Assange should be charged with high treason and hanged. In my opinion, these documents were leaked for the same reason that Fuch or Rosenberg type of traitors leaked atomic secrets to Stalin. They thought that the playing field between the US and terrorist countries should be made equal. And for that, I hope Assange meets the same fate as the Rosenbergs.
The sanctimony emanating from Assange is bloody appalling. In his ideal warped world, the true heroes arenât the Western soldiers who sacrifice for the rights of women and the rights of locals to vote, but the âjournalistsâ who expose all sorts of things. Iâll bet this cheesedick cornpone Queenslander entered his hermaphroditic teenage years by watching âThe Pelican Briefâ and âErin Brockovichâ over and over again alone.
Here is a person that attended the Oslo Freedom Forum in April 2010 and compared Auschwitz and Guantanamo Bay.
I wonder why so many Che-loving, beret-wearing, liberal arts studying spoiled kids have to go after the US? Why donât they go after really closed societies? Ah, it might actually mean leaving the suburban bubble where mummsies and popsies canât take care of them. Ainât gonna happen, is it? Jay Nordlinger summed it up quite well in National Review
Fact is, were the people heâs aiding actually win, heâd be the first one lined up against the wall.
The correct question is: has anyone tried to sell a war as clean and tidy, and ridden that perception to drive a policy that would otherwise enjoy only marginal public support? If a democratic society is to go to war (and they do so more frequently and thoroughly than others), it should do so for the correct reasons and with as much knowledge as possible.[/quote]
What is the correct reason in Afghanistan in your opinion?
My opinion is that the Taliban, which was an extremely odious regime, harbored Al-Qaeda, allowing for the attacks on the US to occur with impunity. That regime was toppled quickly but unfortunately because of its close relationship with Pakistan was able to survive in the Pakistan boarder regions. Support within Pakistan continues for the Taliban through the madrasah where Taliban ideology was spawned. Imperial military links on the part of the Pakistan to the Taliban are also strong, making fighting the Taliban very difficult. Pakistan is a nuclear state very close to being at war with the US. There is no telling which way Pakistan will go. Itâs history, however, tells you that it is essentially a pariah state supplying North Korea, Libya, and Iran with nuclear technology and know-how. If there was ever a good reason to go to war this is the one. Thatâs my opinion.
[quote=âChewycornsâ]Assange should be charged with high treason and hanged.[/quote]Hanged for treason after offering the public leaked intel? How do you feel about leaders selling false intel to the public that directly leads to wars with human suffering? Amazon should help them sell their hard cover war victory speeches?
Maybe its better the public stays generally ignorant of what a lot of their money (debt) purchases, or what their leaders wrongfully do/approve/ignore under the shroud of âour national securityâ?
But really, âtreasonâ in what pretext? Against U.S. National Insecurity? Australiaâs?
Against International Politiciansâ Rights to Fudge and Obscure Human Tolls?
[quote=âChewycornsâ]the true heroes arenât the Western soldiers who sacrifice for the rights of women and the rights of locals to vote[/quote]Pro-war media talking point of championing human rights versus actual public impunity offered by western soldiers. Maybe youâll be the first to find and share how human rights have been significantly advanced from the war logs information. Hopefully it will represent something near the value we ourselves would appreciate after an occupying force has militarily transformed our homes, neighborhoods, landscape. My guess, if you end up comparing the numbers of locals written to have been protected versus locals caused to suffer (not counting generational), the percentage will most likely end up disappointingly low.
[quote=âFoxâ]That regime was toppled quickly[/quote]Very quickly. We employ thousands of military strategists (uniformed and non-uniformed) for as many scenarios as possible. Greatest funding normally goes to the scariest.
The U.S. Afghan invasion was pre-planned in the Summer of 2001 (BBC, MSNBC) and Osama bin Laden was a direct military target before 9/11 (Guardian). Hard not to figure how the US-Allied forces started in mid-October and overtook Jalalabad and Kabul by mid-November.
[quote=âFoxâ]My opinion is that the Taliban, which was an extremely odious regime, harbored Al-Qaeda, allowing for the attacks on the US to occur with impunity.[/quote]Bush, under congressional authority, ââDETERMINEDââ OBL to have planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks. Strangely enough, OBL reportedly professed his innocence on September 12, 16, 17, and 28 (source, source), but instead later a suspicious tape of a fatty bin laden laughing about the success of 9/11 was played over and over and over and over as conclusive evidence. That was the video Bush claimed, âFor those who see this tape, theyâll realise that not only is he guilty of incredible murder, he has no conscience and no soulâ (source). Even when questioned about the fatty OBL âconfessionâ video, Bush with all grandeur responded, âIt is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctoredâ (source).
Nine years later it doesnât really matter much that Swiss analysts had the nerve to report Osamaâs recordings as fake, and German analysts reported bin Laden videos were misconstrued (semi-English version), or even that the FBI has no evidence connecting him. Only a mighty accusation.
The presidentâs authority I think still resides simply on his ââDETERMINATIONââ.
And alas, another $58 billion approved for both occupations hours ago in the House with debate removed, preventing the wikileaks reports from being used in arguments.[quote]San Franâs ABC
Late Tuesday, the House voted to pump another $58 billion into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but this weekâs massive classified document leak is having an impact.
Support for the war is eroding and the massive military document leak certainly hasnât helped the situation. President Barack Obama tried to downplay it on Tuesday, but if it werenât for Republican support, the $58 billion funding for the war would have failed.
âŚ
The war is so unpopular, the Democratic leadership engineered Tuesdayâs vote in a way that severely limited debate.
âThe last thing they want to have right now is a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives about whether or not we should be in Afghanistan and right now they are worried that with the release of these documents that that might precipitate exactly that debate and thatâll make the White House, itâll make the Congress, and itâll make the Democrats look very bad,â said Henry Brady, Ph.D., from the Goldman School of Public Policy.
So on Tuesday, the debate was organized under rules usually used for renaming post offices or bills so popular or mundane they need no debate. Forty minutes was the limit. The measure passed with a lot of Republican support, but you can bet the White House is hoping this is the last weâll hear of this, until after the November elections. [/quote]
Fox News/The Times of UK now reports that many Afghans ARE NOW at risk of harm because of the leaks.[quote]Hundreds of Afghan lives have been put at risk by the leaking of 90,000 intelligence documents to WikiLeaks because the files identify informants working with NATO forces.
âŚ
The Afghan Government has reacted with horror to the volume of information contained in the files.
A senior official at the Afghan Foreign Ministry, who declined to be named, said: âThe leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans. The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans.â[/quote]No mention of amounts of âtop-secretâ innocent suffering now exposed.
âAfghan Government has reacted with horror to the volumeâŚcontainedâŚâ
Of course, even our House of Representatives billed the people $58 billion more for further escalation without debate.
âThe U.S. is both morally and legally responsibleâŚâ
Wasnât that expected 9 years ago, or even 12 hours ago when our ârepresentativesâ committed more from OUR family members and tax dollars?
[quote=âFoxâ]What is the correct reason in Afghanistan in your opinion?[/quote]I wasnât offering my own justification of the occupation of Afghanistan, just an argument regarding the govâtâs propaganda campaign.
I agree, the Taliban is extremely odious. It did harbor al Qaeda, but it isnât going anywhere. Given the weakness of these states, attempts to stamp them out will fail; containment and reduction of harm are the way to go, and a worthwhile mission. But the worthiness of that mission and the original reasons for going in arenât one and the same, and the worthiness of the mission and its feasibility are two entirely different things.
Your post reads like an argument for invading Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Or maybe declaring war on the Taliban (which ever side of the border theyâre on), which would mean taking on both the conservative Pashtun tribes from which they come and the Pakistani state.
A military hearts and minds/ cultural/ insurgency battle is very difficult under the best of circumstances â say, within a single state, within a discrete, geographically isolated territory: think Aceh, which was settled by the Christmas tsunami, or the Tamils, which took a very long, bloody war. These conditions arenât nearly as neat and tidy; not even as clean cut as Iraq.
So, what do I think? meh. If you want to embrace the Wilsonian idealism of Bushâs second inaugural, intervention can be justified. But imho, the world is decades away from being able to pull off something that ambitious.
[quote=âJaboneyâ]If you want to embrace the Wilsonian idealism of Bushâs second inaugural, intervention can be justified. But imho, the world is decades away from being able to pull off something that ambitious.[/quote]Very true.[quote]The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them.
âŚ
In Americaâs ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character â on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self.
âŚ
And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.
âŚ
From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?
âŚ
â President Bush, January 20, 2005[/quote]
Soldiers are mearly casualties or war . The real crime is in who sent them there and why.
Better yet, why donât you ask whatâs up with the build up of foreign and UN troops in your own backyard.
[quote=âberealâ]Soldiers are mearly casualties or war .[/quote]Soldiers represent a statistic of total casualties. Hardly worthy of contempt, nor alone in being undervalued.
[quote] in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assangeâs claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.
One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.[/quote]
Iâm all for certain levels of accountability and transparency, but releasing the names of hundreds of informants, what was he thinking? Perhaps being charged with treason is not off the cards.
Youâre saying that he supports all wars, which is not his position. Jaboneyâs position is that war is distasteful but that sometimes we have no option and that a war that is justified by extreme circumstances may need to be entered into, for this or that reasonable reason. Many othr wrs are unreasonable and should rather be settled in different ways.
Your point is that no war is justifiable, or more properly, war is immoral and evil and that we should all stop it. This is partly built on the position that all people will find war equally objectionable.
This is a problem when you are faced with people for whom war is no problem. Then they can pick on you at will, and you wonât fight back, because to do so would be wrong.
I donât buy that.
besides, i like blowing shit up, and so there should be a place in society for me!
Ok, Fortigurn, Iâll bite. But itâs necessary to start a bit earlier in the thread.
On page one, you posted the following response:[quote=âFortigurnâ][quote=âJaboneyâ]If [color=#0040FF]âanyone who thinks thatâŚis deluding themselvesâ[/color], what matter that [color=#0040FF]âthis is what politicians typically do when it comes to warsâ[/color]?[/quote]You mean âWhat matter that politicians try to get people to believe in a lieâ? I think that matters quite a lot.[/quote]The coloured words are taken from your previous post. What do you understand my question to mean?
Because Iâm responding to a pair of assertions in your argument: 1) that âAnyone who thinks that any war can be clean and tidy [color=#0040FF]is deluding themselves[/color]â, and; 2) that [color=#0040FF]politicians typically mislead the public[/color] when it comes to wars.
I ask you: âIf it is true that the populace deludes itself, why does it matter that politicians will seek to mislead them?â
Meaning that if what you say is true, the politicians are wasting their time, because the sheeple will follow on their own accord. ButâŚ
I do not accept that this is true. I do not accept your initial premise. I question the logic of your argument.
And yet you respond with:[quote]You mean âWhat matter that politicians try to get people to believe in a lieâ? I think that matters quite a lot.[/quote] Tell me, please, how the duck I got saddled with an argument Iâve thoroughly rejected?
Being persuaded by an argument is not in the least incompatible with self-delusion. On the contrary, itâs what confirmation bias is all about.[/quote]Again, what do you understand my post to mean?
Because I restate three times that lies/propaganda/accurate information matter.
I give politicians credit: their lies matter because they are effective.
Those lies convince at least some people; they sway at least some people.
You respond: âBeing persuaded by an argument is not in the least incompatible with self-delusion.â
That is tautologically false.
By definition:
[quote=âdefinition Confirmation biasâ]Confirmation bias (or myside bias) is a tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true. âŚ
A cognitive bias towards confirmation of the hypothesis under study
a form of cognitive error based on the tendency to seek out information which supports oneâs beliefs, and ignore contradictory information. [/quote][quote=âdefinition Persuadeâ]carry: win approval or support for; cause somebody to adopt a certain position, belief, or course of action; twist somebodyâs arm;
Persuasion is a form of social influence. It is the process of guiding oneself toward the adoption of an idea, attitude, or action by rational and symbolic (though not always logical) means.
To successfully convince (someone) to agree to, accept, or do something, usually through reasoning and verbal influence.
persuasion - the act of persuading (or attempting to persuade); communication intended to induce belief or action [/quote]
Under confirmation bias, information is selectively sought, and contradictory information is ignored, IN ORDER TO CONFIRM A POSITION.
Through persuasion, an effort must be made to convince, to induce a belief NOT ALREADY PRESENT.
Someone subject to confirmation bias can superficially attend a debate, but if they are swayed by those arguments and not simply affirming preconceived positions, then they are not, by definition, deluding themselves. They are won over despite themselves.
[quote=âFortigurnâ]The fact is you and I both know that war is the prolonged perpetuation of what we recognize as immoral conduct, and is permitted as a triumph of the hindbrain over moral reasoning. [/quote]Not at all. It may be. WWI was greeted with great enthusiasm and dancing in the streets; WWII was not.
The hindbrain may, just as easily, scream âRun and hide!â as âFight! Fight! Fight!â A great deal of effort is invested in persuading men to go to war, because the hindbrain isnât enough. Some of that persuasion is emotional (âDaddy, what did you do in the war?â), some of it is directed at higher faculties (liberty, democracy, self-determination, the necessity of confronting tyranny). A man compelled by circumstances, against his will, to leave home and family to defend strangers in a strange land may be the most moral of men, fighting a moral cause.
So, you misunderstood or misrepresented my argument throughout, but were half right in recognizing at the end that I hold it is possible to go to war for the correct reasons.
Does this make sense? I need to know because I have no wish to engage in a dialogue if my words are going to be misunderstood or misrepresented; itâs unhelpful in the first instance (you wonât be contributing to my better understanding) and simply an annoyance in the second.
[quote] in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assangeâs claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.
One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.[/quote]
Iâm all for certain levels of accountability and transparency, but releasing the names of hundreds of informants, what was he thinking? Perhaps being charged with treason is not off the cards.[/quote]
Wow, if thatâs the case, which is contrary to his representations, then he is either a douche or negligent in releasing certain information. Couldnât they have blacked out names if his intent was to show the methods and results of the war? not knowing individualsâ names conceivably would not hinder his alleged motives. In that case, I would agree with others that charge of treason might be called for.
Self-defense. Al-Qaeda attacked us and we retaliated.
If our forefathers had continued that ancient Christian practice, the European empires would never have dominated the world and your country and my country would not exist.
So youâd rather live as part of a humiliated and subjugated people than kill in self-defense? I donât understand that. Even if I knew offering no resistance would result in no loss of life on either side, Iâd still fight to the death against an invader.
The other posterâs Nazi reference may be cliche, but is appropriate in this context. Even countries that offered no resistance to Nazi occupation and experienced no initial casualties still suffered tremendous loss of life as the native Jews and other âundesirablesâ were shipped off to the death camps. You would rather England have accepted Nazi conquest peacefully and allowed Jews and others to be exterminated than go to war with Germany? Was England in the moral wrong for defending itself?
Not only names of informants, but specific details on tactics, techniques, procedures and equipment. The enemy will be reading the leaked data carefully and it is likely that our soldiers and people friendly to us will die as a result of Assangeâs highly irresponsible journalism.
Heâs already wanted in Australia for breaking into government computer networks. Hopefully theyâll add treason or some related charge to his rap sheet.
I saw an interview with him the other day. Heâs completely unrepentant. What a sanctimonious idiot.
As much as I like free journalism I was shocked to read details like âan informant said 1 Chinese muslim, one Pakistani and one Syrianâ or whatever are being supplied with Chinese ammunition paid by ISI, the Pakistani secret service, to attack on .
Maybe the insurgents will only figure out 10 people who could have known that and who are not in the inner circle. Bullets to the heads of those.
Free journalism paid with blood.
Ugly.
And I usually say the two wars there are a bloody mess and getting out there might be the best. I say might because little honest Bob here is no military expert.
Most public opinion is focused on the âevilâ of the war and âthe killing of innocent civiliansâ. The details of strategy and informants killed goes over their heads -does not compute. Bad, bad imperialist go home.
The pulling of the puppetsâ threads is too obvious. Playing public opinion on the guise of freedom is disgusting.
[quote=âGao Bohanâ]Iâd still fight to the death against an invader.[/quote]We most certainly
(edit)
wouldnât strap bombs to our children, but weâd undoubtedly use every other method of retaliation. These leaks documenting internal communications that include innocents lost will most certainly add fuel to the same fire weâd have if we were in their shoes.
Exactly. I read a quote from him in the paper in which he describes his motivation for doing what he does as one of enjoying âcrushing bastards.â Iâd bet money that far fewer political figures who this guy classifies as âbastardsâ will be âcrushedâ than the number of well-intentioned informants who are going to die as a result of these leaks.
What this fool has done has nothing to do with whether or not we should be in Afghanistan. Anybody who has read the papers for the past few years knows that the war we are fighting there is bloody and ineffective, and that all parties are involved in dirty deeds. I havenât seen anything in the leaked info that would change the minds of people who are either for or against the war. The only thing that Wikileaks has done here is to provide the details that will lead to more people getting killed.
Tell me, please, how the duck I got saddled with an argument Iâve thoroughly rejected?