0 Votes
At least we know now.
Clearly, we need more Wikileaks, and it is good to see that the harsh treatment of Bradley Manning has not prevented other brave people with a conscience coming forward to tell us what we need to know.
Does anyone else share my distaste for these war fighting methods that do not involve any actual fighting? UAVs and cyber attacks may be effective, and safe for our troops, but it is hard to avoid the charge that they are cowardly and dishonourable.
At the very least we should tone down our rhetoric about our enemies being like that.
You Never Needed To Know by Anonymous
… the harsh treatment of Bradley Manning has not prevented other brave people with a conscience coming forward to tell us what we need to know.
You really don’t think it was leaked from the White House for political purposes, on the foothills of an election campaign where the democrat party typically needs to show their swing voters they’re “tough on defense” and have a backbone? If this was really us, its one of the greatest successes in non-violent action for achieving a goal … and should have been one of those that nobody ever knew. That party has always been weak in the defense area and touting successes like this and releasing the kill list are entirely political moves to show toughness. Both of which have weakened military processes by exposing techniques – especially the kill list which now lets insurgents know what steps of the approval process they can subvert to operate with impunity. These kinds of releases are orders of magnitude more damaging than Manning (not embarrassment wise but professionally with regards to ongoing operations and tactics) that the leaker should be put to death.
On that note, what’s the bravery in exposing it that you allude to? And why “do you need to know”? This was clearly a case of a positive accomplishment occuring – denying the Iranians nuclear weapons and preventing the Israelis from executing a preemptive military strike. This is the perfect case of that ironic statement where spooks get burned for making mistakes and never get credit for succeeding. But in this case, the campaign wants credit.
And before you go saying, Iran is doing this for peace … you don’t need centrifuges like that, let alone the sheer number of them, unless you’re weaponizing material. And read the article, think about how deep this software penetrated. You think they might know what Iran’s real intentions are whereas you only know what regular media reports?
… but it is hard to avoid the charge that they are cowardly and dishonourable.
So you’d prefer the military strike is what you’re saying? When the “perfect” military weapon was used to deny the enemy a capability with absolutely ZERO bloodshed and ZERO injury, you call it cowardly.
At the very least we should tone down our rhetoric about our enemies being like that.
I do agree with this. It was only last summer and fall that the White House released its guidance on operating in the cyber domain (I think the poster linked to those) where we declared this type of thing was considered a hostile and aggressive act. For the White House to turn around and say, “and we did it to you … booyah!” is absolutely bullshit.