Stop trolling already pal...we ain't biting.

I am not "trolling" I am just stating my opinion on the matter, but good attempt in trying to shun me with the title of troll. If you do not like my opinion that doesn't mean I am trolling. Have a nice day, Pal. Exactly, if all you want to do is bitch and do nothing to be part of the solution then you should keep your opinion to yourself. As it is easy to pass a wrong judgement on a situation when you're on the outside looking in.

WikiLeaks cables: Live Q&A with Julian Assange

The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is online to answer guardian.co.uk readers' questions about the release of more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-julian-assange-online

wait, I'm confused. How are `supporting wiki leaks' and `doing nothing about it to change it but bitch' compatible? I got the impression that a lot of people support wiki leaks because they hope governments will stop acting like secretive jerks and stop committing crimes against humanity when they learn that secrets like that can come out. That's more than just bitching.

Also, corruption isn't unavoidable and omnipresent. That's a rather defeatist viewpoint. There exist quite a lot of perfectly fine and trustworthy people. Corruption is completely unacceptable and unnecessary, regardless of the fact that `those guys over there are even more corrupt!'.

Sure in a perfect world corruption doesn't exsist and communism would work. However the world obviously isn't perfect. Sitting on your ass and saying "yay wiki leaks you're awesome" is NOT ACTIVELY participating in the solution. Certain things have no place in our daily lives such as the marines firing on "innocents" video.

In that video several guys that are clearly armed, and no I'm not talking about the camera guys/reporters. Innocent people seems a little bit of a long shot. One of the guys in the vid has an RPG. As far as the reporters goes, wrong place, wrong time. They knew the dangers of the job, hanging out with armed guys could get you into trouble. Regrettable as it may be.

Watching the FULL version at 2:15-3:00 watching some of the guys in the background they are clearly carrying weapons, and one appears to be an RPG. What ever it is it's very long and heavy, as he rests it on the ground while still standing erect. At 2:34 is when one of the camera men pokes his head around the corner and appears to take a photo of the helo. If I didn't know ahead of time that was a camera I would easily mistake it for the business end of an RPG. (Which begs the question, he snaps a photo of the helo, realizing they're being watched, as the helo is circling, why didn't they drop all weapons at that point?) Watch it closely. They were definitely with armed men.

The Van situation though is shady at best. They were rendering aid, however, the pilots thought they were dealing with insurgents, should I let other insurgents (in helos' mindset) take off with their wounded comrades? Probably not.

And to account for the laughter ... have you ever killed anyone? It is quite a common defense mechanism that sane people have to the extreme stress of killing someone even if they are pointing a gun at you and trying to kill you. It is something not fun and it weighs on you greatly ... but then again you guys that judge the situation from a computer desk top than actually being out in the field obviously know all this because lets face it you've played time crisis and obviously know the difference between enemy combatants and civilians.

They are not clearly armed. This is just false. I watched that video 8 times and still-framed that guy peaking around the corner. I could not say that he had a russian made rpg. And whether or not they were armed (I would not go around any Iraqi city unarmed these days) there was no oversight before they were absolutely eradicated.

Furthermore, the "America, love it or leave it" attitude is so overplayed. My grandfather fought at Guadalcanal, and just last month I told him that the America that he fought for is dead, and political/corporate corruption and popular media killed it. He sadly agreed with me.

Dascryborg, you certainly have a lot of valid points and endangering ongoing missions would be really the worst that could come from WikiLeaks publications. I don't want that and I guess nobody else too. The thing is: we want the truth. We want to know everything our government does, all the dirty details, not immediately because of potential compromising security, but also not too long after. I think, much more details of the wars or genocides or whatever is going on should be shown. Its not only a right but maybe even kind of duty to show it in public. After all, the american people, the ones sitting behind the desks, are sending their sons out there on the missions which hopefully have a meaning. They should know the truth, everybody should know it. I know I have problems looking at dead bodies so I would probably avoid it, but I also know its important not to avoid thinking about the wars totally.

A lot of things go wrong in the world, a lot of things are not decided democratically or in public. A german citizen was shoot by an unmaned US airplane in Pakistan. He might have been a terrorist or only been mistaken for one. Anyway, Pakistan is a dangerous area, I wouldn't travel there. From the cables I learnt, that the US and the german government basically agreed to act the fool in order to not face problems with this incident. You can say, its only one life, but still not right.

I would prefer if the democratic states in the world would risk being more open about these things. A legal framwork with protection from compromising ongoing missions or prevention of uncovering people would be much better than WikiLeaks. However this is not going to happen in the next 20 years - I guess.

So I think that WikiLeaks does good too and maybe more good than bad. It tells people more about the truth than official sources. It can decrease corruption. On a smaller scale, whistleblower protection is an element of the legal system.

The publication of the cables could result in more states taking the threat of Iran with nuclear weapons, of Russia or Pakistan with political instability or of North Korea seriously. Because, if you ask me, normally Europe is used to let the US do the dirty work while playing the upholder of moral standards. Sounds wrong and is wrong. On the other hand, defending american politics and secret services practices from the last 10 years, would probably require some optimimism, its just very unlikely that everything went nice. The proof that Sadam has WMDs that Colin Powell once presented to the whole world, this proof proved wrong - a trick or just bad luck - and if it was a trick, whom do you trust if you can't trust your elected leaders? Well, you turn to NGOs like WikiLeaks.

So, its a complex world, and its difficult to say whats right, but if in doubt I think I go for maximum truth.

And I understand if you're angry that your job now might be more difficult. Take care.

I have mixed opinions about Wikileaks. On one hand you have increased government accountability, and on the other hand you have the horribly, horribly biased video they put out a few months ago of the helicopter(?) (I always forget whether it's a plane or helicopter, with all that trash at the beginning designed to invoke an emotional response and the cues designed for people to see an ambiguous video in the way most beneficial to wikileaks.

It was sensationalist at its core and it annoyed me. The most recent releases appear to have been less biased, so it looks like they've been taking it in the right direction.

Everyone wants the Truth but I spent a year over there and came back with PTSD. I can tell you even the "blood thirsty" are mostly blowing smoke out of their ass ... The Truth is perception is off I worked at the least 12-16 hours a day sometimes I forgot how to do my job even though I was extremely proficient at that job. Ever been out on a convoy in the middle of an area where anyone could be the one gunning for your life? I have, its something that can make you quite paranoid let alone seeing someone with a RPG or something that is strikingly familiar that can take out your vehicle. They may not have been aiming it at them but the dumbass hiding around a corner aiming a tube like object at you, keep in mind they just saw an iraqi with an RPG ...

@Billt so at the 50 second mark to this film there aren't armed men, and one doesn't look like he has a long tube like object quite similarly remarkable to an RPG? Then you see someone look around around a corner with a black tube like thing sticking out then aims it at you yes that is a justified shooting to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llf-GvaH3iw
there watch it again and this time pay attention or put your glasses on.

And the part of that video that is never talked about is this...why were those guys peeking around the corner? Because a US convoy was coming down that road towards them.

So now you have guys carrying gear that may or may not be weapons peeking around a corner at an approaching convoy. It's horrible that these guys were killed and were't militants, but that IS a situation where (in my opinion) it is okay to fire under those circumstances.

First, this is about cablegate and not about the video.
Second, the video and any interpretation of it, has been talked to death and back - and I won't contribute to it anymore.
Third and finally - as much as some might see certain actions as "justified" and every time someone tries to explain why (not just said video, every example from a soldier point of view), I get that sour taste in my mouth. Because every time up to now, that person failed to take the opposite point of view into consideration - that of the victims.

Not that your take on it is wrong. With every example given, those guys probably did as best as they could and had valid reasons to do it exactly that way. But that is just one side of the coin and frankly, sounds just like another political puppet spreading propaganda.
What Wikileaks at least tried to show, was the other side. If they did it in a good way or not, or if a different approach would have been better, is debatable. But who involved in this war, either directly, indirectly or not at all, can claim that he did everything right and therefor should be allowed to throw that stone?

I failed to fulfill my moral duty as a human being and instead I chose to fulfill my duty as a soldier.
[url=http://www.kt70.com/~jamesjpn/articles/Camilo_Mejia_testimonial.html]Conscientious objector Camilo Mejia[/url]

So you're just assuming anyone who sees the actions as justified ISN'T considering the other side of things? I think that's a pretty narrow minded conclusion to come to. I would suspect most people (myself definitely included) DID look at it from every side and still came to the conclusion that we did.

And yet we apparently are propaganda spreading puppets...yeah, certainly sounds like you're the one coming at this from a rational state of mind throwing out laughable nonsense like that.

Look, I didn't intended to put off anyone as a propaganda puppet. However the line between a rational, but one sided take and a propaganda speech coming from an official office, is blurry at best.

No, I'm not assuming. I haven't seen ONE example given from a soldier point of view that crossed the line of "regrettable losses" and pointed out, what the victims on the other side should have been doing differently, to not becoming a target at all.

I fully agree with you that wikileaks is a rather blunt instrument. But wikileaks is a symptom, not the disease.

Of course certain things should not have been released to the public just like that. Some things can not be properly interpreted by people without the relevant experiences (like some aspects of the specific combat situation you're describing). However, some other things are hard to properly evaluate when you're (directly or indirectly) part of them. Things can go systematically and unnecessarily wrong just because no one from outside ever says `guys, perhaps this isn't the best way'. Some form of debate between the two viewpoints (inside-outside) is a very desirable thing.

Things should not be stamped `secret' because the public might misinterpret them (this seems to be what you're worried about, and it is a relevant worry). They should be provided to outsiders under guidance and *motivated* censorship. This prevents disasters such as those caused by wikileaks (a lot of the released `secrets' would have been a lot less damaging if they hadn't been labeled secrets in the first place), but it also provides a safeguard to the excesses/systematic mistakes that often arise when people are allowed to act `unobserved'.

Anyway, as I said, what wikileaks is doing isn't pretty, but it's the fever in reaction to a disease of secrecy. It might even do more damage than good in the end, but you shouldn't just focus on lowering the fever, you want to take care of the cause as well. Otherwise we'll die just the same.

Most things they release I don't care about them releasing it. However if you live in the USA and you slander it and say this country fucking sucks then by all means you can move to another country (not saying you said that, just saying in general) as I do not wish to be fighting for said persons rights and freedoms especially if they sit here and make biased fucking judgments yet they have no experience in that situation what so fucking ever.

The NFL wouldn't let me be a REF in one of their games why? Because I WOULDN'T KNOW WTF I AM TALKING ABOUT ...

My biggest beef with wikileaks is that too many dumb/ignorant people look at it and form uneducated guesses on what the other dumb and ignorants are saying.