Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    26 Jul '10 07:09
    'Biggest intelligence leak in US history'

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/2010/jul/25/wikileaks-afghanistan-data

    Is this leak likely to affect the running AfPak sore?
  2. 26 Jul '10 08:27
    Main conclusions, as summarized by the BBC: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10758578)

    - Pakistani intelligence agency ISI aided the Taliban.
    - The Taliban has had access to portable heat-seeking missiles to shoot at aircraft.
    - A secret US unit of army and navy special forces has been engaged on missions to "capture or kill" top insurgents.
    - Many civilian casualties - caused by Taliban roadside bombs and Nato missions that went wrong - have gone unreported.

    Nothing very shocking here IMO.
  3. 26 Jul '10 08:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Main conclusions, as summarized by the BBC: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10758578)

    - Pakistani intelligence agency ISI aided the Taliban.
    - The Taliban has had access to portable heat-seeking missiles to shoot at aircraft.
    - A secret US unit of army and navy special forces has been engaged on missions to "capture or kill" top insurgen ...[text shortened]... s and Nato missions that went wrong - have gone unreported.

    Nothing very shocking here IMO.
    The only thing shocking is that 90,000 pages of classified, internal military documents and intelligence briefs has been published.

    To say Wikileaks is putting NATO forces at risk is putting it mildly.

    Don't be surprised if Wikileaks gets shut down and/or it's founder gets arrested.
  4. 26 Jul '10 08:50
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    The only thing shocking is that 90,000 pages of classified, internal military documents and intelligence briefs has been published.

    To say Wikileaks is putting NATO forces at risk is putting it mildly.

    Don't be surprised if Wikileaks gets shut down and/or it's founder gets arrested.
    Wouldn't surprise me at all.
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    26 Jul '10 10:45
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    'Biggest intelligence leak in US history'
    Very dodgy.
  6. 26 Jul '10 12:05
    I was reading an article about this, I'm not sure if its the same one, and it said that the report revealed that the Taliban is now more powerful than it was in 2001.

    After the Soviets pulled out of the area the Taliban seemed to have been strengthened and energized. No doubt, when the US pulls out they will probably be stronger than when the US first went in and more motivated to expand the conflict. That's what happens when you wage political wars half arsed.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Jul '10 12:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    The only thing shocking is that 90,000 pages of classified, internal military documents and intelligence briefs has been published.

    To say Wikileaks is putting NATO forces at risk is putting it mildly.

    Don't be surprised if Wikileaks gets shut down and/or it's founder gets arrested.
    What is there something in there the Taliban doesn't know?

    Kinda like the "secret bombing of Cambodia" which was only a secret to the American public; the Cambodians getting bombed knew all about it.
  8. 26 Jul '10 12:24
    Originally posted by whodey
    I was reading an article about this, I'm not sure if its the same one, and it said that the report revealed that the Taliban is now more powerful than it was in 2001.

    After the Soviets pulled out of the area the Taliban seemed to have been strengthened and energized. No doubt, when the US pulls out they will probably be stronger than when the US first wen ...[text shortened]... otivated to expand the conflict. That's what happens when you wage political wars half arsed.
    Not even close. Prior to the war they controlled 95% of the country and they had carte blanche to do whatever they wanted, unchecked.

    They're a fraction of that they were. You might have read that they were becoming an increasing problem, or that they've managed to pull themselves together past their previous low point.
  9. 26 Jul '10 12:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What is there something in there the Taliban doesn't know?

    Kinda like the "secret bombing of Cambodia" which was only a secret to the American public; the Cambodians getting bombed knew all about it.
    If you can't figure out why 90,000 pages of classified, internal documents that give operational details of NATO forces between 2004-2009 puts NATO troops' lives at risk you are either retarded, clueless or you're being disingenuous for the sake of arguing.

    I haven't look at them yet but there's a good chance that they also contain names of informants. You might actually care about them getting killed because they're not American.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Jul '10 14:58
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    If you can't figure out why 90,000 pages of classified, internal documents that give operational details of NATO forces between 2004-2009 puts NATO troops' lives at risk you are either retarded, clueless or you're being disingenuous for the sake of arguing.

    I haven't look at them yet but there's a good chance that they also contain names of informants. You might actually care about them getting killed because they're not American.
    So you haven't even looked at them, but YOU KNOW that the files released put NATO lives at risk?

    Who's the "retard"?
  11. 26 Jul '10 15:02
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So you haven't even looked at them, but YOU KNOW that the files released put NATO lives at risk?

    Who's the "retard"?
    Have you looked in the corner of your posts? Upper left hand side...
  12. 26 Jul '10 15:03 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Not even close. Prior to the war they controlled 95% of the country and they had carte blanche to do whatever they wanted, unchecked.

    They're a fraction of that they were. You might have read that they were becoming an increasing problem, or that they've managed to pull themselves together past their previous low point.
    How is measuing how much of the country and indication of how powerful they have become?

    It reminds me of all the claims about the Viet Cong were beaten back and the supposide beaten foe then launched the now famous Tet Offensive.

    I would say that half arsed political wars like Korea and Vietnam should be shining examples of what not to do. You don't partially take out your enemy while, at the same time, honoring borders and political reasons not to take out your enemy. If you do, in the end they will rally and kick you in the arse. In fact, now Korea and Vietnam are armed to the hilt as a result of what the US did.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Jul '10 15:19
    Rachel Reid, who investigates civilian casualty incidents in Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, said: "These files bring to light what's been a consistent trend by US and Nato forces: the concealment of civilian casualties. Despite numerous tactical directives ordering transparent investigations when civilians are killed, there have been incidents I've investigated in recent months where this is still not happening.

    Accountability is not just something you do when you are caught. It should be part of the way the US and Nato do business in Afghanistan every time they kill or harm civilians." The reports, many of which the Guardian is publishing in full online, present an unvarnished and often compelling account of the reality of modern war.

    Most of the material, though classified "secret" at the time, is no longer militarily sensitive. A small amount of information has been withheld from publication because it might endanger local informants or give away genuine military secrets. Wikileaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, obtained the material in circumstances he will not discuss, said it would redact harmful material before posting the bulk of the data on its "uncensorable" servers.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks?intcmp=239

    I give these patriots the benefit of the doubt; governments guilty of bad acts routinely try to sweep them under the rug by using the "Classified" label.
  14. 26 Jul '10 16:45
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Rachel Reid, who investigates civilian casualty incidents in Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, said: "These files bring to light what's been a consistent trend by US and Nato forces: the concealment of civilian casualties. Despite numerous tactical directives ordering transparent investigations when civilians are killed, there have been incidents I've ...[text shortened]... of bad acts routinely try to sweep them under the rug by using the "Classified" label.
    Well I guess she should start complaining to the taliban, about not wearing uniforms, and stop hiding behind the backs of women and children hey?
    Or storing weapons in schools and hospitals..
    So place blame where blame is due....
    lets see now, how many innocents were killed in 9/11? Go cry to their families about the matter.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Jul '10 16:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    Well I guess she should start complaining to the taliban, about not wearing uniforms, and stop hiding behind the backs of women and children hey?
    Or storing weapons in schools and hospitals..
    So place blame where blame is due....
    lets see now, how many innocents were killed in 9/11? Go cry to their families about the matter.
    How many more years of US occupation, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted and tens of thousands of deaths are necessary in Afghanistan before your bloodlust for vengeance is satisfied?