like to crush, the 100's of informants working with us whose identity he leaked and put in grave danger?
Radio Netherlands did a report on the fate of a discovered Afghani informant. It isn't pretty .
Afghan informers play dangerous game in Taliban heartland | Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Here's another example
[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Military Operations | Coldstream Guards find torture chamber
Wikileak's founder Julian Assange is full of self praise over the acquiring 92,000 raw data classified documents from a traitor .The word I hear is some of the info is current and actionable .The risk to informants is but one example .The leaks reveal unit names locations ,and also reveal what we know or think we know about the Pakistani intel structure Still he published them on-line and gave them to major dinosaur media outlets . He claims he did this for "transparency" and ending the abuses of war.
Claudia Rosett was one of the few reporters who did serious journalism exposing the UN 'Oil for Food 'corruption. In her most recent column on line she challenges him to set his sites higher and to use his journalist/espionage abilities to get serious about that noble mission and expose the abuses of real tyrants and terrorists.
The Rosett Report A Wish List for WikiLeaksQuote:
Leaking American secrets is no great trick – it’s a regular event; staple fare at The New Yorker, The New York Times, or pick-your-source. America is where the in-house conversations of Gen. Stanley McChrystal are reported in Rolling Stone, and “Top Secret America” is featured on page one — with interactive search functions — by the Washington Post.
What’s rather more difficult, for those aspiring to confer transparency upon abuses of power, is to get hold of the document troves of America’s enemies – a collection of tyrants and terrorists who respond to unwanted leaks not simply by trying to spin, deny, or appease, but by threatening, jailing or murdering anyone discovered disclosing secrets to the world public. That makes it a lot more difficult to pry documents from their archives; but it also means that any success could be of extraordinary value.
I think she misses an essential point. Julian Assange can be placed in that group of America's enemies and is only interested in being a useful idiot for them. I'm told he is full of paranoia and the Euro-press is warning him against going back to the US . I don't think those fears are warranted . He will not be prosecuted by the Obots even though he deserves what happened to the Rosenbergs. Frankly ,there are other people he put at risk who also have long memories. If I were him I would be wary of travelling there anytime soon.
The White House did nothing to attempt to prevent the data dump even though they knew well in advance what Wiki had. I can only speculate that of the 92,000 docs obtained by Wiki ,only 70,000 were release ,and 20,000 withheld. Question... would it be any surprise if we later found out the 20,000 docs still in Wiki possession is post 2009 ?
I observe that Obama has said all this leak does is confirm his actions, do I smell a rat somewhere?
He should be careful with his public comments . The is much to discover yet.
One thing that comes to my mind is that Evita was recently in Pakistan promising more money to the Pakis . Did the President know about the evidence about Paki duplicity before the decision to send her begging for more cooperation.
People keep on comparing this to the infamous Pentagon Papers . I don't agree. This is raw unvetted data and observations from the field. Some of it probably should not be classified ,and some of it should never've been seen by the world. This is worse than the Pentagon Papers because they rehashed policy analysis in the form of the history of the conflict.At least a significant amt. of these are raw data ,actionable intel. An AQ mole could not have done better.
Hardly actionable intell when it is years old, Tom, it could even to be said it has been actioned if Obama is to be believed. What we really have here is another media beat up. It will be interesting to see if any real gems are gleaned from it. I like the one about OBL's monthly meetingsQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes it is because as Steve illustrated ,it outed Afghani assets. I see what happened in post-US withdrawal of South East Asia beginning to repeat here. Will the President lose any sleep over the new Killing Fields ?
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No more than Bush will because of the mass killing that's going to happen in Iraq, when we leave.
I was struck by the way a FOX news host ended his question to a guest. He said whatever he had to say, and asked the guest how the leak hurt our war effort in Afghanistan... That's a have you stopped beating your wife yet, question, but I would have answered thusly:
If our war effort over the past decade produced the loss that IS the Afghan war, then I HOPE to hell the leak will hurt it.
excon
The leak will not hurt us except where raw data without any content exposes Afghan and Paki assets ,and becomes actionable intel for our enemy to attack and kill US and our ISAF allies' troops.
Hello again, tom:
So, you don't think it will HELP us by revealing that our ally, the Pakistani intelligence service, is aiding Al Quaida?
Of course, it'll HELP us. Frankly, supporting a policy that keeps this stuff FROM the public, is hurting our war effort.
You guys talk about transparency, but when you get some, you don't like it.
excon
You talk like this is some revealing news.Would it shock you if I said elements of the US intel serves work in opposition to national policy or that elements in the military assist the enemy(hello pfc Bradley Mattingly).
The truth is that it has always been well known that the ISI has divided loyalty within the ranks. The fact that some officers speculate that General Gul cooperated with the enemy is interesting ,but in the end their opinion is speculation . Now it's unvetted speculation disclosed to the public which will just make it more difficult for the ISAF leadership and the political leaders of our countries to prosecute the war.
Related to this link is the fact that a decade of building up human intelligence assets in both Afghanistan and Pakistan
(including in some cases tribal elders who secretly fed us info) has been blown by these leaks .
And still you applaud it.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well, I didn't know it, and I pay attention. I suggest that there's a few others who didn't know it either. And, THAT information is VALUABLE for our public to have. Do I applaud ANY information about what is being done in my name? Yup. Shooting the messenger just isn't in my DNA.
excon
Seriously ? You didn't know it ? You didn't know that when President Bush said the "you're either with us or against us" thing that he was speaking directly to members of the Pakistani government who's loyalties were with the Taliban ? You did not read Clete's constant reminder that the ISI formed the Taliban in the 1990s ?
You can make a case that the general public who live in their Youtube and reruns of American Idol cocoon may not have known this .But I am shocked someone who regularly participates on boards like this ,and pays attention would not be aware of this.
Here is an example of comments I have made regarding this issueQuote:
I have resisted making comments about the Saudis and the Pakis here when blanket statements are made about the claim that they are enemies. I do not know how much of the extremism is generated from the government in Pakistan or the House of Saud . I suspect there are elements in both countries ruling class that support al-Qaeda but I am more convinced that the larger part of the ruling class in both countries have the tiger by the tail and they don't know what to do with it. Turn it on us and they are looking at the stone age. But they are just as fearful that once released it will turn on them.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politi...an-118085.htmlQuote:
I am not concerned about the Taliban seizing power . However they were spawned by the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI )and they have continued to promote the Taliban in Afghanistan . The ISI has become a state within a state, answerable neither to the army, nor to the President or the Prime Minister. I am concerned about them . The President has since 9-11 attempted to purge Islamo-nazis from the ranks of the ISI but I have no real indication that he has succeeded.Also I am sure factionalism is a much greater problem in Pakistan than many realize. The fact that Musharraf ceded N. Warziristan to local control is proof that he cannot control large geographical regions of the country .
No I am not enamored with the guy and I am thrilled for one that Bush is making the sound policy choice of strengthening our ties with India. However at this time he is for better or worse on our side and in that region that counts for a lot.
What I want to know is a), what gives this guy the right to determine what intel the world needs to see (and whose lives need to be risked), and b), if he likes "crushing bastards" so much let's see him out a real tyrant like the one in North Korea.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
When it comes to risking our safety, security and freedom and the lives of those working with us to defeat our enemies, there are some things I'd just rather not know.Quote:
You guys talk about transparency, but when you get some, you don't like it.
Transparency ? I can't think of a faster way to internet censorship than a stunt like this .
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Forget about HIM for a moment, if you can, and ask yourself if you're better off knowing that our ally IS helping our enemy.. As you said, it may be something you'd rather not know. That's cool. I'D rather know stuff that you don't. Why upset the applecart?
excon
Pakistan has lost more than 2000 troops fighting the people you say they are helping . The truth is ,as already explained (and is common knowledge ) ,is that elements in the ISI still are loyal to the creature they created.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
BEFORE I read what was leaked, I would have agreed with you. However, what I learned from the leak, is that there is no THEY, as you seem to indicate. There are the Pakistani's who are our friends, and there are the Pakistani's who aren't.
THAT is significantly DIFFERENT than what you're saying, and I think it's pretty important information. But, it's not ME saying it, as you seem to suggest. It's the leaker. I believe it. You don't.
excon
The leaker published 10s of thousands of raw documents unvetted ,the equivalence of electronic grunt observations and office water cooler chat.
What you learned about the ISI PAKI TALIBAN relationship is old news that has probably been stated hundreds of times and listened to by anyone who wasn't relying on the dinosaur media for their info .
Afghanistan war logs: Clandestine aid for Taliban bears Pakistan's fingerprints | World news | The GuardianQuote:
But for all their eye-popping details, the intelligence files, which are mostly collated by junior officers relying on informants and Afghan officials, fail to provide a convincing smoking gun for ISI complicity. Most of the reports are vague, filled with incongruent detail, or crudely fabricated. The same characters – famous Taliban commanders, well-known ISI officials – and scenarios repeatedly pop up. And few of the events predicted in the reports subsequently occurred.
A retired senior American officer said ground-level reports were considered to be a mixture of "rumours, bull and second-hand information" and were weeded out as they passed up the chain of command. "As someone who had to sift through thousands of these reports, I can say that the chances of finding any real information are pretty slim," said the officer, who has years of experience in the region.
The Slimes is quick to point out that there is nothing new in this disclosed relationship .Actually they inadvertently hit on an important detail that the Obots miss in their calculations... that the US will eventually be a very poor partner to hitch your wagon to.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/op...tue1.html?_r=2Quote:
Why would Pakistan play this dangerous game? The ISI has long seen the Afghan Taliban as a proxy force, a way to ensure its influence on the other side of the border and keep India’s influence at bay.
Pakistani officials also privately insist that they have little choice but to hedge their bets given their suspicions that Washington will once again lose interest as it did after the Soviets were ousted from Afghanistan in 1989.
So what you have is a sensational release of old news . And what do you get in return ? A betrayal that gives valuable intel to the enemy.
Ralph Peters nails the consequences of this treason.
Forgotten soldiers - NYPOST.comQuote:
An alert reader -- and the terrorists have plenty on the case -- can harvest vital information about our special operations, unit locations, logistics vulnerabilities, fire-support system, response times, medevac procedures, command-and-control weaknesses, intelligence deficiencies, physical security, weapons limitations, internal policy debates.. . And that's just the start.
American service members will die because of the WikiLeaks "service to humanity." And nobody in Washington seems to have noticed.
Afghans will die, too. A lot of them. In just a few hours of data-mining, Britain's The Times unearthed the names of hundreds of Afghans who've helped us. Information about their families and home villages is in there, too.
Think the Taliban will give a free pass to Afghans who've supported us? Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Afghan lives are newly at risk. It's a huge gift to the terrorists: Our collaborators will run for cover -- and recruiting informants will be immeasurably more difficult.
Thanks to WikiLeaks -- and the treasonous leaker himself -- our enemies will gain a more-detailed picture of how we operate than we'll ever have of them. There hasn't been a bigger war-time intelligence coup since ULTRA, when the Brits got their hands on the key Nazi encryption device in World War II.
Time Magazine actually nails it... in pictures.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
That's the problem when we involve ourselves in an insurgency. When we leave, as we always do, a bloodbath follows. Given that it's going to happen WHENEVER we leave, let's leave now.
Your guy, you know the one who loved to fly banners declaring victory, he Could have flown one after we threw Al Quaida out of Afghanistan, and our soldiers could have come home. But, no.. He decided to do something else.
That something else was to LOSE THE WAR. Which he promptly DID. That happened about eight years ago. Since then we've been fiddling around killing people and getting killed.
Being reminded of that fact, is GOOD. You go wikkileaks.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:36 AM. |