Interested in what the US Goverment doesn't want you to know? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Pacifier · 05-02-2005, 01:06 PM

Here is the official US Reoprt about the Calipari/Sgrena incident:

http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/ra...sacalipari.pdf

parts of it are censored, but who ever did this wasn't very clever. it is easy to "un-censor" it:

http://download.repubblica.it/doc/omissis.doc

Part of the report deal with the current situation in Iraq, that is info the the Goverment don't want to be public. They want you to know in whant kind of situation the soldiers are.
Among the censored parts is the number of insurgent attacks between 1. November 2004 - 12. March .2005 (3.306, 2.400 against coalition troops)

apparently the info that the route taken by the italians is the only route to the airport is also not important for the public.

Also "not important" is the fact that the communication to the control point was interruted....

Quote:

The 1-76 TOC had two means of communicating with 4th Brigade, its higher headquarters: Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) and FM. The 1-76 FA Battle Captain was using only VOIP to communicate with 1-69 IN, but experienced problems with VOIP, therefore losing its only communication link with 1-69 IN, other than going through 4th Brigade. (Annex 97C). As a result, the Battle Captain was unable to pass updated information about the blocking mission either directly to 1-69 IN, or to 4th Brigade. He did not attempt to contact 4th Brigade via FM communications. (Annex 63C). Fourth Brigade, in turn, could not pass updated information to its major command, 3ID. (Annex 57C). Likewise, 3ID had no new information to pass to its subordinate command, 2/10 MTN. Finally, 2/10 MTN was thus unable to pass updated information to its subordinate command, 1-69 IN. (Annexes 51C, 52C).

What do you think? is the censorship adequate, excessive or inadequate? Would you like to be more informed?

Seaver · 05-02-2005, 07:22 PM

Forgive me for agreeing with government censorship... but what need do you have that you want information that could lead to soldiers losing their lives if available to the enemy?

Unfortunately computer literacy isnt exactly high for the ground pounders (foot soldiers) and allows lapses in security like this. But as for the blacking out of the report, it doesn't prevent you from knowing what's going on. Hell, just do a search, lots of soldiers have blogs that detail their lives (though they're being cracked down on as a security problem... as they should be).

liquidlight · 05-02-2005, 07:32 PM

I'm going to have to agree with Seaver. . . my desire to know this is much less than my need to support the people risking their lives in Iraq and being put in harms way but people that needed to "know the truth."

I have friends that don't even know where their spouses are or what they're doing because of the security need, the last thing that I want to think about is who might be hurt because I went looking for the wrong kind of information due to some narciscistic need to feel included.

Information like telling the isurgents that the only available route to the airport is the one that they attacked on 03/04 so that now they can focus on that route and injure or kill more people. I'm sorry but this is selfish and none of my damned business.

Manx · 05-02-2005, 08:16 PM

I suppose I should say something about military censorship... but I'm still trying to quiet my cynical laughter that the military gets to investigate itself.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-02-2005, 08:56 PM

Yeah maybe we should have the UN do it

Pacifier · 05-02-2005, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Forgive me for agreeing with government censorship...

I agree with some parts too, the fact that the names of the soldiers who where involved in the incident are now known is certainly not a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

but what need do you have that you want information that could lead to soldiers losing their lives if available to the enemy?

How could the information how many attacks there are in a certain period of time (for example) lead to soldiers losing their lives?

I haven't read the whole uncersored document, but it seems that parts of it were censored that are just a closer description of the situation in iraq. something "the enemy" surely already knows

scout · 05-03-2005, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

I haven't read the whole uncersored document, but it seems that parts of it were censored that are just a closer description of the situation in iraq. something "the enemy" surely already knows

What business is this of yours? Do you vote in any elections here in United States? Are you living in a country that has anything at stake in Iraq? Was your country involved in this unfortunate accident? What right do you have to further endanger the lives of US soldiers, innocent Iraqis or anyone else involved in Iraq?

This is anything personal but I'm sick to death of people running their fricken mouth over shit that isn't their business. Last I heard Germany had absolutely no stake in Iraq and wanted nothing to do with it. So please, concern yourself with your own affairs and leave us to deal with ours. I'm quite sure there is plenty to politically deal with in your own neck of the woods. Thank you.

energus · 05-03-2005, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I suppose I should say something about military censorship... but I'm still trying to quiet my cynical laughter that the military gets to investigate itself.

Same here and I am thinking what would have happened if it were the other way round. An Italian patrol that shot an American agent while saving a American citizen (offcourse we will never know).

However some things concerning this situation, as Manx pointed out, are not right.

Pacifier · 05-03-2005, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

What business is this of yours?

I don't know about you, but I like to hear different opinions from different people even from from foreigners. Thats why I'm here.

I wanted a discussion about censorship, the example was choosen because it is a good example since both version are aviable for comparison. Now the question was if you (you as in "all of you" not only the US people) think that the censorship was OK or if you want to see more, or less, censorship.

but it looks like I've struck a nerve here.

pan6467 · 05-03-2005, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

I don't know about you, but I like to hear different opinions from different people even from from foreigners. Thats why I'm here.

I wanted a discussion about censorship, the example was choosen because it is a good example since both version are aviable for comparison. Now the question was if you (you as in "all of you" not only the US people) think that the censorship was OK or if you want to see more, or less, censorship.

but it looks like I've struck a nerve here.

Pacifier,

I find it sad that people here on the Right will try to bully countries into their will and have their opinions on how those countries should be run. I also find it sad that they take great offense when someone outside this country has an opinion on our government. After all what we do affects EVERYBODY, EVERYWHERE.

As this is an international forum and a great place for minds sometimes to have legitimate debates on, I appologize for some of my countrymen, who forget that the US is not the only country that can have opinions about others.

I, for one, truly like to hear what other countries think of us, as that affects my country is ways I can see (trade) and in ways I may never see (future alliances).

What these "patriotic egotists" from the Right fail to see is that someday, we may need help from these countries they continuously insult, bully and rip apart (perhaps, we will need this aid very soon if the economy continues the way it is, we continue to allow the EPA and FDA to allow pollution and poisons into our soils and foods and our weather patterns and climates continue to change).

I just have to say never hold your tongue Pacifier, please share your opinion. I may not agree with it and may feel that you are totally wrong, however, again it is very important to know what the rest of the world thinks of what we do.

filtherton · 05-03-2005, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

What business is this of yours? Do you vote in any elections here in United States? Are you living in a country that has anything at stake in Iraq? Was your country involved in this unfortunate accident? What right do you have to further endanger the lives of US soldiers, innocent Iraqis or anyone else involved in Iraq?

This is anything personal but I'm sick to death of people running their fricken mouth over shit that isn't their business. Last I heard Germany had absolutely no stake in Iraq and wanted nothing to do with it. So please, concern yourself with your own affairs and leave us to deal with ours. I'm quite sure there is plenty to politically deal with in your own neck of the woods. Thank you.

I didn't realize that pacifier was speaking on behalf of the german government. Do they send ambassadors to the tfp?

Seaver · 05-03-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

How could the information how many attacks there are in a certain period of time (for example) lead to soldiers losing their lives?

The enemy shouldnt know how many people an individual attack has killed. The military keeps the figures general for the whole country for a reason. So the terrorists cant easily do the math of "bomb A killed so many people vs. bomb B". It DOES matter for them not to get ahold of how many they killed in a perticular attack, so they can learn what types of ambushes kill more people. Yes, it is information that you dont need to know that leads to soldiers dying.

guy44 · 05-03-2005, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Seaver wrote:

The enemy shouldnt know how many people an individual attack has killed. The military keeps the figures general for the whole country for a reason. So the terrorists cant easily do the math of "bomb A killed so many people vs. bomb B". It DOES matter for them not to get ahold of how many they killed in a perticular attack, so they can learn what types of ambushes kill more people. Yes, it is information that you dont need to know that leads to soldiers dying.

Seaver, what the hell are you talking about? Don't you read the news? Every day there are stories describing attacks in Iraq, including the type of attack and the casualties caused. For example:

Quote:

A car bomb obliterated a tent packed with mourners at the funeral of a Kurdish official in northern Iraq on Sunday, killing 25 people and wounding more than 50 in the single deadliest attack since insurgents started bearing down on Iraq's newly named government late last week.

The blast capped four exceedingly violent days in which at least 116 people, including 11 Americans, were killed in a storm of bombings and ambushes blamed on Iraqi insurgents, believed largely populated by members of the disaffected Sunni Arab minority.

The Sunnis were dominant for decades under Saddam Hussein but were mainly shut out of the new government announced Thursday. The skyrocketing violence since then is viewed by some as a response to political developments that the United States and the Shiite-dominated power structure had hoped would tamp down the bloodshed.

Despite the unrelenting violence, Iraq's national security adviser said Sunday the fledgling government was making progress against the insurgents.

"There is no shadow of doubt in my mind that by the end of the year, we would have achieved a lot," Mouwafak al-Rubaie said in an interview with CNN's "Late Edition." "Probably the back of the insurgency has already been broken."

Iraqi militants also released a video purporting to show Iraq's latest foreign hostage — an Australian married to an American and living in the San Francisco area. Douglas Wood, 63, was shown seated between two masked militants pointing automatic weapons at him. His wife, Pearl, told The Associated Press she saw the tape and the man being held was definitely her husband. She said he had been in Iraq about 18 months, working as an engineer.

The car bomb attack occurred in Tal Afar, 93 miles east of the Syrian border, the U.S. military and a provincial official said. Mourners had gathered for the funeral of Sayed Talib Sayed Wahab, an official of the Kurdish Democratic Party, said deputy provincial governor and party spokesman Khisru Goran, speaking from nearby Mosul.

Goran said a car plowed into the funeral tent and exploded, but the U.S. military said it was not a suicide attack. About 25 people were killed and more than 50 wounded, the U.S. military said.

U.S. troops, Iraqi police and ambulances raced to the carnage, but unidentified gunmen blocked the road and fighting broke out, Goran said.

At least six other car bombs — one of them a suicide attack — and five roadside explosions hit Baghdad on Sunday, killing six Iraqis, wounding more than 20 civilians, six Iraqi police officers and five U.S. soldiers.

In one blast, the attacker failed to fully detonate the explosives inside his car outside an American base in Baghdad, the military said in a statement. U.S. soldiers pulled the driver out of his burning car, and the man later said he was forced to carry out the attack to protect kidnapped family members, according to the statement.

Five more explosions rocked the capital late Sunday. Two roadside bombs detonated near a small amusement park in central Baghdad, killing one Iraqi and wounding two others, while two more roadside bombs targeting police patrols in western Baghdad wounded six officers, they said.

Police had no immediate information on the fifth blast.

Insurgents also ambushed an Iraqi checkpoint on a small road near Diala Bridge in eastern Baghdad, killing five policemen and injuring one, police said. Insurgents in a pickup truck started firing machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades early Sunday, police said. Other insurgents appeared from behind nearby trees and joined the attack.

Six more policemen and two civilians were injured when gunmen fired on two separate patrols, police said.

U.S. and Iraqi officials had hoped to dent support for the militants by including members of the Sunni Arab minority in a new Shiite-dominated Cabinet that will be sworn in Tuesday. However, the lineup named by incoming Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari after months of political wrangling excluded Sunnis from meaningful positions and left the key defense and oil ministries — among other unfilled posts — in temporary hands.

Since the late summer of 2003 and just a few months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam, insurgents have used spectacular attacks and hostage takings to drive home their opposition to U.S.-led forces and their Iraqi allies.

In the videotape announcing Wood's capture, he appealed to President Bush, Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Californian Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to order coalition forces out of Iraq and to let Iraqis look after themselves, saying he did not want to die.

"My captors are fiercely patriotic. They believe in a strong united Iraq looking after its own destiny," Wood said on the tape.

A militant group calling itself the Shura Council of the Mujahedeen of Iraq claimed responsibility for the kidnapping. The group previously said it abducted a Turk, who was freed in September.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Monday he would not negotiate with Wood's captors. Within days, Australia will have more than 1,300 troops in Iraq.

"We can't have the foreign policy of this country dictated by terrorists," he told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

More than 200 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq since Saddam's regime collapsed in April 2003. More than 30 hostages have been killed by the captors.

scout · 05-03-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

I wanted a discussion about censorship, the example was choosen because it is a good example since both version are aviable for comparison. Now the question was if you (you as in "all of you" not only the US people) think that the censorship was OK or if you want to see more, or less, censorship.

but it looks like I've struck a nerve here.

There are plenty of examples of government censorship you could have chosen rather than this one. I feel you chose this particular example to highlight a mistake of the US military and to perhaps "rub a little salt on the wound" so to speak.

To answer your question LESS censhorship is always best. However when it applies to military operations in the middle of a war I can understand why the military would be hesitant to completely release all the details of a particular operation.

Seaver · 05-03-2005, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Seaver, what the hell are you talking about? Don't you read the news? Every day there are stories describing attacks in Iraq, including the type of attack and the casualties caused. For example:

What I was talking about was individual soldiers lost hardly ever show. Civilians are treated differently.

pan6467 · 05-03-2005, 09:33 PM

Censorship is censorship in any form it is wrong to withhold knowledge from the people. The only true exception would be for DEFENSE and even then only for weaponry that is in development.

I guarantee the enemy knows far more about the attacks than we do. They probably have the names, social security numbers and next of kin names of their victims before the next of kin is notified. So to say that we need to censor the attacks and the damage done is ludicrous and a shallow argument.

Seaver · 05-03-2005, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Censorship is censorship in any form it is wrong to withhold knowledge from the people. The only true exception would be for DEFENSE and even then only for weaponry that is in development.

I guarantee the enemy knows far more about the attacks than we do. They probably have the names, social security numbers and next of kin names of their victims before the next of kin is notified. So to say that we need to censor the attacks and the damage done is ludicrous and a shallow argument.

Interesting considering you apparently dont know how these things act out. We dont just leave the victims there during a fight. The US or it's allies have not withdrawn from a fight without its casualties. Only a select few didnt make it out (I.E. downed aircraft). So our dead made it out with the vehicles they went in with. So saying they already know who died and who survived is ludicris.

We dont just leave our bodies lying there, the insurgents are forced to do that more often than not so we have a very clear picture on how many were killed. We take our bodies out because of medical hope of revival, out of respect, commoradery, and to deny the terrorists access to them.

Quote:

The only true exception would be for DEFENSE and even then only for weaponry that is in development.

Now I have to say that this is without a doubt one of the most ignorant statements EVER I have seen on the boards. Only for weaponry in development? How about the location of our carriers, their date of port visits and location? How about troop movements? How about weak armor points on the M1 Abrams (over 15years old now... not exactly new).

Censorship is required WHENEVER the lives of men are at risk. Your need to know does NOT entitle others to die. Other people should NOT lose their lives or get maimed because a smug sense of entitlement.

pan6467 · 05-03-2005, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Interesting considering you apparently dont know how these things act out. We dont just leave the victims there during a fight. The US or it's allies have not withdrawn from a fight without its casualties. Only a select few didnt make it out (I.E. downed aircraft). So our dead made it out with the vehicles they went in with. So saying they already know who died and who survived is ludicris.

We dont just leave our bodies lying there, the insurgents are forced to do that more often than not so we have a very clear picture on how many were killed. We take our bodies out because of medical hope of revival, out of respect, commoradery, and to deny the terrorists access to them.

You're absolutely right there is no such thing as espionage, intercepted messages and in this given situation civilians that work in the hospitals, airports and seaports that don't open their mouths. OUR GOVERNMENT has all those under 100% security and death threats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Now I have to say that this is without a doubt one of the most ignorant statements EVER I have seen on the boards. Only for weaponry in development? How about the location of our carriers, their date of port visits and location? How about troop movements? How about weak armor points on the M1 Abrams (over 15years old now... not exactly new).

Censorship is required WHENEVER the lives of men are at risk. Your need to know does NOT entitle others to die. Other people should NOT lose their lives or get maimed because a smug sense of entitlement.

If you are publishing paperwork where our troops are and the manuevers they make then you are an idiot. But I can almost guarantee even if we did publish the enemy knows far more sooner than we could ever publish them. Perhaps, I should have made my argument more clear and stated the papers in question or others of public interest should never be censored. Hard to hide an armored division moving in an area with eyes.

Of course, we train our field commanders to make decisions and moves before they are ever relayed to Washington. But then again how presumptuous I am to make such a statement.

As for carriers going into port, kind of hard to hide that. Plus the fact almost any ship (esp. larger ones) has to radio ahead and make sure the port and the tugs are ready (I served in the Navy, our ships almost always have to radio ahead to make sure ports are ready) Weak points on tanks, ships and other mobiles.... can guarantee the enemy already has those..... great thing about selling our tanks and equipment to countries overseas, they already have the plans.

Obviously you have not served in the military, or know of how information travels in the military and how by nature people talk.

But you're right, how stupid of me to assume that we are the only high tech out there and that the enemy doesn't have satellite communications, radio recievers, spies and so on.

But if that is such the case why is this war taking so long...... Forgive me for being such an idiot in assuming that perhaps the people we are fighting are organized and developed in some form, I guess it's the fact that the war drags on, bodies keep coming over and Billions of our tax dollars keep getting shipped over to fight such a weak unorganized, undeveloped enemy.

Seaver · 05-05-2005, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Obviously you have not served in the military, or know of how information travels in the military and how by nature people talk.

Actually I AM ex-Navy. And I'm very surprised that you'd see it was acceptable to publish the locations of the Naval ships planned port visits to the public. After the Cole incident, which was a result of loss of operational security, I'm astonished that you'd seek to allow further security leakage.

Yes, the enemy knows a lot of what we do. Leaks happen, people talk, they read messages that arent properly encoded, things happen. But what we dont need to do is make it easy for them.

I never assumed we're fighting a dumb and disorganized enemy. While it doesnt take much intelligence to take a bomb, put a detonator on it, and place it on a major roadway and wait for the enemy to drive by. It doesnt take much intelligence to pack a lot of explosives into a car and drive it into a marketplace. It takes logistical skills to keep the cars and explosives train going, and technical skills to make the bombs which we can not ignore. Yes they undoubtably have spies inside their new police force and almost certainly inside the government, but as far as the ability to decode our secret naval codes and such I seriously doubt. My point is that just giving that information out is ludicris.

pan6467 · 05-05-2005, 07:31 PM

Seaver, as ex Navy then you should know it is impossible to hide a ship no matter what size pulling into your port, and that any ship must radio ahead to have the pilot tug you in.

There are few options as to what ports you're going to pull into, and from what I saw the papers (and my argument) is based on what HAS happened not what will.

Again, I reiterate, maybe you are missing what I am saying, if you publish manuevers than you are an idiot and deserve to lose a battle.

Basically I am saying this: nowhere did I say "publish top secret information". My argument is if the government publishes ANY information it therefore shoul;d have no right to "blackout" anything it doesn't want the public to know. Basically, I feel if they have published it the enemy or it's affiliates have seen what is blacked out or know of what has been blacked out. WE, the people, have the right to know what is blacked out, because WE, the people, should always have information to what HAS happened, what casualties have we taken, how, when and where.

Rigor · 05-08-2005, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I suppose I should say something about military censorship... but I'm still trying to quiet my cynical laughter that the military gets to investigate itself.

reminds me of the UN's "independent" investigation lol

Rigor · 05-08-2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Seaver, as ex Navy then you should know it is impossible to hide a ship no matter what size pulling into your port, and that any ship must radio ahead to have the pilot tug you in.

There are few options as to what ports you're going to pull into, and from what I saw the papers (and my argument) is based on what HAS happened not what will.

Again, I reiterate, maybe you are missing what I am saying, if you publish manuevers than you are an idiot and deserve to lose a battle.

Basically I am saying this: nowhere did I say "publish top secret information". My argument is if the government publishes ANY information it therefore shoul;d have no right to "blackout" anything it doesn't want the public to know. Basically, I feel if they have published it the enemy or it's affiliates have seen what is blacked out or know of what has been blacked out. WE, the people, have the right to know what is blacked out, because WE, the people, should always have information to what HAS happened, what casualties have we taken, how, when and where.

that DOSENT MAKE SENSE what so ever! so your saying "dont give the public any info at all unless you leave all the names & locations of people involved etc as is..."

one word i think of... W O W

EDIT: and whats with your saying "we the people". "We the People" (lol) dont have the right to see materal our govt is doing if it endangers lives.

pan6467 · 05-08-2005, 09:47 PM

Ok, I'll say it one last time. If you are publishing info and then blacking out what was published, YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Because what you blacked out obviously has already been seen by someone.

Did I say publish manuevers? I believe I said if you do you are an idiot.

Look the cold hard facts of war is that the enemy knows a hell of a lot more than you can EVER make public. To say differently and to assume they don't is arrogant and suicidal. In times of war it is ALWAYS necessary to overestimate your enemy.... if you want to win with the fewest casualties and as quickly as possible. So giving names and locations and how people died, is not classified. The enemy already knows. If you publish top secret information and decide to black things out, the why the fuck did you print it and make it public in the first place???????

Like I said before, chances are the enemy knows who was killed, his social security number, rank and next of kin before their families do. Sorry, but I am entitled to know what my country is doing, who is dying in combat, where they fought and how many were injured. That was information that was pretty much given in every war before this one, why is this such a secretive war if we are winning it?

The great thing about this country is WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT AND DUTY TO HOLD OUR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE. Don't like it move somewhere censorship is ok. But then the question is why do you feel the need to publish something then black it out?????? What are you hiding, that was ok to print and make public then decided to say "nope sorry ..."

05-02-2005, 07:32 PM	#3 (permalink)
liquidlight AHH! Custom Title!! Location: The twisted warpings of my brain.	I'm going to have to agree with Seaver. . . my desire to know this is much less than my need to support the people risking their lives in Iraq and being put in harms way but people that needed to "know the truth." I have friends that don't even know where their spouses are or what they're doing because of the security need, the last thing that I want to think about is who might be hurt because I went looking for the wrong kind of information due to some narciscistic need to feel included. Information like telling the isurgents that the only available route to the airport is the one that they attacked on 03/04 so that now they can focus on that route and injure or kill more people. I'm sorry but this is selfish and none of my damned business. __________________ Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

05-02-2005, 08:56 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Yeah maybe we should have the UN do it Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 05-02-2005 at 09:02 PM..

05-03-2005, 09:33 PM	#16 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Censorship is censorship in any form it is wrong to withhold knowledge from the people. The only true exception would be for DEFENSE and even then only for weaponry that is in development. I guarantee the enemy knows far more about the attacks than we do. They probably have the names, social security numbers and next of kin names of their victims before the next of kin is notified. So to say that we need to censor the attacks and the damage done is ludicrous and a shallow argument. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

05-05-2005, 07:31 PM	#20 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Seaver, as ex Navy then you should know it is impossible to hide a ship no matter what size pulling into your port, and that any ship must radio ahead to have the pilot tug you in. There are few options as to what ports you're going to pull into, and from what I saw the papers (and my argument) is based on what HAS happened not what will. Again, I reiterate, maybe you are missing what I am saying, if you publish manuevers than you are an idiot and deserve to lose a battle. Basically I am saying this: nowhere did I say "publish top secret information". My argument is if the government publishes ANY information it therefore shoul;d have no right to "blackout" anything it doesn't want the public to know. Basically, I feel if they have published it the enemy or it's affiliates have seen what is blacked out or know of what has been blacked out. WE, the people, have the right to know what is blacked out, because WE, the people, should always have information to what HAS happened, what casualties have we taken, how, when and where. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

05-08-2005, 09:47 PM	#23 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Ok, I'll say it one last time. If you are publishing info and then blacking out what was published, YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Because what you blacked out obviously has already been seen by someone. Did I say publish manuevers? I believe I said if you do you are an idiot. Look the cold hard facts of war is that the enemy knows a hell of a lot more than you can EVER make public. To say differently and to assume they don't is arrogant and suicidal. In times of war it is ALWAYS necessary to overestimate your enemy.... if you want to win with the fewest casualties and as quickly as possible. So giving names and locations and how people died, is not classified. The enemy already knows. If you publish top secret information and decide to black things out, the why the fuck did you print it and make it public in the first place??????? Like I said before, chances are the enemy knows who was killed, his social security number, rank and next of kin before their families do. Sorry, but I am entitled to know what my country is doing, who is dying in combat, where they fought and how many were injured. That was information that was pretty much given in every war before this one, why is this such a secretive war if we are winning it? The great thing about this country is WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT AND DUTY TO HOLD OUR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE. Don't like it move somewhere censorship is ok. But then the question is why do you feel the need to publish something then black it out?????? What are you hiding, that was ok to print and make public then decided to say "nope sorry ..." __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 05-08-2005 at 09:49 PM..

05-02-2005, 07:22 PM	#2 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Forgive me for agreeing with government censorship... but what need do you have that you want information that could lead to soldiers losing their lives if available to the enemy? Unfortunately computer literacy isnt exactly high for the ground pounders (foot soldiers) and allows lapses in security like this. But as for the blacking out of the report, it doesn't prevent you from knowing what's going on. Hell, just do a search, lots of soldiers have blogs that detail their lives (though they're being cracked down on as a security problem... as they should be).

05-02-2005, 08:16 PM	#4 (permalink)
Manx Loser	I suppose I should say something about military censorship... but I'm still trying to quiet my cynical laughter that the military gets to investigate itself.