Over 90,000 US Military Records Leaked

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

I misunderstood you on the first two. I thought you were referring to the NY Times reporter who broke the story.

As for 3 and 4,

A: I call the outting of an active CIA Agent a big thing. Plus most of that stuff that leaked wasn't anything new. If you go back a few pages I pretty much did a copy and paste from the article about what was in those 90,000 documents and I even saw some of it for myself and it wasn't anything that hasn't been released or that anyone with common sense couldn't figure out for themselves. It pretty much confirmed what people already suspected.

B: I am an American and have you ever been to an American prison? I have many times when I was in college for criminal justice and it's not a fun place especially if it's a maximum security prison where you're locked up 23 hours a day with very little social interaction, and for 1 hour a day you get to go outside in what amounts to a just a room with no roof.

If you're going to resort to calling me and others idiots and hippies because you're debates are being proven to be flawed then why even bother responding? Myself and others have been civil with you and have resisted calling you names. Why dont you show the same respect?

Are you denying the presence of the life threatening information? Such as names of informants, names of their villages, what intelligence they gave us, and in some cases even the names of their relatives?

Again, are you saying an American prison is worse than say... Carandiru? Or La Sabeneta, Diyarbakir, Tadmor, Drapchi, or Gitarama?

Or my personal favorite, Kwan-li-so No.22 Haengyong. (Camp 22, North Korean)

Yes, your locked up. So freakin what? It's prison, that's what your in there for. In American prisons/jails you get 3 meals a day, you usually have access to a library or even a television, and you atleast get SOME exercise. Not to mention your clothed, sheltered, and taken care of for the duration of your sentence.

I can't think of any other country where inmates would jump on one of their own to protect a prison guard, get on the intercom and call for help, and keep the guy pinned until more guards arrive. All because the guard was a nice guy to them. (Actually happened, though I can't find a clip)

[Big Mac 19]

Are you denying the presence of the life threatening information? Such as names of informants, names of their villages, what intelligence they gave us, and in some cases even the names of their relatives?

I'm not denying anything, what I'm saying is that you're going on the assumption that the people who gave information were innocent people who were only trying to do what's right, and I'm saying you're wrong and that they did it for their own personal interests. If as common sense dictates that these people gave out information solely because it was in their best interests then they knew very well that their families were in danger and if they're as street smart as most of them are took precautions against that. These are not simple farmers they're referring to in these documents, they're people who have the connections and the means to protect themselves and their families.

Again, are you saying an American prison is worse than say... Carandiru? Or La Sabeneta, Diyarbakir, Tadmor, Drapchi, or Gitarama?

Or my personal favorite, Kwan-li-so No.22 Haengyong. (Camp 22, North Korean)

Did I say that? No I did not. What I said was the isolation itself is worse than death. Do you think spending the rest of your life with next to no human interaction is a cake walk? Try sitting in a room with no windows, no phone, no TV, with just one book that is not of your choosing, and the door locked for 23 hours and then come back and tell me it was a piece of cake.

Yes, your locked up. So freakin what? It's prison, that's what your in there for. In American prisons/jails you get 3 meals a day, you usually have access to a library or even a television, and you atleast get SOME exercise. Not to mention your clothed, sheltered, and taken care of for the duration of your sentence.

You obviously don't know the difference between general population and the SHU or what life is like in a supermax prison.

You're going on the assumption that the SHU in a normal prison or that a supermax prison itself (Take the SHU and apply it to the whole prison and you got a supermax.) are the same as the general population. In a supermax (and the same with the SHU) you have no TV, no access to a library (one book is chosen for you and if you dont like it, tough luck.), you're only chance for human interaction is with the guards when they take you for your one hour of rec time and even then it's not much in the way on interaction.

I don't feel sorry for these inmates, they made their bed now they have to sleep in it, but to talk about it as if it was a cake walk is pure ignorance. Most of these guys go insane (if they weren't already) just because they can't handle not being able to talk to another human being.

I can't think of any other country where inmates would jump on one of their own to protect a prison guard, get on the intercom and call for help, and keep the guy pinned until more guards arrive. All because the guard was a nice guy to them. (Actually happened, though I can't find a clip)

Not everyone who's in prison is a bad person, some are just people who made bad choices and are paying for it.

I can think of many prisons that inmates and guards have a almost friendly relationship to the point of mutual respect for each other.

You see the world in black and white and there are VERY few things in this world that are that simple. Thinking like that is born out of ignorance and is the cause of a lot of the problems in this country.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Big Mac

[pre-Vet 10]

Neither do I recognise the life path of a soldier to be one more contributive to mankind than my own or indeed most other peoples. You may scorn the efforts of those people who fund your endeavours and the lifestyle you have chosen, but it's a team effort. Without them, your own efforts wouldn't have got very far. That lowly bus driver he is doing a job you couldn't stand. But it still needs doing. It still helps people. I rile at soldiers who are unable to respect the endeavours and contributions of all those that support them.

The way this endeavour is funded originates from people voting a party some 5 years ago for their national policy and paying taxes since then. hardly is an effort at all.

its not that most citizens show any respect for the work being done overseas in any way. (militarys and NGO's work), the majority thinks its to expencive to build a fair world and those people in those poor countrys just have to stand up for themselfs. buying off the guilt feeling with a few euros and carry on with their small minded lives complaining about immigrants.

I fund charity too you know, isnt that hard, still doenst make me a red cross worker.

Putting yourselfs in harm way to do the dirty job, may it be securing a medevac HLS for a wounded civilian or may it be bringing much needed aid to the country with an independent organisation is a real effort.

as you are paying taxes to, I hope you will sell the same story to the local policemen and firebrigade:

"hey man, great job getting me out of that burning house and saving my family from that gang, but its a team effort, i pay my taxes..."

I consider myself to be a contributive member both to society and my species. Not a massive one for sure, but I think if we all do our little bit, if everyone takes care of our own little patch, then we've got it right there. The whole planet.

now, thats the spirit. I feel the same thing but we should not stop at out own patch, I dont believe in world peace by looking the other way and dont believe those being opressed should figure out how to start a revolution.

Edited July 31, 2010 by pre-Vet
add

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Wikileaks has done its best to protect the identity of those who have leaked information; but they have done nothing to protect Afghan allies and informants. In Assange's words, it would be "a deep regret" if any Afghans were killed because of this, but he feels it is more important to reveal stuff that people already knew.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing noble or honorable or decent here. Just a man looking to turn the media cycle.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Wikileaks has done its best to protect the identity of those who have leaked information; but they have done nothing to protect Afghan allies and informants. In Assange's words, it would be "a deep regret" if any Afghans were killed because of this, but he feels it is more important to reveal stuff that people already knew.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing noble or honorable or decent here. Just a man looking to turn the media cycle.

Exactly.

[Pathy 0]

Wikileaks has done its best to protect the identity of those who have leaked information; but they have done nothing to protect Afghan allies and informants. In Assange's words, it would be "a deep regret" if any Afghans were killed because of this, but he feels it is more important to reveal stuff that people already knew.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing noble or honorable or decent here. Just a man looking to turn the media cycle.

Couldn't agree more.

[pre-Vet 10]

Wikileaks has done...

...the media cycle.

perfectly formulated.

Edited July 31, 2010 by pre-Vet

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

WikiLeaks founder accuses US army of failing to protect Afghan informers

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has hit out at the US military, saying that it bears the ultimate responsibility for any deaths of Afghan informers in the wake of the publication by his organisation of 75,000 leaked files of American army secrets.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghanistan-us

FPDR

[Fox '09 14]

they're responsible for his actions?

[Baff1 0]

He says that he asked them to redact the sensetive information before he published it but that they either refused or failed to reply to his request.

[Pathy 0]

Still, you'd hope someone who was being as self righeous as he's been, to hold his hands up and admit he's part of it, rather than continue to act like he's above everyone else when he's responsible for making those names publically available.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

He says that he asked them to redact the sensetive information before he published it but that they either refused or failed to reply to his request.

I don't expect you to understand because you don't have any ties to the Afghans. I do, and there are people that I am worried about; they were always in danger before, but now that risk could be increased for no good reason. I'm an American citizen, but I am closer to my Pashtun family than anyone on this continent, to include my wife. Now they're in greater danger because this arrogant fuck wants to make a name for himself?

[walker 0]

Hi all

Can some one tell me how many informants are named?

I have seen 3 incidents identified by the Channel 4 News. Those are the only ones they have so far found AFAIK.

Former MI5 officer: Afghan Wikileaks 'risk lives'

By Kris Jepson, Jonathan Miller

Updated on 28 July 2010

Exclusive: As Wikileaks founder Julian Assange defends leaking secret US military documents, after claims possible Afghan informants have been identified within the Afghan war logs, a former MI5 officer tells Channel 4 News those named and their families could be "in great danger".

Channel 4 News picked out three of the 91,000 US military field reports published by Wikileaks, which appear in some cases to contain the names of informants in Afghanistan, as well as information about where they live, their tribe, and family members.

There are now real concerns that the "secret" US military information leaked by Wikileaks could put Afghan lives in danger.

Julian Assange, the co-founder of Wikileaks, was specifically asked shortly before the publication of the data whether the leaked material might cost lives when interviewed for Channel 4 News by Afghanistan specialist Stephen Grey.

"We've gone through the material and reviewed it and looked for cases... like an old man saying 'next door there is a Taliban', or what he believes is Taliban. Those have been withheld," he said, adding that the source of the leaked documents had also worked to protect individuals...

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/former+mi5+officer+afghan+wikileaks+aposrisk+livesapos/3726387

As always follow the link for the original text and full story

In the first of the cases, one from 2004, it was some people who were persuaded by the anti Taliban Mujaheddin to hide some rockets. They then gave up the location of the rockets at the request of US special forces. This was a policy that was enacted at the time of collecting old ammunition which I think we can all recall.

Several news media covered it with the military doing pieces to camera with locals in it describing the success of the policy. Even Stars and Stripes did articles on it with photographs of the locals involved.

Here are some news articles from the time about the policy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/19/60II/main618513.shtml

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0501/S00103.htm

http://www.stripes.com/news/while-fighting-the-enemy-servicemembers-make-peace-with-afghan-locals-1.17406

As these incidents was previously identified by both the media and military including pictures and film of the informants. I can not see that Wikileaks in that case has risked any informants life any more than existed already. Other than of course the hoo haa all of us are doing now in drawing attention to the incidents may push the Taliban to react, but that may be some parties intention.

In the second the name of informant is given by naming a supposed relative of the informant. Knowing the size of families in this region and the fact that people are described as brother or even father of people with zero blood or marriage relation to the person. I question its value as an identifying factor but it is the closest of the three identified cases to identifying an informant, who might be put at risk. I have not checked the media from that time but if any one wants to, I am sure a suitable Boolean search could be designed. I may look later.

In the third identified case it is a Taliban who is identified who has told his fellow Taliban what he is doing and then names two Taliban commanders, Khalid Sheik Mohamed is in jail has given up far more useful intelligence than him and his Intel and name are spread all over the media.

I have seen several similar cases on the media including identified Taliban caught with GSR on their hands or in the case of a Ross Kemp documentry, their shoulders bruised from firing a PK, all of whom were released shortly after wards, leading to obvious suspicion they got off because they informed.

AFAIK those are the only incidents so far identified to name any informants in the Wikileaks papers.

I think a lot of this media hysteria selling papers and whipping up a mob mentality.

All that said releasing a mass of intelligence is clearly risky and I question the validity of wikileaks purpose in releasing it. Focused articles pointing out actual cases of wrongdoing are of far more use to wikileaks purpose than a hotchpotch of what is mostly boring bureaucracy, I would be surprised if the toilet paper request forms are not included in this intelligence "dump".

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 2, 2010 by walker

[Baff1 0]

I don't expect you to understand because you don't have any ties to the Afghans. I do, and there are people that I am worried about; they were always in danger before, but now that risk could be increased for no good reason. I'm an American citizen, but I am closer to my Pashtun family than anyone on this continent, to include my wife. Now they're in greater danger because this arrogant fuck wants to make a name for himself?

I understand this completely. I am abkle to sympathise even where I cannot empathise.

I also understand that our soldiers deployed there have a direct duty to protect the people whose lives they have endangered.

That for them, there can be no disconnect. It's why they don't like to pull out of places or can't morally accept leaving without "total victory". Their actions have repercussions. They are emotionally involved.

To a greater extent WikileaksMan is right. We have brought this on oursleves. It was our involvement that placed these people at risk, not the advertisment of it.

That doesn't sound like it applies to your case if you feel your family was in danger before the war anyway.

And that doesn't change anything for those whose names have been given out. We are where we are.

The judgement to be made is whether or not those leaks will provide an overall improved world or not. Will the added emphasis on our troops screw ups/ROE's, hold them to greater account and produce less in future or will the cost in lives of this release outwiegh the gains?

Will the publics increased awareness of the horrors of war dissuade people from embarking in more wars in the future...

I recognise the arguments for both sides in this case and not being able to decide for myself at this point I will sit on the fence a little longer and see if the events that follow are any easier to judge. I don't really expect them to be.

The chances are I'll never really know for sure.

It doesn't strike me as something clearcut. The arguments on both sides hold a lot of merit.

None of this changes even slightly that according to Wikileaksman he sought to have this issue addressed by those for whom it is the greatest responsability and that in his opinion they did not wish to do so.

If this is true, then any blame that can be atrributed to him in this concern is equally applicable to them.

The difference perhaps is that he like me has no emotional commitment to those involved, and the Pentagon bloody well should have.

But er.. he might not even be telling the truth, or he may be overplaying it. (As may his detractors).

Edited August 2, 2010 by Baff1

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Didn't quite understand parts of the last bit Baff, but I understand most of what you are saying, and I generally agree. One thing that your post made me consider is this -

The Afghans know about the wikileaks stuff. It's been all over the world press, so we can assume it has even more exposure over there. This leak could cause repercussions all throughout the country. Why should the Afghan people help us, or inform on our enemies, when they know that there is a good chance that their actions will be leaked, that they will be recorded and then basically handed to their enemies, as well as the world?

IMHO Wikileaks needs to pull the site, and then have their people, as well as atleast 3 U.S. Military personnel, go through the entire cache, and delete names, or replace them with "**********", as well as make sure that any information related to Special Operations troop movements or tactics is censored or removed. If there is information on U.S. Military operations near the Pakistan border, it too should be censored or removed to ensure the privacy of our ally.

Basically - Remove site temporarily. Have alot of Qualified people including United States Military personnel go through the files, and remove any names/addresses/or information related to our allies in the region that they don't want known. (Such as their level of cooperation/etc.)

[Big Mac 19]

Why should the Afghan people help us, or inform on our enemies, when they know that there is a good chance that their actions will be leaked, that they will be recorded and then basically handed to their enemies, as well as the world?

Money talks, except now the usual rates don't apply.

as well as make sure that any information related to Special Operations troop movements or tactics is censored or removed.

Why should it? All of it is very vague with no names.

If there is information on U.S. Military operations near the Pakistan border, it too should be censored or removed to ensure the privacy of our ally.

You dont need to look at those documents to find out about operations near the border, it's plastered all over pentagon press releases and the nightly news.

Basically - Remove site temporarily. Have alot of Qualified people including United States Military personnel go through the files, and remove any names/addresses/or information related to our allies in the region that they don't want known. (Such as their level of cooperation/etc.)

Out of you're entire post this is the only thing that makes sense and that I can agree with and I only agree with it on the off chance that there is one name in there that actually is something worth keeping secret which i doubt since most of these people are high level taliban and independent warlords who if they were killed they wouldnt be missed and someone else would take their place as a new informant. Edited August 3, 2010 by Big Mac

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Why should it? All of it is very vague with no names.

Because any, and all, pieces of information are valuable. I haven't looked at it. Do you happen to have any specific link, or method of directing me to the relevant material so I can?

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

^ What he said.

Also, I did not say ALL information related to SF. The SF thing was just one part of the thing that you agreed with. Basically, a team of people who do this thing for a living need to go through, and remove sensitive things, which could and probably do include information on SF movements and staging areas etc. as well as anything that our allies request be removed. Yes we know that Pakistan is cooperating etc. but we don't know many specifics. Leave the BDA reports from the UAVs, AARs etc. but remove the sensitive information relating to Pakistani government officials, names of the Pakistani personnel etc. but only if they request it. This would mean adding atleast one Pakistani military officer to the group.

[Big Mac 19]

Because any, and all, pieces of information are valuable. I haven't looked at it. Do you happen to have any specific link, or method of directing me to the relevant material so I can?

Here ya go. Look at the article itself for the link to the actual documents.The only name of any real interest in the name of the target.

Also, I did not say ALL information related to SF. The SF thing was just one part of the thing that you agreed with. Basically, a team of people who do this thing for a living need to go through, and remove sensitive things, which could and probably do include information on SF movements and staging areas etc. as well as anything that our allies request be removed. Yes we know that Pakistan is cooperating etc. but we don't know many specifics. Leave the BDA reports from the UAVs, AARs etc. but remove the sensitive information relating to Pakistani government officials, names of the Pakistani personnel etc. but only if they request it. This would mean adding atleast one Pakistani military officer to the group.

I personally disagree with you about the Pakistani bit. They'll try to hide from the American people any and all involvement with the Taliban and I believe the American people have a right to know who their government is getting in bed with. I personally don't trust the Pakistanis as far as I can throw them.

Also do you really think the Taliban don't know where a lot of our SF units stage from? The tier 1 guys are almost always mobile, but the regular army SF and what not stage from official military bases that the taliban have under tight observation. I watched this Nat. Geo. documentary about the green berets in afghanistan and the taliban have them under such tight observation that when the green berets went outside the wire they could hear the taliban on the radio reporting their numbers and strength from the moment they left the FOB to the moment they visited a village to the moment they returned to the FOB.

A lot of this such is a lot of nothing quite frankly. There a few things in there that are worth a once over, but what I saw (mind you that I havent even touched the surface and unless somebody pays me I wont go over each and ever piece of material.) it's nothing to write home about.

[walker 0]

Hi all

As I pointed out else where the real problem is Wahhabism.

Hi all

In actual fact Al Qaeda is Wahhabi. Which many Muslims do not even accept as being Islamic.

Some facts:

Bin Laden was raised as an extremist Wahhabi but after being an alcoholic playboy and after being sent off to a succession of extreme Muslim schools to get "clean", wonder what they were cleaning his brain perhaps? He converted fully from being a Muslim to become a fully paid up brain cleaned member of the extremist Wahhabi sect. His family then sent him off to be an administrator, accountant and conduit for Saudi Arabian funds to Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maktab_al-Khidamat

Did you know Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi organisation?

Did you know the Madrassas that taught the Taliban (Taliban means student) were all Wahhabi?

Did you know that the "Imams" all the Al Qaeda terrorists on 9/11 were under before their attack were Wahhabi?

Do you remember those US citizens from Alexandria Va. who were captured in Pakistan a few months back?

Did you know that Alexandria Va. is known as the Wahhabi corridor?

Remember Maj. Nidal M. Hasan's Imam was Anwar al-Aulaqi?

Remember the Time Square bomber was in contact with Anwar al-Aulaqi?

If you use goggle you find Anwar al-Aulaqi is clearly listed as being Wahhabi.

The Saudis fund: orphanages, Madrasahs and schools throughout the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestine with one requirement; that the thought taught to the children are Wahhabi, and that Wahhabi "Imams" run the schools and teaching. Saudi Arabia then uses Wahhabism to infiltrate other nations. Saddam Hussein kept the Wahhabi sect out of Iraq for precisely that very reason. And the Monarch of Saudi Arabia's one requirement to America for letting them invade from there was that the Wahhabi sect was allowed to move in to Iraq. Soon after this Al Qaeda in Iraq began to recruit?

Did you know Wahhabi is NOT a even a valid religion? It is just a barely 200 year old sect and it is an anti Islamic sect at that. It attempts to replace the Koran with the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab' notice it calls itself by its founders name, incidentally breaking rules set down in the Koran. Abd-al-Wahhab' was a snake oil sales man of the worst order, the Wahhabis at his instigation have actually made attempts to destroy the Muslim Prophet Mohammed's grave just like the Taliban destroyed the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.

Wahhabi Al Qaeda has killed tens of thousands of Muslims and regularly blows up mosques including 3 in Pakistan in the last month alone killing hundreds of devout Muslims at prayer?

Wahhabism has about as much to do with Islam as the Ku Klux Klan has to do with Christianity.

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory111802.asp

It always amazes me that this key factor of Wahhabism is hardly ever talked about in the media. Especially when it is the obvious fracture line to exploit in Al Qaeda's defeat. I guess it is down to the power of Oil money combined with various groupings wanting to create a monster to frighten others with.

As to any one who thinks Al Qaeda is pro Iran they need their brain damage looked at by a professional. Iran had even less to do with 9/11 than Iraq; and we all remember where that fantasy lead. And Al Qaeda regularly attacks Shiites and Shiite mosques. Though they attack Sunni mosques almost as often nowadays.

Kind Regards walker

Kind Regards walker

[NoRailgunner 0]

Darkhorse 1-6 and Clavicula_nox4817 you both sound like those people who like censorship and faked data from military and government officials.

Agree that only the names could have been removed or overwritten with a black marker. As for SF - its good to see some stuff revealed, guess in too many heads they are still untouchable superheroics doing nothing wrong - ever.

"Its nothing new - its war":

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4568350&c=LAN&s=TOP

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/hits-m16.shtml

turning a blind eye on drugs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/world/asia/21marja.html?hp

I haven't looked at it.

Well sometimes ist good to be blind and dont ask for more informations. It could be that you have to change your opinion about government, military and media. But I guess its easier to believe them, less stress and maybe more entertaining...

[icebreakr 3104]

Great source for ArmA mission ideas ;)

p.s. hopefully hellfire won't hit me through the window when I read through this at home ;)

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

I personally disagree with you about the Pakistani bit. They'll try to hide from the American people any and all involvement with the Taliban and I believe the American people have a right to know who their government is getting in bed with. I personally don't trust the Pakistanis as far as I can throw them.

I agree.

ISI and PakMil's involvement with the Taliban has been recognized and published before (Re: Ahmed Rashid), but I personally think that it needs to be propelled further into the limelight. I struggle with the potential cost.

Also do you really think the Taliban don't know where a lot of our SF units stage from? The tier 1 guys are almost always mobile, but the regular army SF and what not stage from official military bases that the taliban have under tight observation. I watched this Nat. Geo. documentary about the green berets in afghanistan and the taliban have them under such tight observation that when the green berets went outside the wire they could hear the taliban on the radio reporting their numbers and strength from the moment they left the FOB to the moment they visited a village to the moment they returned to the FOB.

There are (or were, it's been a couple of years for me and I don't know if it has changed)alot of Army SOF units that embed with the local population and use them as a base, protection, and intelligence. In my case, the Taliban and AQ forces crossing the border did not know where we were embedded; but it would put the entire population at risk. SF suffers from the fact that they are now a highly publicized unit; every reporter and their grandmother wants to embedd with SF or take pictures, or whatever. Other units do not have that problem yet.

Making the argument that "The Taliban already know..." is bad. You don't confirm or feed information to the enemy.

A lot of this such is a lot of nothing quite frankly. There a few things in there that are worth a once over, but what I saw (mind you that I havent even touched the surface and unless somebody pays me I wont go over each and ever piece of material.) it's nothing to write home about.

Thanks for sending me the link above, and I agree, most of it will be nothing and not useful in any meaningful way. But, if out of 90,000 documents, there is 1 or 10 documents that injure our effort, or endanger the lives of NATO or Afghan allies, then the entire thing is wrong.

---------- Post added at 02:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

Darkhorse 1-6 and Clavicula_nox4817 you both sound like those people who like censorship and faked data from military and government officials.

And you sound like an idiot.

Well sometimes ist good to be blind and dont ask for more informations.

If you would read the rest of the quote, you would see where I asked for a link to the information. The purpose in telling him that I haven't read it was to establish that I do not currently possess enough information to argue one way or the other.

[NoRailgunner 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. ;)

[Baff1 0]

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.

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

The Afghans know about the wikileaks stuff. It's been all over the world press, so we can assume it has even more exposure over there. This leak could cause repercussions all throughout the country. Why should the Afghan people help us, or inform on our enemies, when they know that there is a good chance that their actions will be leaked, that they will be recorded and then basically handed to their enemies, as well as the world?

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.

Why should Afghans inform?

Because that is the Afghan way. To change sides pragmatically as circumstances require for personal advantage.

It's not just the Taliban they inform on. They inform on the coalition too. They change sides a lot, always have.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Baff1