| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| Wikileaks documents: Iran aided, abetted terrorists in Iraq | |
| 2010-10-24 | |
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #10 Suppose I publish the real-time GPS coordinates of Assange? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-10-24 18:25 |
| #9 Iran aided, abetted terrorists in Iraq? Wow. What a scoop! That was known long before Wikileaks got into the pissing business. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-10-24 18:21 |
| #8 I already said: i *do* think the names should have been redacted. Because doing so is all it takes to keep forensic analysts from gathering the puzzle pieces and putting two and two together. /Sarc off. You do realize that redacting names is only the equivalent of using an eraser, when I can come along and get a rubbing of the letter impressions so to speak off of the page, or as it were using locations and deductive reasoning to get identities with or without your help. Dur, dur, dur. |
| Posted by: PrivateEye 2010-10-24 13:02 |
| #7 Don't do that. Don't go there, even to make a rhetorical point. We're all friends here. I agree on the first two sentences. As for the 'friends' part - that's a stretch. And certainly not with our Australian poster. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-10-24 12:55 |
| #6 Don't do that. Don't go there, even to make a rhetorical point. We're all friends here. AoS. Sorry about that, both Steve and anon1. No I don't know where you live. I thought it was clear that I was trying to make a point rhetorically. I guess it worked. It is not good to publish everything you know because the bad guys can use it as well. It just makes the game an order of magnitude more difficult for both sides. Whether that information is names and addresses or if it's methods and tactics some things don't need to be known the world around. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-10-24 12:00 |
| #5 ahh Gorb I already said: i *do* think the names should have been redacted. However that is not the be-all and end-all of Wikileaks. In the NY Times story it said that many who worked at Wikileaks were angry with Assange for not redacting. So this is a thing likely to change in the future. it doesn't mean Wikileaks is worthless. also if you are good at finding out where people live, please post the home address of Mike Moore so we can go and have a noisy religious ceremony at his house at 5am on a Sunday morning to teach him the wisdom of tolerance in a multiculti society (since he wants a ground zero mosque so bad, he won't mind). Glenmore: I agree with you. 400,000 documents is just too many, and they could have been culled to just the important ones. Maybe they don't have enough volunteers to do so |
| Posted by: anon1 2010-10-24 08:13 |
| #4 In 400,000 documents there are bound to be items that can be used to support pretty much anyone's position (sort of like the Crayon, or even the Bible.) In only a few cases can specific harm (or good) be traced directly to a specific document. If there is evidence of a 'Mi Lai Massacre' then it would be better to release that alone rather than camoflaging it in all the rest. Our (more competent) enemies and potential enemies will be sifting through all this seemingly innocuous stuff, gathering data on tactics, relationships, and maybe personnel; people will die because of it, though we'll never know exactly which ones. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-10-24 08:08 |
| #3 freedom of speech is ALWAYS right. I know where you live. Mind if I publish it?
| |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-10-24 01:32 |
| #2 thank goodness for wikileaks and julian assange without which the NY Times would not have been able to write that article and without which we would not have known freedom of speech is ALWAYS right. |
| Posted by: anon1 2010-10-24 01:13 |
| #1 |
| Posted by: Omaing White7048 2010-10-24 00:23 |