Amen

8/2/2010 7:18:19 PM

http://www.dailytech.com/Taliban+Murders+Afghan+Elder+Thanks+Wikileaks+for+Revealing+Spies/article19250c.htm#comments

Afghan Tribal Elder murdered for collaborating. 70 other elders, whose names appeared on wikileaks, have received death threats.

8/3/2010 4:04:59 PM

[Edited on August 3, 2010 at 9:28 PM. Reason : nm]

8/3/2010 9:27:51 PM

Quote :

"No, us, silly. 9/11 was an isolated criminal act."

hahahahaha

that's the most laughable thing I've heard in a while. I encourage you to do some reading on the Taliban/OBL/mujahideen/militant islamists.

8/4/2010 12:20:53 AM

They were American residents on domestic flights. Their financing and training was trivial and unimportant. Any citizen could carry out the same plan on their own. 9/11 was a complete failure of law enforcement. No military intervention was necessary.

8/4/2010 12:48:51 AM

You are either in complete denial in order to make reality mesh with your desires for U.S. policy, or you know absolutely fucking nothing about the Taliban and Al Qaeda. What you're saying is so laughably wrong that I don't even know where to start, other than to suggest that you read any of a number of well-written books on the subject.

8/4/2010 9:25:23 AM

lol

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 9:55 AM. Reason : ]

8/4/2010 9:55:30 AM

Duke is wrong.
smc is right.

So-called "terrorism" is merely a word game that's been used to increase the scope and power of the military.
That distinction is nothing but a government ploy, and serves no actual necessary purpose. Period.

There's crime, organized crime, and war between nations. That's it.

(Duke: You're a pro-military tool. Admit it. Even if you wanted to, you'd couldn't view this correctly.)

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM. Reason : ]

8/4/2010 9:59:09 AM

^ i'm trying to understand your view, are you saying there is no such thing as terrorism?

8/4/2010 10:04:02 AM

Quote :

"There's crime, organized crime, and war between nations."

Please alert historians that the Revolutionary War will hereby be referred to as The Unsuccessful British Law Enforcement Operation Against Organized Criminal Elements on the North American Continent.

8/4/2010 10:27:25 AM

After reading this thread I've come to two conclusions:

1) lol at anyone that thinks there's more than one superpower in the world today

2) smc is a piece of shit

8/4/2010 10:45:49 AM

^^
OH SNAP!

8/4/2010 11:02:04 AM

Quote :

"(Duke: You're a pro-military tool. Admit it. Even if you wanted to, you'd couldn't view this correctly.)"

No. You two are defining it in a manner that justifies your view that we should not be engaged with our military.

I used to be kinda on the fence as to how to define it (which, I might add, isn't the only factor in deciding how to handle it)...then I started studying it, and have drawn the conclusion that viewing these actors simply as criminals is the grossest of oversimplifications.

This same debate raged throughout our government as well--several Presidents, the State Department, and all of the relevant 3-letter agencies. It isn't just a left/right-thing either (President Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan, for example). It seems to be more dictated by the evidence, intel, and SA that we've gathered over time on the subject.

Now, again, the proper way to handle it is up for debate. I'm not saying that we should wage all-out conventional war just because they are more than simply criminals. I'm not particularly opposed to abandoning our nation-building attempts in Afghanistan. It's another one of those post-colonial countries that really should be divided in various factions, and I don't think we're really capable of orchestrating a functional government there. For centuries, the place has largely lacked centralized government, and we've been pulling the strings for 30 years to no avail. We've overthrown various leaders and factions there, but haven't really managed to set anyone else up very effectively (plus, our goals and that of Pakistan have generally been in conflict, and we--so far--have been unwilling to divorce ourselves from our alliance with Pakistan).

The solution may be to try to broker a government with representation from all factions (including the Taliban). Even that may be a tall order, as the Taliban have never been inclined to compromise in any meaningful way with anyone. They're arguably more extreme (not to mention ignorant and insular) than the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. In any case, a solution worth considering is to end our military action there (at least with conventional forces), and deal with it at a low-level via the CIA and special forces (propping up pro-western factions). Afghanistan would remain fucked-up in the worst kind of way, but whatever. Tell them (particularly the Taliban) that if you want to live in a backwards, medieval shithole, then go for it, but there will be hell to pay if we catch wind of you conspiring in any way against American security, to include harboring or offering a haven to anyone else who does the same. The Taliban might be willing to leave us alone. (I don't think Al Qaeda will--they have a more worldwide, strategic vision).


So with my position explained a little more clearly, I reiterate that if you believe that these players are simply criminals, you are at best woefully ignorant and should toggle yourself into receive-only mode until you better understand the subject, and at worst are an idiot and should just leave altogether.

8/4/2010 11:02:47 AM

Wikileaks seeks Pentagon aid in censoring remaining 15,000 Afghan documents.

Congressman calls for Manning to be executed.

He will become a martyr, a hero fighting an evil empire.

The wars are creating terrorists, here and abroad. There can be no victory. Withdraw now, before it's too late for our nation.

8/4/2010 11:37:33 AM

I'm becoming inclined to agree with TKE-Teg's 2nd assessment.

8/4/2010 11:53:30 AM

Quote :

"an evil empire"

8/4/2010 11:55:23 AM

If your government's response to embarrassing revelations is the threat of death, you might be living in an evil empire.

8/4/2010 12:04:43 PM

Quote :

"If your government's response to embarrassing revelations releasing classified information that will put hundreds at risk of death is the threat of death, you might be living in an evil empire proper country."

8/4/2010 12:31:41 PM

The state doesn't have the right to inflict death.

Political leaders that kill can themselves be killed.

8/4/2010 12:33:47 PM

Quote :

"Afghanistan would remain fucked-up in the worst kind of way, but whatever. Tell them (particularly the Taliban) that if you want to live in a backwards, medieval shithole, then go for it"

And what do we say to the vast majority of Afghans who don't want to live in a backward, medieval shit hole, but certainly will be forced to if we start cutting political deals with the Taliban?

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 1:08 PM. Reason : ]

8/4/2010 12:57:45 PM

Uhhhh, move out of Afghanistan?

Not trying to be snarky, but I'm sure there are plenty of Iranians who don't want to live in Iran. Or Saudis who don't want to live in Saudi Arabia. Or fuck, Americans who don't want to live in America. (probably not as many). China also comes to mind.

It's not our place to go liberate the indigenous peoples of every country because they're being wronged by their government.

8/4/2010 1:06:33 PM

Quote :

"Not trying to be snarky"

Well, your proposal is certainly ridiculous, so I don't know what to tell you.

Quote :

"It's not our place to go liberate the indigenous peoples of every country because they're being wronged by their government."

That would seem to be a matter of opinion. Personally, I couldn't disagree more. I think that's an utterly provincial way of looking at things. You're entitled to do it, just don't be under the impression that it's a liberal, humanitarian, or progressive stance you're taking.

8/4/2010 1:26:37 PM

Quote :

"And what do we say to the vast majority of Afghans who don't want to live in a backward, medieval shit hole, but certainly will be forced to if we start cutting political deals with the Taliban?"

Arguably, we initially invaded Afghanistan to rout the Al Qaeda training camps (that we helped set up to facilitate the mujahideen war against the Soviets). Our obligation is not to set up Afghanistan as a country, although we have tried anyway.

Granted, I'm not saying this is the best option. The nation-building approach might still have some legs in it (if we'll stop fucking talking about withdrawal...Joe Afghan isn't going to stick his neck out to support pro-western leaders and forces if he thinks we'll inevitably bail and get him killed by the Taliban). I'm just saying that if we decide to give up on that, the other approach I described may offer a workable outcome at a far lower price (financial, human, and otherwise)

8/5/2010 12:07:32 AM

.

[Edited on August 5, 2010 at 3:27 AM. Reason : ]

8/5/2010 3:27:13 AM

^^^why are you so hung up on labeling people as liberal or progressive? When did I ever claim any of these labels?

We only live in a liberal vs. conservative country because it's profitable for our media juggernaut for it to be so.

Everyone has their ideals and the totality of their ideals might not line up with your preconceived notions of "liberalism" or "progressiveness".

8/5/2010 10:08:25 AM

Quote :

"Uhhhh, move out of Afghanistan?"

i don't agree that its our role to help out with this necessarily, but this kind of intellectual drain is part of why afghanistan (and other countries) are so shitty now.

8/5/2010 10:33:54 AM

lols.

Why aren't you championing us to invade China and liberate those people?
Why aren't you championing us to invade Saudi Arabia and liberate those people?
Why aren't you championing us to invade Iran and liberate those people?
Why aren't you championing us to invade North Korea and liberate those people?

You're the reason life is so shitty in the above countries.

"Because the indigenous people are being oppressed" is not currently a good reason to wage war on a country. Were it, we would be invading nearly every country in the world.

"Because the situation represents a legitimate security threat to America" is a good reason to wage war on a country. This is the reason we're in Afghanistan and the supposed reason we're in Iraq.

We don't have the resources to liberate everyone on the face of the planet from their shitty conditions. Should we not help other countries? No, of course we should help. We should provide whatever aid we can. I'm just not comfortable with my country using my taxes to kill people in the name of spreading democracy. Killing people in the name of keeping this country safe and an awesome place to live (and even potentially for immigrants who leave their shitty countries) I am much more comfortable with.

[Edited on August 5, 2010 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

8/5/2010 10:58:37 AM

did you just skip over the first half of my sentence?

[Edited on August 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM. Reason : i mean take a xanax, seriously]

8/5/2010 11:44:31 AM

Quote :

"why are you so hung up on labeling people as liberal or progressive? When did I ever claim any of these labels?"

No, that's fine. If you don't support liberal or progressive principles, then by all means, this criticism does not apply to you.

As for your second argument, that we ought not liberate one country if we cannot simultaneously liberate the entire world, I think it's barely worth responding to. We do as much as we can. If there are other factors at play, like national defense, we take those into consideration. There. Consider your argument refuted.

8/5/2010 12:30:30 PM

Pentagon requests that Wikileaks return the documents it's already published

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_pentagon_wikileaks

8/5/2010 2:44:46 PM

^ From the Obama administration:

Quote :

"'If doing the right thing is not good enough for them, then we will figure out what other alternatives we have to compel them to do the right thing,' [Geoff Morrell, Pentagon spokesman] said. 'These documents belong to the United States government. They don't belong to WikiLeaks. They don't belong to anyone else.'"

Quote :

"Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, blasted Assange last week, declaring that Assange and the individual responsible for the leak 'might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.' Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that the massive leak will have a significant impact on troops and allies."

http://tinyurl.com/2u2rnkz

8/8/2010 6:28:17 PM

Uh, they DO already have blood on their hands. Afghani collaborators have already been killed, with the assassins specifically naming wikileaks as their source.

8/9/2010 9:32:37 PM

8/9/2010 11:04:46 PM

Jingoists, feel free to refer to the leaker as "that faggot"

[Edited on August 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM. Reason : http://j.mp/8Xwz54

8/10/2010 12:01:28 AM

nah - i think "that treasonous coward" is just fine

there have been thousands of gays in the military who didn't sell out their country. no need to blame homosexuals for this

8/10/2010 1:51:01 AM

He's Australian, mate.

8/10/2010 9:10:48 AM

Reporters Without Borders says Wikileaks 'irresponsible'
August 13, 2010

Quote :

"REPORTERS Without Borders has attacked WikiLeaks after the website said it 'absolutely' would release remaining 15,000 documents related to the war in Afghanistan. RWB has accused the whistleblowing website of 'incredible irresponsibility' in publishing classified US military documents. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says the organisation intends to go ahead with plans to release 15,000 remaining files. In an open letter to Assange, Reporters Without Borders, an international press watchdog organisation, said the publishing of 92,000 leaked documents last month was 'highly dangerous,' particularly when it named Afghan informants. 'It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks,' it said."

Quote :

"In its letter yesterday, Reporters Without Borders said, 'the precedent you have set leaves all those people throughout the world who risk their freedom and sometimes their lives for the sake of online information even more exposed to reprisals. 'Such imprudence endangers your own sources and, beyond that, the future of the Internet as an information medium.'"

http://tinyurl.com/28osmqc

I hate to say I told you so--but I did.

8/14/2010 6:47:34 AM

US military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan: 100% wrong

Wikileaks: 100% right

Fuck you mother-fucking pieces of shit that support invasion, occupation, and mass murder.
Fuck you until you're dead.

8/14/2010 9:11:47 AM

even if you think that our actions in iraq and afghanistan are 100% wrong, wikileaks is also 100% wrong. I hope they go to federal pound me in the ass prison for a long time.

8/14/2010 9:25:39 AM

^
So you also support rape.
Fuck you until you're dead.

8/14/2010 9:26:45 AM

You are a fucking moron.

[Edited on August 14, 2010 at 9:57 AM. Reason : that's beyond "logical fallacy"...that's more like "non-sequitur"--like, the comedic variety]

8/14/2010 9:55:47 AM

^
You are a fucking moron and a god damn monster.

You clearly said "I hope they go to federal pound me in the ass prison".
You support prison rape. (So much for the 8th Amendment, huh?)

Fuck you.

8/14/2010 10:07:33 AM

Oh Jesus fuck.

8/14/2010 10:43:19 AM

^
In other words, you've got no defense for what you said.
You're a fucking monster that supports mass murder and prison rape. I called you out. You've got nothing.

Keep rolling your eyes, asshole. That'll make it all okay.

8/14/2010 11:12:07 AM

so you support forcefully fucking someone until they die...but a reference to a joke from office space sets you off?

yeah, you're mentally stable

8/15/2010 12:07:18 PM

^
Thanks for asking. But you also assumed an answer -- so that's a straw-man. (you lose)

"fuck you" doesn't mean actual fucking -- it's an insult. Indeed, "fuck you" doesn't amount to anything physical, let alone harm.
"fuck you until you're dead" means:
"fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.... (are you still alive? yes? okay) fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.... (are you still alive? yes? okay) fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.... (are you still alive? no? you're dead now? okay, no more 'fuck you's)"

Quote :

"but a reference to a joke from office space"

Holy fucking , batman.
When someone says that they hope someone "goes to federal pound me in the ass prison", they're quoting movies and that's all. No -- they don't actually mean it.

8/15/2010 12:20:48 PM

^Dude, shut the fuck up. Nobody gives a shit.

8/15/2010 12:23:23 PM

lol

so when someone says something, they mean it literally and are monsters for it

but when you say something it's not literal and anyone taking it that way is just making strawman arguments

like I said - mentally stable

Quote :

"Keep rolling your eyes, asshole. That'll make it all okay."

[Edited on August 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2010 12:26:14 PM

indy is

8/15/2010 12:32:08 PM

^^
Are you that dumb?
You put words in my mouth. I never said that I support " forcefully fucking someone until they die".
You said that.

Duke, did however, clearly say that he hopes the guy gets raped in prison. There's no doubt about that.

You are demonstrating a textbook straw man fallacy. (you lose, you fucking idiot)

^
moron is :derp:

8/15/2010 12:36:08 PM