6 ms·

Secret Government Report: Chelsea Manning Leaks Caused No Real Harm

34 points by okket 9y ago

wbl 9y ago
Unless you were one of the human sources named, abandoned to the tender mercies of the Taliban. The report says no harm to senior decision makers, not to others.
- azrazalea 9y ago
  To be fair, while still awful, that's not a National Security threat.
- throwawaymanbot 9y ago
  Is it not kind of a bit much to swallow you saying this??, knowing that, due to her leaks, for better or worse, we know that innocent civilians got butchered. I mean, if that didn't happen, I would whole heartedly agree with your point. But thats not the reality. What reality are you in buddy?
gitpusher 9y ago
Sloppy reporting. BuzzFeed's conclusion is drawn from the 50% of the document that's un-redacted. The other half may or may not paint a different picture.
- throwawaymanbot 9y ago
  You firmly can say sloppy reporting, THEN say "may or may not be an issue". How can you be so sure and so unsure?
  - Kalium 9y ago
    You're absolutely right to note the internal contradictions of parent's comment. They're both very certain and very uncertain at the same time. However, is it not possible to observe that a clearly poor methodology can produce unreliable results in any field? And is it not possible that this may be such an instance?
    - throwawaymanbot 9y ago
      Of course, I can agree that. Can you agree however, that you can say "a clearly poor methodology" without ever showing whats "clearly poor" about a methodology in any field? Is it possible that this might be such an instance?
      - Kalium 9y ago
        You're absolutely right! It's possible that a methodology can be described as poor without every showing what poor is in context. It's possible that some might regard this as such a context, but I happen to be of the opinion that the original comment both noted a poor methodology and clearly showed what about it was poor.
        throwawaymanbot 9y ago
        >"but I happen to be of the opinion that the original comment both noted a poor methodology and* clearly showed what about it was poor"* You can happen to be of opinion about many things. But it didn't clearly note, or clearly show anything, as you have stated in your last comment. Its your opinion. And Its great that this is your opinion of course, but its not my opinion. That's why I commented. Facts are not my opinion either. They are fact. Period. Facts usually get put in reports like this, not our opinion. Not sure why you are wanting to flog a dead Horse on this mate, but flog away!
willstrafach 9y ago
Interesting read, but headline seems slightly misleading, given this bit: > The most significant impact of the leaks, the report concluded, would likely be on the lives of “cooperative Afghans, Iraqis, and other foreign interlocutors.”

34 points by okket 9y ago

wbl 9y ago

Unless you were one of the human sources named, abandoned to the tender mercies of the Taliban. The report says no harm to senior decision makers, not to others.

azrazalea 9y ago
To be fair, while still awful, that's not a National Security threat.
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
Is it not kind of a bit much to swallow you saying this??, knowing that, due to her leaks, for better or worse, we know that innocent civilians got butchered. I mean, if that didn't happen, I would whole heartedly agree with your point. But thats not the reality. What reality are you in buddy?

gitpusher 9y ago

Sloppy reporting. BuzzFeed's conclusion is drawn from the 50% of the document that's un-redacted. The other half may or may not paint a different picture.

throwawaymanbot 9y ago
You firmly can say sloppy reporting, THEN say "may or may not be an issue". How can you be so sure and so unsure?
- Kalium 9y ago
  You're absolutely right to note the internal contradictions of parent's comment. They're both very certain and very uncertain at the same time. However, is it not possible to observe that a clearly poor methodology can produce unreliable results in any field? And is it not possible that this may be such an instance?
  - throwawaymanbot 9y ago
    Of course, I can agree that. Can you agree however, that you can say "a clearly poor methodology" without ever showing whats "clearly poor" about a methodology in any field? Is it possible that this might be such an instance?
    - Kalium 9y ago
      You're absolutely right! It's possible that a methodology can be described as poor without every showing what poor is in context. It's possible that some might regard this as such a context, but I happen to be of the opinion that the original comment both noted a poor methodology and clearly showed what about it was poor.
      - throwawaymanbot 9y ago
        >"but I happen to be of the opinion that the original comment both noted a poor methodology and* clearly showed what about it was poor"* You can happen to be of opinion about many things. But it didn't clearly note, or clearly show anything, as you have stated in your last comment. Its your opinion. And Its great that this is your opinion of course, but its not my opinion. That's why I commented. Facts are not my opinion either. They are fact. Period. Facts usually get put in reports like this, not our opinion. Not sure why you are wanting to flog a dead Horse on this mate, but flog away!

willstrafach 9y ago

Interesting read, but headline seems slightly misleading, given this bit: > The most significant impact of the leaks, the report concluded, would likely be on the lives of “cooperative Afghans, Iraqis, and other foreign interlocutors.”