My HUGE problem with Wikileaks

[Pardalis]

it's curious that you'd (pretend) to be upset about this when the US military has killed far more civilians than this ever will or could.

The Canadian and US military go to great lengths to avoid loss of life, and they do not deliberately target civilians.

 

[BenBurch]

The Canadian and US military go to great lengths to avoid loss of life, and they do not deliberately target civilians.

Amen.

I have friends serving over there.

Sometimes they are taking fire from some place and are pinned down, and they call in an airstrike or fire support, and sometimes that strike hits somewhere NEAR where the fire is coming from but not AT that place, and unintended casualties happen. It is just not possible for any weapons system to be 100% accurate.

And sometimes the fire is coming from a place that has innocents in it because the Taliban seem to not care that they put others in danger, and the innocents die with the combatants. And usually you have no way to know this in advance.

And sometimes you see somebody shouldering a long tube-like item and pointing it at a coalition position, and you fire. And sometimes that was a reporter with a very long telephoto lens. A reporter who should have considered how his actions appeared from a distance during active hostilities.

None of this is an excuse for publishing military secrets that put hundreds of lives in jeopardy, I think INTENTIONALLY, by the mere act of their publication.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

The Canadian and US military go to great lengths to avoid loss of life, and they do not deliberately target civilians.

I never said they didn't. However, war, especially foolish wars built on lies (Iraq), will result in civilian death. I don't see you arguing for letting Bush rot in jail for a long, long time--though maybe you do. Are you willing to argue that Bush should rot in jail for a long, long time for that? Whatever harm people have been placed in by wikileaks, it is nothing compared to the harm people were placed into by the US government, which is clearly lying to the citizenry about the state of the war.

If the military as a whole wanted to avoid unnecessarily loss of civilian life, they never would have went to Iraq in the first place.

Also, if you make this claim, that the military makes every effort to ensure civilians are not targeted or largely negatively affected (you didn't state that but I'll infer it), then you cannot claim that there may be a significant number of "innocent" people at Guantanamo, that we should just trust the military that they were all "enemy combatants" so on and so forth. Since the military makes such careful, surgical tactical moves, like at Abu Ghraib (just a few bad apples, right?)

Trust. Of the government, the military. You have plenty of it. The leaked documents reveal that civilian casualities are probably much higher than the military admits to (surprise!)...

 

[Dr. Fascism]

Amen.
None of this is an excuse for publishing military secrets that put hundreds of lives in jeopardy, I think INTENTIONALLY, by the mere act of their publication.

Evidence? This is just an assertion, that hundreds of lives are put in jeopardy, by people that implicitly trust the government. Truthfully, I just think you're angry that someone dared to step against the glorious US government and its military hijinks. I don't think you believe that the US citizens have a right to know how the war overseas is really going--the government's version is "good enough," right?

 

[Dr. Fascism]

I can just imagine the uproar had this been Vietnam and Daniel Ellisberg published the Pentagon papers. "Hang him!" "Traitor!" And so forth.

The risk to soldiers and Afghan civilians from releasing these papers is overblown, and the government is overplaying it to turn people against Assange and Wikileaks for pretty obvious reasons. The government is sending two conflicting messages to serve its needs--one, that the papers aren't that damaging and not quite important, and yet at the same time, playing the card that it puts a great many people at risk. Those "skeptical" of the government of course will believe both of these at the same time, because I suppose that's just the "skeptic" thing to do; creduloids such as myself unfortunately are not smart enough to believe them.

And sometimes you see somebody shouldering a long tube-like item and pointing it at a coalition position, and you fire. And sometimes that was a reporter with a very long telephoto lens. A reporter who should have considered how his actions appeared from a distance during active hostilities.

None of this is an excuse for publishing military secrets that put hundreds of lives in jeopardy, I think INTENTIONALLY, by the mere act of their publication.

You're right; it's everyone else's fault but the military's, and Assange is a mustache-twirling madman bent on the deaths of innocents. I certainly think skeptical reflection would lead me to that conclusion, if I was capable of skepticism.

 

[JihadJane]

I can just imagine the uproar had this been Vietnam and Daniel Ellisberg published the Pentagon papers. "Hang him!" "Traitor!" And so forth.

The risk to soldiers and Afghan civilians from releasing these papers is overblown, and the government is overplaying it to turn people against Assange and Wikileaks for pretty obvious reasons. The government is sending two conflicting messages to serve its needs--one, that the papers aren't that damaging and not quite important, and yet at the same time, playing the card that it puts a great many people at risk. Those "skeptical" of the government of course will believe both of these at the same time, because I suppose that's just the "skeptic" thing to do; creduloids such as myself unfortunately are not smart enough to believe them.

It's surprising how susceptible some JREF skeptics are to government propaganda.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

It's surprising how susceptible some JREF skeptics are to government propaganda.

Not really. If you've followed these forums for any length of time you'd have noted that there's a "philosopher king" complex among the skeptical movement and a lot of them have a strong pro-authority mindset. It's something deeply ingrained in the culture that has sort of evolved here. Really it's a strong sort of paternalistic liberalism. In fact, I don't know of any other better examples of paternalistic liberalism on the internet.

I suspect it's because people here tend to have the brains to reject Uri Geller and homeopathy, so on and so forth, and want the world to contain some deus ex machina of justice to exist in the world to fight against and forbid those sorts of chicanery, so they imagine their fantasy ideal government as being in power, and for it to be effective, people would of course need to obey... and since it's the bringer of justice, to act against it is high treason. They seem mostly comfortable with the way things are in the world (and why wouldn't they? Most of them are rather well-to-do, middle-class types with families and decent jobs) and like our current system and just feel it needs some slight modifications. As someone here earlier stated, they think most of the laws are pretty good and just. And hey, a Democrat is in power, how cool is that?

 

[BenBurch]

I don't need evidence for an opinion. And I don't think he is a madman, but I think he has allowed his ideology to trump regard for human beings.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

I don't need evidence for an opinion. And I don't think he is a madman, but I think he has allowed his ideology to trump regard for human beings.

Not needing evidence--a very admirable skeptical trait

Dr. Fascism

 

[Dr. Fascism]

By the way, if anyone is interested in actually reading the documents for themselves, they are located here:

http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/

 

[JihadJane]

Not really. If you've followed these forums for any length of time you'd have noted that there's a "philosopher king" complex among the skeptical movement and a lot of them have a strong pro-authority mindset. It's something deeply ingrained in the culture that has sort of evolved here. Really it's a strong sort of paternalistic liberalism. In fact, I don't know of any other better examples of paternalistic liberalism on the internet.

I suspect it's because people here tend to have the brains to reject Uri Geller and homeopathy, so on and so forth, and want the world to contain some deus ex machina of justice to exist in the world to fight against and forbid those sorts of chicanery, so they imagine their fantasy ideal government as being in power, and for it to be effective, people would of course need to obey... and since it's the bringer of justice, to act against it is high treason. They seem mostly comfortable with the way things are in the world (and why wouldn't they? Most of them are rather well-to-do, middle-class types with families and decent jobs) and like our current system and just feel it needs some slight modifications. As someone here earlier stated, they think most of the laws are pretty good and just. And hey, a Democrat is in power, how cool is that?

Thanks for a thought-provoking analysis. I have certainly noticed the authoritarian tendency.

I shall now read up on the "philosopher king" complex!

 

[Pardalis]

I never said they didn't.

Right...

However, war, especially foolish wars built on lies (Iraq), will result in civilian death.

All wars are foolish and result in civilian deaths. Welcome to the real world.

If the military as a whole wanted to avoid unnecessarily loss of civilian life, they never would have went to Iraq in the first place.

They did stop the sanctions by removing the dictator, which will result in less famine and death, and in the long run people will be safer without that horrible despicable and murderous regime.

BTW, Iraq has nothing to do with this topic.

Also, if you make this claim, that the military makes every effort to ensure civilians are not targeted or largely negatively affected (you didn't state that but I'll infer it), then you cannot claim that there may be a significant number of "innocent" people at Guantanamo,

The people at Guantánamo are mostly insurgents and terrorists, hardly innocent (although some are, unfortunately, you can't expect perfection).

Trust. Of the government, the military. You have plenty of it. The leaked documents reveal that civilian casualities are probably much higher than the military admits to (surprise!)...

Not really a surprise. Unfortunately I expect civillans to be killed, it's part of war, especially guerrilla warfare, against an enemy like AQ and the Taliban, who have no compulsion to save civilians from being hurt, on the contrary, they count on it for their PR, which you and other useful people gullibly fall for.

 

[Pardalis]

Not really. If you've followed these forums for any length of time you'd have noted that there's a "philosopher king" complex among the skeptical movement and a lot of them have a strong pro-authority mindset. It's something deeply ingrained in the culture that has sort of evolved here. Really it's a strong sort of paternalistic liberalism. In fact, I don't know of any other better examples of paternalistic liberalism on the internet.

I suspect it's because people here tend to have the brains to reject Uri Geller and homeopathy, so on and so forth, and want the world to contain some deus ex machina of justice to exist in the world to fight against and forbid those sorts of chicanery, so they imagine their fantasy ideal government as being in power, and for it to be effective, people would of course need to obey... and since it's the bringer of justice, to act against it is high treason. They seem mostly comfortable with the way things are in the world (and why wouldn't they? Most of them are rather well-to-do, middle-class types with families and decent jobs) and like our current system and just feel it needs some slight modifications. As someone here earlier stated, they think most of the laws are pretty good and just. And hey, a Democrat is in power, how cool is that?

We often get pseudo Anarchists of your kind here, they are rather treated as nothing more than jokes. Fun top play with though, in a morbid kind of a way.

An Anarchist with a computer and an internet connection, what a laugh!

 

[Dr. Fascism]

We often get pseudo Anarchists of your kind here, they are rather treated as nothing more than jokes. Fun top play with though, in a morbid kind of a way.

An Anarchist with a computer and an internet connection, what a laugh!

So am I an anarchist or a pseudo-anarchist? Words have meaning, you know.

 

[Pardalis]

So am I an anarchist or a pseudo-anarchist? Words have meaning, you know.

I think you're a pseudo-anarchist who thinks he's an anarchist.

If you had the courage of your own convictions you wouldn't be here posting on the interwebs.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

Not really a surprise. Unfortunately I expect civillans to be killed, it's part of war, especially guerrilla warfare, against an enemy like AQ and the Taliban, who have no compulsion to save civilians from being hurt, on the contrary, they count on it for their PR, which you and other useful people gullibly fall for.

It's OK if civilians are killed in war, you expect it, yet when documents are released (that show the war is not going as well as the military is leading us to believe) that may potentially result in civilian deaths, it's unacceptable. What an incredible double-standard.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

I think you're a pseudo-anarchist who thinks he's an anarchist.

If you had the courage of your own convictions you wouldn't be here posting on the interwebs.

I never said I was an anarchist, and there's no single anarchist ideology anyway. You have anarchists that believe in socialism and you have anarchists that believe in free markets, with different conceptions of property rights. Almost no anarchist is against technology. You don't appear to be very well educated. You probably shouldn't throw terms around unless you know what they actually refer to.

 

[Pardalis]

It's OK if civilians are killed in war, you expect it, yet when documents are released (that show the war is not going as well as the military is leading us to believe) that may potentially result in civilian deaths, it's unacceptable. What an incredible double-standard.

The idea is to reduce the number of civilian deaths and eventually end the war. The leaked documents won't help achiever either. It will likely put people in more danger, and prolong the conflict.

 

[Pardalis]

I never said I was an anarchist, and there's no single anarchist ideology anyway. You have anarchists that believe in socialism and you have anarchists that believe in free markets, with different conceptions of property rights. Almost no anarchist is against technology. You don't appear to be very well educated. You probably shouldn't throw terms around unless you know what they actually refer to.

Changing the system on post at a time, one message board at a time... This is going to take long.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

The idea is to reduce the number of civilian deaths and eventually end the war. The leaked documents won't help achiever either. It will likely put people in more danger, and prolong the conflict.

Or more likely help kill public support for maintaining the war. Be honest, though--you don't really care about the civilian deaths, you're just irked that people are defying the government.