It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 



i don't think anyone should be killed at all but i think a few afghan informers being killed as unfortunate as it is. is nothing compared to the amount of people (on every side) that will die if this war continues. and like the man above points out their siding with an occupying force that makes them pretty low in my books. I'm sure the people that have given information to the coalition are aware of the risks there taking when doing so and must be prepared to face the consequence of their actions. that doesnt make it right but that's the way it is. as far as America's concerned i think there troops should be on the Mexican border doing what there meant to be doing and that's protecting America. and our troops here in the UK should just be at home training for when we really need protecting!




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Sniches get stiches.
One should not pity people that would turn on their coutrymen for money



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Happyfeet
Sniches get stiches.
One should not pity people that would turn on their coutrymen for money


I suspect you exclude yourself of course, but for everyone else, heads to roll..



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Anyone find any mention or verification of this (exclusive?!) revelation by the ailing Murdoch paper anywhere else other than Murdoch T.V station?

I see nothing from Reuters, The Guardian, BBC or The Independant as yet.

[edit on 28/7/10 by Mark Harris]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
What I have found interesting in all of this is how many act as if Afghanistan was actually a country instead of the occupied land it really was. No central government, only feuding War Lords, Islamic Radicals enslaving the population and a hideout for Terrorist groups.

There simply was no actual invasion.

Secondly I find odd those who don't assign any blame whatsoever to the criminal gangs who held the people there hostage. Have we become so bitter that the innocent citizens there have no value as fellow human beings? So cynical that its OK if these radical groups are allowed to continue to hold the population hostage while their land is used as a base to launch attacks from?

There are reasons the world agreed about going into Afghanistan and they were right. What went wrong here is that we did not place all our resources there instead of going after Sadam. We should have saturated that land with troops and cleaned up the mess right up front. No fake leaders who we can't trust. No relying on other nations who only give lip service, but take no risks.

As to Wikileaks, Assange does hold guilt for any deaths his misdeeds cause. Others may be culpable and perhaps even the military's failure to secure this information lays blame upon them. None of that changes the fact that a soldier commited an act of what can be described as Treason and Assange became a conspirator in the act when he accepted the documents instead of reporting it to the authorities.

In my opinion Wikileaks went from being a valuable tool to yet another site posting information for shock value with no afterthought of who it hurts or even kills. Being this is ATS I smell a giant RAT here.

What I also find disheartening is how callous many can be in saying, as happened in Vietnam, we should just walk away and watch the slaughter on CNN each evening. Even if going in was wrong, walking away is worse.

I think this may be relevant to all of this -



Assange needed a way to keep the wolf from the door financially. That much is obvious. This thing went viral, as he knew it would. People all over the world who never heard of WikiLeaks are going there and how many are clicking on the links to donate, all at once?

What is the life of some poor Afghan who has survived the Russians, the Taliban and various Terrorists groups and Drug (War) Lords worth? He sees a way out and a path to a real country from what is nothing more than a battleground for radicals. He helps with information which quite frankly would probably save some lives and then his name is outed so a person named Assange can get his moment of fame and perhaps some large amounts of cash?

Had he taken the time to remove the names I'd have some respect, but instead there is only an unthinking, uncaring villain behind WikiLeaks after all.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
This is a perfect example of why some information should never be made public. We on ATS often seek greater transparency and information when it comes to the shadowy word of intelligence. There are some thing we should just not know about.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Excellent post Blaine91555. Hmmm...I'm a poor, probably illiterate dirt farmer that's been beat down ever since I was a kid and now I have a chance to make my town/country better for my kids. Heck yeah I'm gonna snitch.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Like much else it's all about the benjamins and control if you can get it and bugger all in the pursuit of it.
Afganistan remains a pretend country in a real civil war.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I believe this was done for a reason. Something is definately fishy here and makes no sense. First of all, wikileak and all its files, did not get all that info in one day, it was gathered thru time. Second of all, all this info just magically got leaked, leaked really? So i guess wiki saved all that data over the years and then suddenly sprung the info to the public. NOT. SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED. I mean think about it. WIKI saved all that data and then suddenly SPRUNG IT ON US. COME ON.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77

If a single person is killed because of this information should the founder of WikiLeaks be charged with murder?


Not exactly, he should be charged with being an accomplice and treason for aiding the Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in military campaigns against US.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


To each their own opinion, but I don't think Wikileaks is any more suspicious than ATS. The thread contributors to ATS ensure many ad serviceable pages are generated which is the business model behind this website and Wikileaks works on donations.

I have put the information into a database and am scanning through it to get a feel for it myself. There are some really interesting elements to it. Numerous PSYOPS records are listed, but no details are offered. Instead, it say: See attachment against the PSYOP record. This information was deemed too sensitive to be added to this master database, but the recipients would certainly have had access to it.

I have seen names mentioned, but they are appended to records of Afghans telling locals not to support either side for risk of their lives. There are some fascinating bits of information here.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by LarryLove]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nite owl
 


What reason? I know from another thread you think that the leak is to facilitate an attack on Iran, but if anything, this information gives us a true picture of the brutal truth of war. If we had front line reporting from the get-go, this information would have been in the public eye already. I don't think this leak will damage the coalition, but may even enhance war efforts as the public appetite for war is further reduced.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiGGz

Originally posted by Wildbob77

If a single person is killed because of this information should the founder of WikiLeaks be charged with murder?


Not exactly, he should be charged with being an accomplice and treason for aiding the Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in military campaigns against US.


An accomplice to murder? Seriously?

Treason? Did you know that hes Australian and therefor can't be charged with treason?

The American public has really gone mad. I've been watching the comments from this article on Yahoo and almost 1 out of every 4 comments is "hang him treason!!!" or "don't even hold a trial, just shoot him".

As another poster pointed out, is there any evidence of the Afghan informants names being released? Which document is it?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Trouble in Little Chi
 


I have no idea either as to why people are calling Assange out for treason. I can only put it down to people letting emotion get the better of them. Anyhow, until they produce these records with named individuals, then I am not believing it for a moment. I am still trying to work out why people think he should be tried for treason let alone murder?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
This is a perfect example of why some information should never be made public. We on ATS often seek greater transparency and information when it comes to the shadowy word of intelligence. There are some thing we should just not know about.


Kevin, why shouldn't this information be made public? If anything, this protracted war has cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and it all might have been brought to a speedier close if we knew of these horrors before now. This information isn't strategic planning, but a database of actions in war.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by nite owl
 


What reason? I know from another thread you think that the leak is to facilitate an attack on Iran, but if anything, this information gives us a true picture of the brutal truth of war. If we had front line reporting from the get-go, this information would have been in the public eye already. I don't think this leak will damage the coalition, but may even enhance war efforts as the public appetite for war is further reduced.
YEAH, the brutal truth of war, i agree. It may be to facilitate an attack on IRAN. get them and others pi# off. You know president rosevelt provoked japan to come into the war. THAT, does not suprise me to facilitate a war in IRAN. That tactic has been used before. I hope it does not damage inocent peoples either. I hope those who helpped out do not get harmed.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


There are some things that are best left in the dark. For example the names of your informants, intelligence gathering techniques, troop movements, technical capabilities and so on. I mean really why does that information need to be in the public domain. Granted some of this information, such as civilian deaths should be reported but aspects like informants should not, in fact i think quite allot of this stuff should not have been leaked.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


Had government been transparent these reports would be available, minus the names of individuals we needed to protect. However, our government has little transparency, otherwise there would be no need for Wikileaks.

If they want to prevent this from occurring simply become transparent and allow FOI Requests minus a persons name, instead of totally blacked out documents. The real fault is with the government for not allowing this information to the people who fund the war.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


Sorry no, plame was discuseed by no such person and the verification outside of legend is available. THe person actually involved was not a govt official.
Talk about pomagranites and betel nuts, definately maroon.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


There are reasons the world agreed about going into Afghanistan

lol, "the world"?, hardly. bush used Americas credibility persuading NATO to buy into the US govts horsecrap. Didn't the alleged hijackers learn to FLY in FLORIDA? at some training camp, er, flight school?

Held hostage?, that's silly.. what oppressed hostages wouldn't already have happily assimilated to freedom, apple pie and the American way of virtue by now? I don't see them running to troops exploding with joy.. these people traditionally HATE invaders. All of them. US intentions have no more virtue than the Soviets... we're the "stranger", less welcome than illegal aliens in Arizona.. and that's that.

My Brother and I against My Cousin; My Cousin and I against the Stranger.-- Egyptian proverb

US forces are just the latest would be occupier promising goodness, freedom and a "better way of life"** at gunpoint (** Certain restrictions apply, void where prohibited, subject to change without notice).

I'll bet they don't see being hostages of a US puppet / occupation force (Stranger) as more desirable to being hostages of the Taliban (Cousin).



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join