war logs commentaries
Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
Pour ceux qui aiment ouvrir le robinet de l’information, il est question aujourd’hui du site Wikileaks.org , spécialisé dans la diffusion d’informations confidentielles et qui n’est pas trop du genre à se mouiller pour évoquer ses sources. Ses révélations, elles, en revanche sont connues et couvrent un large éventail de sujets allant de la liste des très britanniques et très nationalistes membres du British National Party en passant par les rituels d’une confrérie universitaire. Wikileaks s’est illustré plus tôt cette année en partageant une vidéo de guerre en Irak intitulée dommage collatéral, qui fut relayée y compris sur des chaînes télévisées de pays ne participant pas à ce conflit. Les fuites orchestrées par le site auraient pu nous laisser croire qu’il poussait le bouchon un peu loin, mais la diffusion au mois de juillet de 76 911 documents traitant de la guerre en Afghanistan a repoussé les limites de l’imagination.
Chroniques d’un pingouin ordinaire » Blog Archive » Qui veut trinquer avec Wikileaks ? 1/?
Leaked U.S. archive fuels doubts on Afghan war | Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration scrambled on Monday to manage the explosive leak of secret military records that paint a grim picture of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and raise new doubts about key ally Pakistan. The release of some 91,000 classified documents is likely to fuel uncertainty in the U.S. Congress about the unpopular war as President Barack Obama sends 30,000 more soldiers into the battle to break the Taliban insurgency. The documents, made public by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, detail allegations that U.S. forces sought to cover up civilian deaths as well as U.S. concern that Pakistan secretly aided Taliban militants even as it took billions of dollars in U.S. aid.2010 Afghan War documents leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Afghan War documents leak is the disclosure of a collection of internal U.S. military logs of the War in Afghanistan , also called the Afghan War Diary , which were published by Wikileaks on 25 July 2010. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] The logs consist of 91,731 documents, covering the period between January 2004 and December 2009. Most of the documents are classified Secret . [ 2 ] As of 28 July 2010, only 75,000 of the documents have been released to the public, a move which Wikileaks says is "part of a harm minimization process demanded by [the] source". [ 3 ] [ 4 ] Prior to releasing the initial 75,000 documents, Wikileaks made the logs available to The Guardian , [ 5 ] [ 6 ] The New York Times [ 7 ] and Der Spiegel in its German and English on-line edition [ 8 ] [ 9 ] which published reports per previous agreement on that same day, 25 July 2010. [ 10 ] [ 11 ]
The release of the Afghan War Diaries on Wikileaks, with stories published in The Guardian , the New York Times and Der Spiegel by agreement with Wikileaks, has made news around the world. Le Monde Diplomatique , in conjunction with Owni and Slate.fr, have also made the documents available online via a dedicated website . The security implications of the leaked material will be discussed for years to come. Meanwhile the release of over 90,000 documents has generated debate on the rising power of digital journalism and social media. Many of the discussions are rooted in what I call internet or digital myths — myths which are rooted in romantic, deterministic notions of technology.
Three digital myths - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
Raza Rumi The Wikileaks’ damning half-truths pertain to the anti-war movement within the US. This has caused embarrassment to the US war architects and stirred the military industrial complex and its cousin, the corporate and embedded media. Similarly, what has been said about the role of Pakistan and its globally famed Inter Services Agency (ISI) is not something that is really a revelation and is more or less an open secret. Three important questions need to be considered before Wikileaks can be taken seriously.
Some Pakistanese reactions
Leaking the war in Afghanistan
Going on the initial analysis of the information by the three newspapers given the material by Wikileaks ( The Guardian , The New York Times , Der Spiegel ), much of it seems pretty unremarkable. Mostly, the files seem to confirm what we already knew, or strongly suspected: the success of the Taliban improvised explosive device strategy, the fact that the coalition was killing lots of civilians by an over-reliance on airpower, the growing use of unmanned aerial vehicles, corruption in the Afghan government, Pakistan’s double-dealing in Afghanistan etc — all of this and more has been variously reported in the past. A notable exception is the information on man portable missile (MANPADS) attacks on coalition aircraft. This is evocative because it was the Afghan Mujahideen's use of such weapons in the 1980s that helped cripple the Soviet war effort in Afghanistan.
Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine. Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off".
WikiLeaks: Afghan war logs will get people killed
Longtime Afghanistan watchers are diving into Wikileaks’ huge trove of unearthed U.S. military reports about the war. And they’re surfacing, as we initially did , with pearls of the obvious and long-revealed. Andrew Exum, an Afghanistan veteran and Center for a New American Security fellow, compared the quasi-revelations about (gasp!) Pakistani intelligence sponsorship of Afghan insurgents and (shock-horror!) Special Operations manhunts to news that the Yankees may have lost the 2004 American League pennant.
Are the WikiLeaks War Docs Overhyped Old News? | Danger Room | Wired.com
I have a hair up my ass about Wikileaks, got it? The Guardian account is not quite true, perhaps a lot not true. 1. The Aghan files are digital not paper and they have not been authenticated. Wikileaks customarily provides digitally-hash authentications for its publications, this has not been done in this release. 2. No raw files have been published, all versions have been artfully packaged by their hosts, including Wikileaks, to fit the various purposes of the hosts. 3. The NY Times has published none of the file versions Wikileaks has published, instead has written substitute narratives for each file used.
Re: <nettime> Nick Davies: The story behind the Wikileaks Afghanistan Wa
What the Russian papers say | What Russian papers say | RIA Novosti
Russia is interested in the success of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, but does not fully approve of their actions, Vladimir Nazarov, deputy head of the Russian Security Council, said in the wake of a visit to Washington. During his visit, Nazarov held a series of meetings with Department of State and National Security Council officials, including U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke. Nazarov said Afghanistan was an important area of U.S.-Russian cooperation, adding that the U.S.-Russian military transit agreement was Russia's real contribution, political and financial, to Afghanistan's security. On the whole, Russia supports the U.S.