Over 90,000 US Military Records Leaked

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Sorry if I was a bit harsh and misunderstood your statements showing more or less that you were trying to jump on the bandwagon of censorship. Its all good if you take your time to find and read informations from different sources. ;)

What bandwagon? My current stance is based on my time in Afghanistan and the emotional and personal connection I have with some of the people over there. What bandwagon is that?

FPDR

The problem for Pakistan is that after coalition forces leave, they still need to back the winner in Afghanistan. They still need to be on some kind of diplomtic and freindly relationship with the power brokers there.

That's what got them in bed with the Taliban in the first place.

So they can't actually afford to completely severe all links with the Taliban, and having engendered and supported them for so many years as they did...

Just like us many of them have an emotional and moral responsability on a personal level towards them.

When our national government and our populous here all talk of withdrawl from Afghanistan, our soldiers all rile at this. It's the same.They have made friends over there. Put a lot of effort and commitment in. You can't just switch that off. Human nature doesn't allow for it.

Well, they supported the Taliban because Hekmatyar was becoming difficult to manage and frustrating after repeated defeats, but your overall point is a good one.

I think, though, that it would be best for Pakistan to support someone other than the Taliban. The Taliban proved itself to be an extremely de-stabilizing influence pre-9/11, not just in Afghanistan, but in the Central Asian Republics and in Pakistan. I don't have any better options for them; it's a choice between one thug or another thug.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Actually, I don't think the average Afghan has anything like the amount of exposure to western media as we do.

How many of them can read English, let alone has English language TV, radio and internet access?

I think it is probable that on an individual and personal level they have more first hand and second hand knowledge of these kinds of events than we do. That this isn't challenging an existing picture they have already formed of the conflict for themselves, like it is for so many of us.

I never said they had access to WESTERN media. Their president/government is giving statements on this thing, etc. etc. so I would say it's safe to assume that atleast some of their media has it.

[Big Mac 19]

I never said they had access to WESTERN media. Their president/government is giving statements on this thing, etc. etc. so I would say it's safe to assume that at least some of their media has it.

What makes you think that every afghan has a radio or TV or can even read?

[Serclaes 0]

What makes you think that every afghan has a radio or TV or can even read?

Because i'm not biased and arrogant enough to think that they don't?

Just because the average farmer lives without running water doesn't mean he's not informed about what is going on.

[Big Mac 19]

Because i'm not biased and arrogant enough to think that they don't?

Just because the average farmer lives without running water doesn't mean he's not informed about what is going on.

I'm neither arrogant nor biased, but it is a proven fact that there more illiterate people there than not. Also even if they are informed what makes you think they give a damn? As Baff1 and I had said these people play both sides of the fence depending on who is the most powerful ATM. These people are better off to the taliban alive rather than dead, because the taliban need them for the opium and for intel (That's not to say that at least few will be made examples of.) but it still won't stop them from informing on US and on them.

[Baff1 0]

I never said they had access to WESTERN media. Their president/government is giving statements on this thing, etc. etc. so I would say it's safe to assume that atleast some of their media has it.

I think so too, but I think their access to media full stop is nothing like as wide as our own here in the west.

---------- Post added at 02:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 AM ----------

I'm neither arrogant nor biased, but it is a proven fact that there more illiterate people there than not. Also even if they are informed what makes you think they give a damn? As Baff1 and I had said these people play both sides of the fence depending on who is the most powerful ATM. These people are better off to the taliban alive rather than dead, because the taliban need them for the opium and for intel (That's not to say that at least few will be made examples of.) but it still won't stop them from informing on US and on them.

I think it's a bit rich to associate the Taliban with opium quite so readily.

Up until our invasion the Taliban had outlawed opium and under their rule Afghan opium production was at an historical low.

Here in Britain for a few brief years the effects were pronounced, heroin use dropped through the floor due to lack of supply, only to go mental again after the invasion.

The opium barons stood against the Taliban and it funded the rebels against them.

The opium trade funds Afghan outlaws. When the Taliban were the government and not the outlaws they did everything they could to stamp it out.

So in my opinion, the Taliban only need opium as long as we are there. Should they ever reassert themselves it is something I expect them to clamp down on again.

I might also go so far as to suggest that many of those opium barons we label "the Taliban" are not the Taliban at all, but just opium barons who are our enemies and just being catagorised into one easy to brand title.

You know, sort of like every Islamic terrorist or Iraqi rebel gets labelled Al Quaeda.

---------- Post added at 02:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 AM ----------

and frustrating after repeated defeats, but your overall point is a good one.

I think, though, that it would be best for Pakistan to support someone other than the Taliban. The Taliban proved itself to be an extremely de-stabilizing influence pre-9/11, not just in Afghanistan, but in the Central Asian Republics and in Pakistan. I don't have any better options for them; it's a choice between one thug or another thug.

They are screwed mate.

They have gone to war with the Taliban at great cost.

We've done them no favours at all, we've destabilised their country, destabilised their government by forcing it to pursue alliances with us that are completely at odds with any domestic mandate.

And it wasn't exactly the most stable place to start with.

Christ knows what they can do to get themselves out of this mess. Nothing I expect. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Baff1

[Big Mac 19]

I think it's a bit rich to associate the Taliban with opium quite so readily.

Up until our invasion the Taliban had outlawed opium and under their rule Afghan opium production was at an historical low.

Here in Britain for a few brief years the effects were pronounced, heroin use dropped through the floor due to lack of supply, only to go mental again after the invasion.

The opium barons stood against the Taliban and it funded the rebels against them.

The opium trade funds Afghan outlaws. When the Taliban were the government and not the outlaws they did everything they could to stamp it out.

So in my opinion, the Taliban only need opium as long as we are there. Should they ever reassert themselves it is something I expect them to clamp down on again.

I might also go so far as suspect that many of those opium barons we label "the Taliban" are not the Taliban at all, but just opium barons who are our enemies and just being catagorised into one easy to brand title.

That is true but times change and now the taliban have been using opium sales to fund their war and they may very well keep them in business as a source of economic income, but that is yet to be determined.

[Baff1 0]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Nothing unifies a country like an external threat.

These sorts of adages spring to mind when discussing the Taliban and the opium trade.

Both sides hate us more than they hate each other. They have a common enemy and need all the friends they can get to face it.

I should think the Taliban isn't what it was 10 years ago either. Different people, different leaders, different rules, different times.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Baff1

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

I think it's a bit rich to associate the Taliban with opium quite so readily.

Woah woah woah.

The Taliban outlawed Opium in 2001. It was the only demand/request the UN made that they followed, and it was in exchange for food support that their population desperately needed after they (Taliban) kicked the NGOs out and destroyed the country's best agricultural land.

The Taliban's domestic financing was almost exclusively supported by Opium prior to 2001; the rest was made up in donations. Prior to 2001 and after 1996 (Seizure of Kabul), Iran, Pakistan, and several CAR countries reported massed increase of opium addicts.

The opium barons stood against the Taliban and it funded the rebels against them.

The opium trade funds Afghan outlaws. When the Taliban were the government and not the outlaws they did everything they could to stamp it out.

This is so inaccurate I don't know what to say. The primary opium fields were in Taliban lands, lined the pockets of Taliban governors and field commanders, lined the pockets of Taliban controlled transporters, and directly went to Mullah Omar's coffers.

Abdul Rashid, the Taliban's head of anti-drug policy in Kandahar was once quoted as explaining the rationale for the strict ban on hashish: "because it is consumed by Afghans and Muslims." but when asked about the growing Taliban controlled opium trade: "Opium is permissable because it is consumed by kafirs in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans. We let people cultivate poppies because farmers get good prices. We cannot push the people to grow wheat as there would be an uprising against the Taliban if we forced them to stop poppy cultivation. So we grow opium and get our wheat from Pakistan."*

The idea that the Taliban was against the opium trade is ludicrous.

*In an interview with Ahmed Rashid in Kandahar 1997

They are screwed mate.

They have gone to war with the Taliban at great cost.

We've done them no favours at all, we've destabilised their country, destabilised their government by forcing it to pursue alliances with us that are completely at odds with any domestic mandate.

And it wasn't exactly the most stable place to start with.

Christ knows what they can do to get themselves out of this mess. Nothing I expect. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I know. Tough situation, but the Taliban is not the answer.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Clavicula_nox4817

[NoRailgunner 0]

So where is it going?

ISAF and Taliban support poppy farmers and drug barons/clans for their own "good" reasons and I think they wont make a change anytime soon.

How many Afghan people resigned to their fate and dont care about who is ruling them as long they can make a living?

Are those who want a prosper life and country strong + clever enough?

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks

Leaked U.S. Intel documents listed the names and villages of Afghan collaborators—and the Taliban is starting to retaliate.

After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish†any Afghan listed as having “collaborated†with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered. Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

Click on the article to view the rest.

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/02/taliban-seeks-vengeance-in-wake-of-wikileaks.html

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Sonofabitch. I tried telling you people. You see what Wikileaks has caused?

[NoRailgunner 0]

...and if you take your time to read the article:

While it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents, it’s clear the Taliban believes they have been cooperating with Western forces and the Afghan government. ...

The Taliban has reason to fear such exposure by the local population. As a result of these tip-offs, the insurgents have lost scores of midlevel commanders to coalition antiterrorist operations over the past few months. Now the question is: has the WikiLeaks leak ruined that cooperation? Or will locals continue to undermine the Taliban at the risk of their own lives?

Sorry but sometimes peoples dont read articles and what exactly was said, how and why it was said and from whom it was told.

As long the world is painted in black and white its all is fine for simple minds. :rolleyes:

[Pathy 0]

Says the guy who's massively missing the point. They brought up an example to illustrate that, yes, the Taliban DOES punish those they suspect of acting against them, then provided a disclaimer that the example brought up was just an example of how the Taliban deals with dissent, and not linked to the Wikileaks thing.

The key point of the entire article is:

A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish†any Afghan listed as having “collaborated†with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered.

The rest is designed to illustrate how the Taliban do not blow hot air when it comes to death threats and hitlists. In simple language, the Taliban have said they're looking for names in the leaks, and we should take this seriously because they've proven that they mean buisness.

[NoRailgunner 0]

BS this article doesnt give any evidences that Talibans are now punishing the ISAF informants more because of Wikileaks. Or do you see names of person who have been actually punished only because of Wikileaks? Of course Talibans will use these information like any other combatant would use it...

It was always and still is an high risk to collaborate with one or another side in war. Dont know about the conditions that were made to get informations but I highly doubt that those were exact and bulletproofed formulated.

Like I said before it would have been better if names in these records would have been made unreadable.

But its interesting to watch people only searching records for shutting down wikileaks and refusing to look on ISAFs problems.

[Baff1 0]

Woah woah woah.

The Taliban outlawed Opium in 2001. It was the only demand/request the UN made that they followed, and it was in exchange for food support that their population desperately needed after they (Taliban) kicked the NGOs out and destroyed the country's best agricultural land.

The Taliban's domestic financing was almost exclusively supported by Opium prior to 2001; the rest was made up in donations. Prior to 2001 and after 1996 (Seizure of Kabul), Iran, Pakistan, and several CAR countries reported massed increase of opium addicts.

This is so inaccurate I don't know what to say. The primary opium fields were in Taliban lands, lined the pockets of Taliban governors and field commanders, lined the pockets of Taliban controlled transporters, and directly went to Mullah Omar's coffers.

Abdul Rashid, the Taliban's head of anti-drug policy in Kandahar was once quoted as explaining the rationale for the strict ban on hashish: "because it is consumed by Afghans and Muslims." but when asked about the growing Taliban controlled opium trade: "Opium is permissable because it is consumed by kafirs in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans. We let people cultivate poppies because farmers get good prices. We cannot push the people to grow wheat as there would be an uprising against the Taliban if we forced them to stop poppy cultivation. So we grow opium and get our wheat from Pakistan."*

The idea that the Taliban was against the opium trade is ludicrous.

Sorry Mr, but in this you couldn't be more wrong.

You haven't seen what I've seen.

I don't just mean the heroin supply here reduced, I mean it dried up. All the junkies disappeared. People stopped dying.

That was the net effect of the Taliban years in GB.

In the year of the film Four Weddings and Funeral, I went to 8 funerals and a wedding. Soon after the Taliban got in. It made a real difference here. That difference lasted for 5 years or so. Until we invaded.

Then the funerals began again. The smack clinics refilled and the junkies all reappeared outside them.

For the record, the Taliban signed up to a world ban on the opium trade in 1997. Right at the beginning of their reign.

In 2001, when we invaded Afghanistan, it was us who allied with the opium barons. Not the Taliban. The bulk of all Afghan opium at that time was grown in the Northern Alliance controlled regions.

So er no surprise really that the Taliban were willing to comply with UN programs to end the opium trade.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Baff1

[Big Mac 19]

All the junkies disappeared. People stopped dying.

I'll believe that when I see it first hand, until then I remain extremely dubious about there being no more junkies. There will always be junkies.

[Pathy 0]

BS this article doesnt give any evidences that Talibans are now punishing the ISAF informants more because of Wikileaks. Or do you see names of person who have been actually punished only because of Wikileaks? Of course Talibans will use these information like any other combatant would use it...

It was always and still is an high risk to collaborate with one or another side in war. Dont know about the conditions that were made to get informations but I highly doubt that those were exact and bulletproofed formulated.

Like I said before it would have been better if names in these records would have been made unreadable.

But its interesting to watch people only searching records for shutting down wikileaks and refusing to look on ISAFs problems.

Once again, reading comprehension fail. FPDR

How about less time trying to condescend people, more time actually trying to understand what it is you're reading?

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Sorry Mr, but in this you couldn't be more wrong.

You haven't seen what I've seen.

I don't just mean the heroin supply here reduced, I mean it dried up. All the junkies disappeared. People stopped dying.

That was the net effect of the Taliban years in GB.

In the year of the film Four Weddings and Funeral, I went to 8 funerals and a wedding. Soon after the Taliban got in. It made a real difference here. That difference lasted for 5 years or so. Until we invaded.

Then the funerals began again. The smack clinics refilled and the junkies all reappeared outside them.

For the record, the Taliban signed up to a world ban on the opium trade in 1997. Right at the beginning of their reign.

In 2001, when we invaded Afghanistan, it was us who allied with the opium barons. Not the Taliban. The bulk of all Afghan opium at that time was grown in the Northern Alliance controlled regions.

So er no surprise really that the Taliban were willing to comply with UN programs to end the opium trade.

I'm sorry, but anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything to me.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Pentagon to Troops: Taliban Can Read WikiLeaks, You Can’t:

Now, the Marine Corps is telling troops and civilian employees in a memo:

[W]illingly accessing the WIKILEAKS website for the purpose of viewing the posted classified material [constitutes] the unauthorized processing, disclosure, viewing, and downloading of classified information onto an UNAUTHORIZED computer system not approved to store classified information. Meaning they have WILLINGLY committed a SECURITY VIOLATION.

:pet12::clap:

[walker 0]

Hi all

As I pointed out earlier only three instances where informants can be identified have been found in the documents.

They were:

1) A case where the locals had been previously identified by multiple news media and even the Stars and Stripes did articles on them with photographs of the locals.

2) A case where a relation of an informant was identified in a region where such identification is meaningless.

3) A serving Taliban officer who had told his fellow Taliban officers he was going to speak to NATO.

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 6, 2010 by walker

[callihn 10]

The first rule to keeping secrets is to never admit to them.

[Baff1 0]

I'm sorry, but anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything to me.

And yet you give so much of it yourself.

For me, it is the most intresting kind.

I don't really need help searching for things with Google. That sort of discussion adds very little for me.

Why come to a forum for that?

The chance to actually converse with people who have seen things and done things is far more intresting to me than to be linked to yet more second hand knowledge. That is ivery intresting.

An article by a person who is not present to elaborate or elucidate, who's personal bias is not clear to me in the same way as someone I am able to cross examine. That's not very intresting.

Google Tennis? No thanks.

I'll take a discussion with an eyewitness over a Google link any day of the week.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Baff1

[HotShot 0]

Interesting post on Defense Industry Daily of this report that Russia's FSB had a similar but widely unreported leak earlier in the summer uncovering operations in former Soviet Republics and their officials working for Russia.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

And yet you give so much of it yourself.

Mine comes from people in Afghanistan. In this case, a journalist who has dedicated the last 30 years of his life to covering events in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Taliban official who was responsible for controlling the drug trade in Kandahar.

I value those words over a story about weddings and parties in England. Sorry.