Support NeoGAF

[Mudkips]

90 children dying doesn't affect you, but VTech had everyone in tears. Media slaves, eh.

Who is everyone?

 

[Trurl]

90 children dying doesn't affect you, but VTech had everyone in tears. Media slaves, eh.

Media attention, especially from television, seems to add an ontological weight to any topic it covers.

 

[WanderingWind]

So you've just decided that Wikileaks is some money-making machine based on nothing? Here's a source you might accept: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/06/whistleblower-web-site-remains-dark/

I don't know what on earth makes you think running a leaks site that doesn't even advertise rakes in the cash. It doesn't. Public interest work isn't profitable, that's why businesses don't do it.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks#Staff_and_funding

So, their policy of withholding information is done for what reason? Save to allow a slow trickle that allows them to keep fresh in donators minds, there isn't a single plausible one they've offered, or that I can think of. If they were as altruistic as some seem to think, they wouldn't be dripping this information out, or teasing every release in the manner of a coming attractions trailer. They'd just release it.

That is the basis for my comment about them much closer to the old media of which many are so distrustful. I'm not against them releasing the information people give them. I'm against being used in an informational war between two ideologies whom I'm fairly certain do not care if we are informed at all.

And I had a nice laugh at you posting a Fox News link when I refused to accept a source that read like an angry college student's home-printed manifesto. Same coin, different sides.

 

[Walshicus]

So, their policy of withholding information is done for what reason? Save to allow a slow trickle that allows them to keep fresh in donators minds, there isn't a single plausible one they've offered

I rather think ensuring the security [and accuracy] of their sources is reason enough, and frankly so obvious it's baffling that you wouldn't have understood that.

 

[RiskyChris]

Not only the security of their sources, but a reasonable level of security involved for the people involved with the information about to be released. Assange had people on the ground in Iraq investigating what happened after that horrible apache massacre.

Still, even if they withheld shit. Who gives a fuck. It's an honorable organization doing a lot of good for the world.

 

[WanderingWind]

I rather think ensuring the security [and accuracy] of their sources is reason enough, and frankly so obvious it's baffling that you wouldn't have understood that.

That would make sense if they weren't leaking bit by bit from the large database they've already used. The source has been verified, several times over.

But maybe you're right. Maybe they're just out to inform the public about all the EARTH SHATTERING and HISTORY MAKING STUFF! Stay tuned and don't forget to donate, or else we won't have the money to tell you what we know!

And an honorable organization? Not if they're purposely withholding information.

 

[RiskyChris]

And an honorable organization? Not if they're purposely withholding information.

Seriously who gives a shit when the end product is a lot of shit that comes out that wouldn't have without them.

 

[Twig]

I think you need to calm the hell down.

But it's so much fun! Why would you deny me fun?

What kind of asshole are you?

 

[empty vessel]

So, their policy of withholding information is done for what reason?

What policy of withholding information?

 

[RiskyChris]

What policy of withholding information?

Let me present exhibit A!

*holds up a fucking tweet*

 

[WanderingWind]

What policy of withholding information?

"Right now, we're sitting on history making stuff."

In May, PFC Bradley Manning, a former intelligence analyst in Iraq, was arrested on charges of leaking the video and other documents to Wikileaks, after confiding in former hacker Adrian Lamo, who turned him in.

While publishing classified documents isn’t a crime in the U.S., press reports indicate the government is concerned that Wikileaks will publish tens of thousands of sensitive State Department cables that Manning purportedly also provided Wikileaks. In chats with Lamo, Manning claimed to have given Wikileaks a database of 260,000 cables; Manning has been formally charged with downloading over 150,000 cables, and leaking more than 50 classified cables.

They now deny ever getting those cables. However, Manning was already caught and lying to inflate the number makes zero sense. They have those files.

July 1

Despite a surge in mostly laudatory media portraying Wikileaks as a fearless, unstoppable outlet for documents that embarrass corporations and overbearing governments, the site has published only 12 documents since the beginning of the year, the last one four months ago.

They have information they're not releasing...that is until they drum up enough interest from the media they claim to hate to make them relevant to donators. I suppose the less cynical person may say they're waiting to release materials to gather more exposure, but I just don't believe in the altruistic nobility of a person who made his name from illegal activity, and then edits footage to his liking before releasing under the movie-ready "Collateral Murder" moniker.

 

[RiskyChris]

Oh great, the "he edited it" jab.

 

[WanderingWind]

Oh great, the "he edited it" jab.

...but he did? You don't see a problem with one guy editing footage to maximize outrage? His opinion of how footage appears should not be the deciding factor in what the truth is. That's no longer informing the public, as he claims to want to do, that's attempting to manipulate and influence the public. One is a great cause, the other is the sort of garbage reporting and lack of accountability that ruined old media for our generations.

 

[empty vessel]

"Right now, we're sitting on history making stuff."

That's just a way to say that they possess it, not that they have a policy of withholding it. You seem to be mistaking the difficulty of publishing sensitive (and possibly voluminous) information without paid employees or a budget to speak of for a policy of withholding information. You haven't provided anything but your own supposition, apparently borne of a general dislike for former hackers and discontent with their release of the apache helicopter attack on Iraqi civilians. You're entitled to your assumptions, of course, but not to assert them as if they are established fact. For my part, I don't see any evidence supporting your assumptions.

...but he did? You don't see a problem with one guy editing footage to maximize outrage? His opinion of how footage appears should not be the deciding factor in what the truth is. That's no longer informing the public, as he claims to want to do, that's attempting to manipulate and influence the public. One is a great cause, the other is the sort of garbage reporting and lack of accountability that ruined old media for our generations.

Wikileaks edited it by clarifying it. The footage was not edited manipulatively, and the original full version was published right alongside it. (And, no, I don't see anything wrong with providing context when such footage is released. If governments are too cowardly to release information their publics have a right to, then it falls on those whose hands the information ultimately falls into to publish it in whatever context they view it, provided it is accurate. I'm not aware of anybody demonstrating that the context provided by Wikileaks for the apache helicopter attack was in any way inaccurate.)

 

[RiskyChris]

...but he did? You don't see a problem with one guy editing footage to maximize outrage? His opinion of how footage appears should not be the deciding factor in what the truth is. That's no longer informing the public, as he claims to want to do, that's attempting to manipulate and influence the public. One is a great cause, the other is the sort of garbage reporting and lack of accountability that ruined old media for our generations.

Care to elaborate on key facts left out of the edited video? People get shown edited footage all the time in media, as long as the original message remains untainted I got no qualms.

Plus, the original video was available just the same for scrutiny.

That's just a way to say that they possess it, not that they have a policy of withholding it. You seem to be mistaking the difficulty of publishing sensitive (and possibly voluminous) information without paid employees or a budget to speak of for a policy of withholding information. You haven't provided anything but your own supposition, apparently borne of a general dislike for former hackers and discontent with their release of the apache helicopter attack on Iraqi civilians. You're entitled to your assumptions, of course, but not to assert them as if they are established fact. For my part, I don't see any evidence supporting your assumptions.

A good post.

 

[theignoramus]

...but he did? You don't see a problem with one guy editing footage to maximize outrage? His opinion of how footage appears should not be the deciding factor in what the truth is. That's no longer informing the public, as he claims to want to do, that's attempting to manipulate and influence the public. One is a great cause, the other is the sort of garbage reporting and lack of accountability that ruined old media for our generations.

I think you're full of crap. They released a 40 minute uncut version.
but about "manipulating and influencing public opinion": where was your outrage when CNN (and other networks) deliberately sanitized Iraq War footage so as to make it more "tasteful" (CNN anchor's words, not mine) for American audiences? That's a type of manipulation too.

 

[Osietra]

Risky Chris, you post like you have a weird agenda.

Where are you from?

nvm

 

[WanderingWind]

That's just a way to say that they possess it, not that they have a policy of withholding it. You seem to be mistaking the difficulty of publishing sensitive (and possibly voluminous) information without paid employees or a budget to speak of for a policy of withholding information. You haven't provided anything but your own supposition, apparently borne of a general dislike for former hackers and discontent with their release of the apache helicopter attack on Iraqi civilians. You're entitled to your assumptions, of course, but not to assert them as if they are established fact. For my part, I don't see any evidence supporting your assumptions.

And you're entitled to your assumptions, as well. There is nothing at all I've ever posted to suggest I'm upset they released the Apache video. Nothing. That's a blatant strawman, and frankly, I thought you above such cheap tricks. I've very clearly stated that he should have released the information as it was.

As to the difficulty of releasing information? It takes far more effort to edit, recut and add in handy outrage indicators than it does to release the video as is. That argument is entirely without merit.

And I don't dislike hackers. I'm just not naive to believe somebody who used to steal information for profit is now a noble force for justice, just because he says so. I'm not even against him, actually. He's just shown me nothing that suggests this mindset, and the people who are willing to swallow anything just because it's borne under the guise of the public good...well, the dangers in that should be apparent.

I'm viewing the WikiLeaks site as a glass is half-empty, not as the glass is broken beyond repair. I'm not a politician on record, so I reserve the right to change my mind if Assange shows me something more than words and promises of his motives.

I think you're full of crap. They released a 40 minute uncut version.
but about "manipulating and influencing public opinion": where was your outrage when CNN (and other networks) deliberately sanitized Iraq War footage so as to make it more "tasteful" (CNN anchor's words, not mine) for American audiences? That's a type of manipulation too.

Thanks for your input, shithead. They released the uncut version days afterward. "Where was my outrage sanitized Iraq War footage?" Are you fucking retarded? Are you bereft of common fucking sense that you can't understand that somebody can be against all types of media manipulation? It's not an either or situation, bud. I'm actually embarrassed for you right now.

Wikileaks edited it by clarifying it. The footage was not edited manipulatively, and the original full version was published right alongside it. (And, no, I don't see anything wrong with providing context when such footage is released. If governments are too cowardly to release information their publics have a right to, then it falls on those whose hands the information ultimately falls into to publish it in whatever context they view it, provided it is accurate. I'm not aware of anybody demonstrating that the context provided by Wikileaks for the apache helicopter attack was in any way inaccurate.)

They certainly did edit in a manipulative image. Adding arrows and red circles to point out things people should be outraged about is the definition of manipulation.

That's the only part of your discussion that is even closely relevant to what I posted. The rest is a nice soliloquy that makes it appear that, once again, you think I'm against the leak in and of itself. Let me reiterate. I am not.

 

[RiskyChris]

Risky Chris, you post like you have a weird agenda.

Where are you from?

nvm

I have this strange agenda called humanitarianism.

And to WW, oh lord days later! Yikes! That's like, totally the same as media outlets editing and not releasing unedited Iraqi videos!

Edit: Haha wow, arrows to clarify what's going on is manipulation. You are insane.

WHAT WAS MISLEADING ABOUT WIKILEAK'S VIDEO

Edit2: I'm going to go fruitlessly try to install Ultima VII. I'll await your non-emotional reply about what exactly was bad about the "video manipulation." Your little diatribe about "manipulation is bad, man!" is NOT a valid argument. Tell us what you think wikileaks did specifically wrong.

 

[theignoramus]

Thanks for your input, shithead. They released the uncut version days afterward. "Where was my outrage sanitized Iraq War footage?" Are you fucking retarded? Are you bereft of common fucking sense that you can't understand that somebody can be against all types of media manipulation? It's not an either or situation, bud. I'm actually embarrassed for you right now.

Totally false. The uncut version appeared a few hours after the edited version. The 17 minute version and 38 minute version were both posted on youtube on April 3. Get your facts straight.
Concerning the rest of your outburst: I wasnt saying it was either or situation, I was just doubting that you raised so much as a peep about the far more serious manipulation on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[WanderingWind]

I have this strange agenda called humanitarianism.

And to WW, oh lord days later! Yikes! That's like, totally the same as media outlets editing and not releasing unedited Iraqi videos!

Edit: Haha wow, arrows to clarify what's going on is manipulation. You are insane.

WHAT WAS MISLEADING ABOUT WIKILEAK'S VIDEO

You keep constructing this argument. I cannot make it clearer than this. You can be against manipulation by WikiLeaks and CNN at the same time. Okay? Just because I want what they promise - full, honest disclosure - does not mean I support CNN or MSNBC or Fox manipulating their releases. Why the fuck is this a hard concept to grasp?

The edited video removed all scenes of the men who were carrying weapons that the cameramen were embedded with. That is incredibly misleading.

Just to nip this one in the bud, the military was extremely wrong in covering these videos up. People should be in jail (or worse) for that. Period.

Edit2: I'm going to go fruitlessly try to install Ultima VII. I'll await your non-emotional reply about what exactly was bad about the "video manipulation." Your little diatribe about "manipulation is bad, man!" is NOT a valid argument. Tell us what you think wikileaks did specifically wrong.

Ultima VII will break your heart. All hype.

"Non-emotional reply?" I can't even begin to guess what that is supposed to imply.

Your not liking an argument does not make it invalid. You're simply not that important. I have told you several times what I find wrong about their practices regarding that one release. I do claim ignorance on their other releases, so maybe they're different.

 

[empty vessel]

The edited video removed all scenes of the men who were carrying weapons that the cameramen were embedded with. That is incredibly misleading.

I'm not sure where you heard this, but I don't think it's true.

 

[RiskyChris]

The edited video removed all scenes of the men who were carrying weapons that the cameramen were embedded with. That is incredibly misleading.

This is an argument, not "manipulation is inherently bad, check these arrows."

Though, I'm calling for source. It's also not misleading when you consider what the attack was authorized upon.

 

[panda21]

Though, I'm calling for source. It's also not misleading when you consider what the attack was authorized upon.

?

 

[Insayne]

I'm late to the party and while I don't want to derail the arguing here, has wikileaks yet revealed what the history making news are?

 

[Twig]

I thought they had and it was "nothing" but apparently they haven't!

blah blah bullshit

If this information was released all willy nilly, it could potentially harm parties involved, even if they weren't necessarily directly involved in whatever HAPPENED or however Wikileaks got the information.

Wikileaks makes it a habit of at least warning said people, though I think it's also not big on that dude's priority list. "Some innocents are bound to get hurt in the quest for truth!" or some equivalent, I dunno.

THAT is why they sit on information. Not to build hype or "manipulate" (lol) or whatever the fuck.

Grow a brain, Gary.

All that said, they've been sitting on this info for quite a long time, so one is left wondering what the fuck, dudes.

 

[elrechazado]

This is an argument, not "manipulation is inherently bad, check these arrows."

Though, I'm calling for source. It's also not misleading when you consider what the attack was authorized upon.

Was it an attack on an iraqi insurgent trannying camp?

 

[RiskyChris]

Was it an attack on an iraqi insurgent trannying camp?

We gonna pull the same "ironic" transphobic jokes now that people did (only sexist) after I posted a lot of feminist stuff?

 

[Monocle]

We gonna pull the same "ironic" transphobic jokes now that people did (only sexist) after I posted a lot of feminist stuff?

Don't bring that subject into this thread. Please.

 

[RiskyChris]

Don't bring that subject into this thread. Please.

Quote... the instigator...

._.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

So... where is my history-making stuff?

 

[Dkong]

I haven't read the whole thread, just that last discussion that has been going on here, but I want to ask you guys something about the withholding of information. Surely for a skeptical mind (and you're entitled to in this world) it might seem as part of a strategy to rake in donations, but have facts been posted that support that view? I remember from an interview with Assange that they have a policy of only releasing information (so there's your policy) that will not pose a direct threat to a persons life or to a country's national security.

 

[Alex Dee]

Can't say I'd ever visited the site before this thread, but now I'm still eagerly awaiting whatever the leak is.

 

[Twig]

I haven't read the whole thread, just that last discussion that has been going on here, but I want to ask you guys something about the withholding of information. Surely for a skeptical mind (and you're entitled to in this world) it might seem as part of a strategy to rake in donations, but have facts been posted that support that view? I remember from an interview with Assange that they have a policy of only releasing information (so there's your policy) that will not pose a direct threat to a persons life or to a country's national security.

I remember the opposite. That they will release no matter what, but they have a policy of Letting People Know first.

I guess it's probably a combination of both.

 

[Dkong]

Could be something like that too, I don't even know what interview I saw anymore so whatever. They're both better explanations for delaying the release of information than making money though, so my point was just to ask if there's a reason to believe otherwise.

 

[WanderingWind]

I thought they had and it was "nothing" but apparently they haven't!

If this information was released all willy nilly, it could potentially harm parties involved, even if they weren't necessarily directly involved in whatever HAPPENED or however Wikileaks got the information.

Wikileaks makes it a habit of at least warning said people, though I think it's also not big on that dude's priority list. "Some innocents are bound to get hurt in the quest for truth!" or some equivalent, I dunno.

THAT is why they sit on information. Not to build hype or "manipulate" (lol) or whatever the fuck.

Grow a brain, Gary.

All that said, they've been sitting on this info for quite a long time, so one is left wondering what the fuck, dudes.

What a load of gibberish - is English your native tongue? I can barely discern what it is you're trying to say, since you speak in what I assume are movie catchphrases and circular logic that buries what little point you have.

You think they do, in fact, sit on information. But then you offer up this fantastic nugget of wisdom. "All that said, they've been sitting on this info for quite a long time, so one is wondering what the fuck, dudes[?]"

So, then you admit they're holding information for too long, but you assign a noble effort to why that is. But wait. You then go on to say " though I think it's also not big on that dude's priority list." So, then you agree he's not sitting on the information in order to provide protection for anybody.

So, what motives are left? Absolute altruism and personal gain. It's absolutely fine if you want to believe in the crook with a heart of gold theory. I may find you a bit naive, but hey, that's your prerogative. I personally don't believe it.

And again, for the angrier members of this discussion, I am not against the actual spreading of information. I simply want it done in the most direct, honest method available.

As I was thinking this one over, I'm even willing to wait and see what this "new" piece of information is. With the sensationalist packaging of "Collateral Murder" they may have felt they needed exposure. Well, they have it now. WikiLeaks is now a household name. Now they have zero reason to edit, open up subsidiary sites, or change the information in any way. They can just release it, and let the world know they've done so.

We'll see.

 

[Twig]

What a load of gibberish - is English your native tongue? I can barely discern what it is you're trying to say, since you speak in what I assume are movie catchphrases and circular logic that buries what little point you have.

You think they do, in fact, sit on information. But then you offer up this fantastic nugget of wisdom. "All that said, they've been sitting on this info for quite a long time, so one is wondering what the fuck, dudes[?]"

So, then you admit they're holding information for too long, but you assign a noble effort to why that is. But wait. You then go on to say " though I think it's also not big on that dude's priority list." So, then you agree he's not sitting on the information in order to provide protection for anybody.

So, what motives are left? Absolute altruism and personal gain. It's absolutely fine if you want to believe in the crook with a heart of gold theory. I may find you a bit naive, but hey, that's your prerogative. I personally don't believe it.

And again, for the angrier members of this discussion, I am not against the actual spreading of information. I simply want it done in the most direct, honest method available.

As I was thinking this one over, I'm even willing to wait and see what this "new" piece of information is. With the sensationalist packaging of "Collateral Murder" they may have felt they needed exposure. Well, they have it now. WikiLeaks is now a household name. Now they have zero reason to edit, open up subsidiary sites, or change the information in any way. They can just release it, and let the world know they've done so.

We'll see.

lol

That last line was me agreeing with you that something feels weird.

Last time anyone does that for you, I guess.

P.S. If you truly can't discern what I'm trying to say, I question your intelligence. It's not difficult. I can only conclude that you are actually brainless.

Here's a hint: I sit somewhere in the middle. The world isn't all black and white, even if it seems that way in your empty little head.

 

[broadwayrock]

Afghanistan war logs have been leaked:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/afghanistan-the-war-logs

Video interview with Julian Assange explaining the logs here

The Guardian seems to have gone really big on this story.

 

[Solaros]

Afghanistan war logs have been leaked:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/afghanistan-the-war-logs

Video interview with Julian Assange explaining the logs here

The Guardian seems to have gone really big on this story.

Twitter is on fire with this news.

I wonder how the US Government is going to respond.

 

[Zenith]

whilst there is nothing revelatory in those files, what it does is add detail and hard evidence to all the vague things we have known about for ages. Cover ups of shootings & air strikes, the disregard for civilian life, and most crucially, death squads:

The plan was to launch five rockets at targets in the village of Nangar Khel where TF 373 believed Libi was hiding and then to send in ground troops. The result was that they failed to find Libi but killed six Taliban fighters and then, when they approached the rubble of a madrasa, they found "initial assessment of 7 x NC KIA" which translates as seven non-combatants killed in action. All of them were children. One of them was still alive in the rubble: "The Med TM immediately cleared debris from the mouth and performed CPR." After 20 minutes, the child died.

Children

The coalition made a press statement which owned up to the death of the children and claimed that troops "had surveillance on the compound all day and saw no indications there were children inside the building". That claim is consistent with the leaked log. A press release also claimed that Taliban fighters, who undoubtedly were in the compound, had used the children as a shield.

The log refers to an unnamed "elder" who is said to have "stated that the children were held against their will" but, against that, there is no suggestion that there were any Taliban in the madrasa where the children died.

The rest of the press release was certainly misleading. It suggested that coalition forces had attacked the compound because of "nefarious activity" there, when the reality was that they had gone there to kill or capture Libi.

It made no mention at all of Libi, nor of the failure of the mission (although that was revealed later by NBC News in the United States). Crucially, it failed to record that TF 373 had fired five rockets, destroying the madrasa and other buildings and killing seven children, before anybody had fired on them – that this looked like a mission to kill and not to capture. Indeed, this was clearly deliberately suppressed.

The internal report was marked not only "secret" but also "Noforn", ie not to be shared with the foreign elements of the coalition. And the source of this anxiety is explicit: "The knowledge that TF 373 conducted a HIMARS strike must be protected." And it was. This crucial fact remained secret, as did TF 373's involvement.

The Taliban appear to have retreated by the time TF 373 called in air support to drop 500lb bombs on the house from which the fighters had been firing.

The final outcome, listed tersely at the end of the leaked log: 12 US wounded, two teenage girls and a 10-year-old boy wounded, one girl killed, one woman killed, four civilian men killed, one donkey killed, one dog killed, several chickens killed, no enemy killed, no enemy wounded, no enemy detained.

The coalition put out a statement claiming falsely to have killed several militants and making no mention of any dead civilians; and later added that "several non-combatants were found dead and several others wounded" without giving any numbers or details.

This time, the political teams tried a far less conciliatory approach with local people. In spite of discovering that the dead civilians came from one family, one of whom had been found with his hands tied behind his back, suggesting that the Taliban were unwelcome intruders in their home, senior officials travelled to the stricken village where they "stressed that the fault of the deaths of the innocent lies on the villagers who did not resist the insurgents and their anti-government activities … [and] chastised a villager who condemned the compound shooting".

 

[mAcOdIn]

I'm not sure where you heard this, but I don't think it's true.

It isn't true, I watched the first edited video when it was released, and while wikileaks made no mention that they were armed on their youtube video and their youtube page was heavily biased against the US military, the original video had more than enough for people to look at and make up their own minds.

I think we all had this discussion, the first attack many considered to be ok(I don't think anyone likes seeing people get killed but they were armed), shooting the van and then blowing up the building afterwards without knowing who was in that van or if any civilians were in that building was definitely bad. So, yes, Wikileaks sensationalized the story somewhat as there was some justification for the very first attack but the video released was still sufficient enough for all to make their own judgments and, in all honesty, even if the initial attack was justified Wikileaks' bias was more right than wrong as what happened after that was totally unacceptable.

I feel that focusing on the very first attacks of the armed men on the ground to be a dishonest attempt to marginalize everything that occurred after, it's similar to saying that a cop that pulled someone over for expired registration and then goes on to kill everyone in a 500 foot radius was fine because, hey, the registration was expired. It's irrelevant. Why people are hung up one that one group, I don't know, I guess because that's where the journalist was but I don't see why it matters. All three attacks(I'm separating them instead of referring to it all as a single operation) are each different instances to be judged in their own right, one being valid doesn't validate them all any more than one being wrong make them all wrong.

 

[firehawk12]

Man, this leak is massive, although not quiet unexpected.

 

[akachan ningen]

Twitter is on fire with this news.

I wonder how the US Government is going to respond.

They said wikileaks is totally biased and you shouldn't believe anything they say. And even though they say that, they also say the leaks are 'irresponsible.' :lol

 

[NotWii]

Julian Assange <3

 

[NotWii]

Pentagon: WikiLeaks release threatens U.S. relations with allies

The Pentagon is warning members of Congress that U.S. relations with its allies could be damaged if the whistle-blower group, WikiLeaks, carries out its plan to publish more classified records on the internet.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/24/wikileaks.release/


WikiLeaks says next release will be 7 times larger than Iraq war logs

WikiLeaks' says its next document dump will seven-times larger than the Iraq war logs.

Earlier today on Twitter the site said there has been "intense pressure over it for months."

Later, WikiLeaks tweeted, "The coming months will see a new world, where global history is redefined."

Last month the site released more than 391,000 reports on the Iraq war and occupation from January 2004 through December 2009. It called the Iraq War Logs "the largest classified military leak in history." The site has also released classified documents on the Afghanistan war.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...e-will-be-7-times-larger-than-iraq-war-logs/1

SO JUICY

 

[chase]

Maybe they shouldn't have done stuff that would endanger their relationship with their allies.

Just a thought.

 

[Jenga]

$5 it won't redefine history

 

[speedpop]

Cool.

 

[threenote]

More hyperbole.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Why do they overhype this stuff? I don't think the Iraq and Afghanistan documents changed anything major, and their next release probably won't either.