Wikileaks: Next release is 7x the size of the Iraq War Logs

flo grey are u saying you want to fight me? is that what you're saying?

  On 11/23/2010 at 8:05 PM, Joy Rex said:

  On 11/23/2010 at 8:04 PM, Bread said:

  On 11/23/2010 at 7:01 PM, Wall Bird said:

War, such as the United States in Afghanistan, already endangers lives needlessly. But we know that. After the first large batch of documents was released months ago, the Pentagon issued the complaint that the indiscriminate release of such documents could compromise the well-being of certain individuals in the field. Well, Wikileaks publicly announced their willingness to collaborate with the Pentagon in obscuring such identities in order to resolve that claim. The Pentagon never took them up on such an offer.

Exactly

 

And why should they cooperate with a rouge organization on their terms? Next thing you'll be telling me we should be sitting down with Osama Bin Laden and hold peace talks...

  On 11/23/2010 at 8:05 PM, Joy Rex said:

didn't stop to consider the lives they put at risk by releasing such documents - from the front line troops to the operatives working behind enemy lines.

Clearly they did.

What I was saying wasn't that a few civils deaths and soldier torture were no big deal but that Wikileaks hypes up information that everyone should be suspecting or is already suspecting.

  On 11/23/2010 at 9:20 PM, chenGOD said:

I only question the impact of it precisely because of the apathy. Basically it seems to me that people will actually need video of George Bush rimming Osama before any possible critical tipping point occurs.

And what would happen if such a video was made public ? Nothing.

  On 11/24/2010 at 9:18 AM, the anonymous forumite said:

What I was saying wasn't that a few civils deaths and soldier torture were no big deal but that Wikileaks hypes up information that everyone should be suspecting or is already suspecting.

 

  On 11/23/2010 at 9:20 PM, chenGOD said:

I only question the impact of it precisely because of the apathy. Basically it seems to me that people will actually need video of George Bush rimming Osama before any possible critical tipping point occurs.

 

And what would happen if such a video was made public ? Nothing.

Sure it would, FOX news would make a fuss and Sarah Palin would be elected president.

Sarah Palin WILL be elected president.

You have no choice.

  On 11/24/2010 at 9:27 AM, Gocab said:

  On 11/24/2010 at 9:18 AM, the anonymous forumite said:

What I was saying wasn't that a few civils deaths and soldier torture were no big deal but that Wikileaks hypes up information that everyone should be suspecting or is already suspecting.

 

  On 11/23/2010 at 9:20 PM, chenGOD said:

I only question the impact of it precisely because of the apathy. Basically it seems to me that people will actually need video of George Bush rimming Osama before any possible critical tipping point occurs.

 

And what would happen if such a video was made public ? Nothing.

 

Sure it would, FOX news would make a fuss and Sarah Palin would be elected president.

Sarah Palin WILL be elected president.

You have no choice.

Media buzz for sure, but people would continue their routine and keep browsing the internet at home. This is the real tragedy, no matter what is disclosed, people will keep on living in a trance.

I'd like to think that even the media sated population of America would respond to a video of George Bush performing analingus on the guy who reportedly masterminded 9/11 and was the whole reason for getting into two major fuck-ups in the middle east.

  Quote

The Pentagon warned the U.S. Senate and House Armed Services Committees that the website WikiLeaks.org “intends to release several hundred thousand” classified U.S. State Department cables as soon as Nov. 26.

 

The documents “touch on an enormous range of very sensitive foreign policy issues,” Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Elizabeth King wrote yesterday in an e-mail to the defense panels.

 

“We anticipate that the release could negatively impact U.S. foreign relations,” she wrote, telling committee staff members that “we will brief you once we have a better understanding of what documents the WikiLeaks publication contains.”

 

King said The New York Times, the U.K.’s Guardian and Der Spiegel of Germany “are each currently working with WikiLeaks to coordinate the release of these State Department documents.”

 

These three publications were given advance access to two earlier WikiLeaks releases of U.S. military documents: almost 400,000 related to the Iraq war dated between 2003 and 2010 and about 75,000 from the same period on the Afghanistan war. The Iraq documents were published on Oct. 22 and the Afghanistan documents on July 25.

 

‘Raw Observations’

 

When the Iraq documents were released, a Pentagon spokesman, Marine Colonel David Lapan, described them as “raw observations from the tactical level of combat operations” and said their publication posed a risk to national security. In her e-mail to lawmakers yesterday, King had similar comments about the State Department documents.

 

“State Department cables by their nature contain everyday analysis and candid assessments that any government engages in as part of effective foreign relations,” she wrote. “The publication of this classified information by WikiLeaks is an irresponsible attempt to wreak havoc and destabilize global security. It potentially jeopardizes lives.”

 

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman confirmed that the e-mails had been sent to the two committees.

 

The Pentagon “had indications for some time” that WikiLeaks planned to release more documents, Whitman said in an interview yesterday. “As a result, we felt we had a responsibility to notify key leaders with oversight responsibility of the department like we normally do,” he said.

 

State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said WikiLeaks has previously said that it plans to release additional classified documents.

 

‘Due Diligence’

 

“We are doing due diligence,” Crowley said in an e-mail yesterday. The department is “assessing the possible impact on our on-going diplomatic activity and notifying both Congress and other governments what may occur.”

 

Crowley told reporters today in a briefing that “we’re in touch with our posts around the world,” which “have begun the process of notifying governments that a release of documents is possible in the near future.”

 

The State Department has had similar conversations with members of Congress “to let them know what we are prepared for,” Crowley said.

 

“The kinds of cables that posts send to Washington are classified,” he said. “They involve discussions we’ve had with government officials, with private citizens. They contain analysis, they contain a record of the day-to-day diplomatic activity that our personnel undertake.”

 

WikiLeaks receives confidential material that governments and business want to keep secret and posts the information on the Internet.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-24/pentagon-warns-house-senate-defense-panels-of-more-wikileaks-documents.html

  On 11/23/2010 at 8:05 PM, Joy Rex said:

And why should they cooperate with a rouge organization on their terms?

Did someone say rouge?

edit: i accidentally made a post in this thread. whoops

LOL at the state department trying to cover their ass.

  On 11/23/2010 at 8:48 PM, Rambo said:

glad you made that post, awepittance. I thought it might have just been me going completely insane.

he's not expendable

  Quote

Wikileaks is planning to release files that show Turkey has helped al-Qaida in Iraq, according to London-based daily Al-Hayat. The newspaper also reported that the US helped the PKK, a Kurdish rebel organization.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=196752

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/24/wikileaks-ottawa.html

oookay

  On 11/25/2010 at 4:52 PM, plstik said:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/24/wikileaks-ottawa.html

oookay

one day left

Has wikileaks announced what time we are to expect shit tommorow?

I imagine any time you log on to the internet, if they've been released you'll know about it.

  On 11/25/2010 at 7:23 PM, chenGOD said:

I imagine any time you log on to the internet, if they've been released you'll know about it.

I guess... :P

Is knowing about an hour earlier or later really going to make that big a difference? It's a kajillion pages of information, any reaction to them is not going to be formed within the first hour (or any reaction/opinion worth listening to anyways).

  On 11/25/2010 at 7:38 PM, chenGOD said:

Is knowing about an hour earlier or later really going to make that big a difference? It's a kajillion pages of information, any reaction to them is not going to be formed within the first hour (or any reaction/opinion worth listening to anyways).

True, wait I shall then. Hopefully the newspapers mentioned have grasped a few things already from their early time with the docs...

  On 11/25/2010 at 4:52 PM, plstik said:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/24/wikileaks-ottawa.html

oookay

LOL at US basically going "Hey, uh, guys.. You're not gonna like this, but..."

he is a hero for making this site. Changes the game entirely

i don't see how diplomatic relations will be affected. The government officials in alley countries already know how the US operates, it's just the reaction of the plebs in these states that the US would have to be concerned about. But with the media so pathetic these days, surely anything said will be so watered down by the time it becomes a headline, that no one will be riled up enough to get off their couch and complain about it.

but we'll see.

delet...government officials often have little idea how badly allies screw each other until well after the fact....since the US is probably in the process of screwing a whole bunch of allies all at the same time, they probably have some cause to be concerned. After all, being an isolationist is all well and good for libertarian fantasists, but in the real world, connections are important...

who cares about war. It's all about corporations and greed. How are we going to control these multinationals? I think we need a new, global, anti-monopolization body to start breaking up the concentration of wealth. It's getting ridiculous; with a starbucks and mcdonalds going up on every streetcorner in China, shit's gotten out of hand...they're untouchable...

  On 11/23/2010 at 11:13 PM, Awepittance said:

quick story: i got into a fist fight in high school that lasted approximately 5 seconds, it was immediately shut down by a plain clothes school employee. I got the guy in a headlock and he swung his fist over and punched me in the back. When we got taken to the principals office, the person i was fighting revealed in very sad moment that he was too afraid to go home after being suspended because his dad was going to beat the shit out of him, he broke down into tears in front of me and the principle. This kid that i hated with a vile feeling at the pit of my stomach started to become very sympathetic. That night i thought it over and decided that it wasn't worth pushing things any farther, after all if this kid had an abusive father he already has enough problems outside of school. The next day at school a kid runs up to me and says 'dude, i heard you started crying in front of the principle' , the person i fought with had effectively preempted what really happened by a disinformation story. After the day was over i realized what he did was actually very clever, if i countered with 'well no he was actually the one who was crying' it would seem unbelievable to most people. I swallowed my pride, realized that his propaganda worked and went on with my life.

 

So i guess the reason i just wrote this little anecdote is because all the US government has to do is go to their minions (the establishment washington press which includes the NY times, Wall st journal, Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC) and tell them something from an 'official' source with no facts or evidence to back it up. They plant the seeds that these leaks are dangerous, and who in the press would have the balls to counter that? apparently no one, even though the Pentagon's claims of endangering troops have never been backed up by evidence of any kind. It's emotionally provocative to make a statement claiming that Julian Assange has blood on his hands, it's designed to effect you at the emotional core first, bypassing reason.

this is absolutely true. repeat the message enough times and people who just want an answer (not interested in thinking too much) (this seems to be the fucking majority) will accept whatever based on, among other things, authority.