Wikileak's insurance plan.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

http://twitter.com/wikileaks

This just in

Iraq War Logs reveal torture (video) http://bit.ly/bqHDpe

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23intro.html?_r=2

Iran's military, more than has been generally understood, intervened aggressively in support of Shiite combatants, offering weapons, training and sanctuary and in a few instances directly engaging American troops.

Oh shit.

[the last yatto]

Well, if you know, the government knows too.

Air fart

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

Also, Julian Assange is Australian.  How is he committing treason against America?

I believe Rep. King's charge of treason was directed at the Americans who leaked the information to Assange, not against Assange himself.

[Rumckle]

Aaah. That I did not know. Everyone's playing a crafty old game with this one, who's to tell if indeed its NOT a deliberate disinfo release. Seems pretty daft not to just go in and edit out anything too secret, unless they want them to know that they know ... ag.

I guess they could of thought that it was a waste of time, because (being a governement agency) they probably would have also scrubbed out stuff that made them look bad, which would have just pissed Wikileaks off.

I dunno, maybe they care more about looking good to the public, than actually looking after their operatives/troops.



Also, I was watching an inerview/report with/about Assange, and that guy is really freaking paranoid. Then again, I guess he has pissed off a few people.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Aaah. That I did not know. Everyone's playing a crafty old game with this one, who's to tell if indeed its NOT a deliberate disinfo release. Seems pretty daft not to just go in and edit out anything too secret, unless they want them to know that they know ... ag.

Also, I was watching an inerview/report with/about Assange, and that guy is really freaking paranoid. Then again, I guess he has pissed off a few people.

The CIA are not good enemies to have.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_0-KUaQl7k

This is hilarious.

Note the white light behind the good and noble reporter and the red light behind the evil and nasty Assange.

[Phox]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_0-KUaQl7k

This is hilarious.

Note the white light behind the good and noble reporter and the red light behind the evil and nasty Assange.

Love the creepy background music when Assange is talking too. 

[Disco Pickle]

Aaah. That I did not know. Everyone's playing a crafty old game with this one, who's to tell if indeed its NOT a deliberate disinfo release. Seems pretty daft not to just go in and edit out anything too secret, unless they want them to know that they know ... ag.

I guess they could of thought that it was a waste of time, because (being a governement agency) they probably would have also scrubbed out stuff that made them look bad, which would have just pissed Wikileaks off.

I dunno, maybe they care more about looking good to the public, than actually looking after their operatives/troops.



Also, I was watching an inerview/report with/about Assange, and that guy is really freaking paranoid. Then again, I guess he has pissed off a few people.

What Kissenger and McNammara learned and taught their administrations and what is no doubt taught to future DoD and state dept officials is that the TV coverage of Vietnam was what turned Americans against the war.  This is probably true.

THe coverage of the Iraq war was nothing more than a video game ported to television.

If we had the same coverage in Iraq and Afganistan we had in Vietnam, there would be a much stronger opposition IMO.

[Remington]

Well, the Pentagon has admitted that so far not a single person named in the War Diaries has come under any kind of threat due to them.

Maybe the Taliban are slow readers.  Or, more likely, they believe that Wikileaks is a US sponsored operation spreading purposeful disinformation.  Either way, the Pentagon's own people say that no-one has used the information within for military purposes.

I also think would be rather more blood on the Pentagon's hands, given they were offered a chance to edit the diaries to remove this information, but instead threw a temper tantrum and refused.  It looks like Wikileaks knew it was a mammoth task and went to them purposefully to avoid such a situation, and were turned away.  

The absolutely hilarious part about all this is that the US Pentagon is accusing someone else (a non-profit journalism group, no less) of having blood on it's hands.

[Iason Ouabache]

Every death from the Wikileak Iraq documents on one map:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/interactive/2010/oct/23/wikileaks-iraq-deaths-map

[Remington]

Every death from the Wikileak Iraq documents on one map:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/interactive/2010/oct/23/wikileaks-iraq-deaths-map

... damn.

[The Johnny]

It lists deaths as coalition, iraq, civiilan or enemy.

It also lists the cause of death.

[Triple Zero]

It lists deaths as coalition, iraq, civiilan or enemy.

It also lists the cause of death.

How do they determine "cause of death: Wikileaks" ?

[The Johnny]

It lists deaths as coalition, iraq, civiilan or enemy.

It also lists the cause of death.

How do they determine "cause of death: Wikileaks" ?

Well, thats just by process of elimination:

-Not dead by drones? Check
-Not dead by friendly fire? Check
-Not dead by air strike? Check
-Not a smudgy person? Check...