5 ms·

Though it seems overblown I won't discount that some American casualties may have been suffered. Nonetheless, Manning revealed that many other innocent lives we

Though it seems overblown I won't discount that some American casualties may have been suffered. Nonetheless, Manning revealed that many other innocent lives were destroyed. There is no action without both positive and negative consequence. In hindsight, Manning's actions seem far more positive than negative.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- ojbyrne 13y ago
  You can say the exact same thing about drone strikes.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Who?
- jaekwon 13y ago
  You're just repeating propaganda. Get that bug out of your mind.
- paradoja 13y ago
  Who died? Is there any evidence of that? This article http://www.thenation.com/blog/174622/seven-myths-about-bradley-manning http://www.thenation.com/blog/174622/seven-myths-about-bradl... (in the myth #5) shows some evidence, in fact, of the opposite. Even the military finds no deaths from the leaks: http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/31/59869.htm http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/31/59869.htm
  - tzs 13y ago
    > Who died? Is there any evidence of that? Anyone who tries to seriously answer that question here will get down voted so far that their answer will be pretty much the same color as the background. This is a topic that simply cannot be discussed on HN.
    - gruseom 13y ago
      You're right that there's a bias here, but there are also people on the other side and (I hope) a nontrivial number who don't identify with sides and are here to learn. So your understanding is that it's true that people died as a result of Manning's leaks? My understanding is that it's not true and that military leaders have said publicly that it wasn't true. If that's wrong, I'd appreciate hearing why.
      - tzs 13y ago
        > So your understanding is that it's true that people died as a result of Manning's leaks? No. If someone has died as a result of the leaks, it is very unlikely we would ever discover that. When, say, the Taliban kills someone, they generally don't leave a thank you note for whomever provided them the information to identify the target. Asking for specific names is as pointless as asking for specific hurricanes made worse by climate change, or for specific lung cancer fatalities whose lung cancer was caused by cigarette smoking. The only way to access the damage, if any, from the leaks is probabilistically. That's the same way we know climate change has caused increased hurricane damage, and the same way we know cigarettes have killed people. If discussion now goes the way it usually does, the above two paragraphs are going to be interpreted by many as me claiming that cigarettes have never killed anyone. :-(
        anthonyb 13y ago
        I disagree. There's a fairly large incentive for the US military / intelligence and its supporters to demonstrate that the leaks have killed people, or otherwise caused damage. If there were casualties, wouldn't we have heard about them by now? Of course, I could be wrong, and there have been, but in operations which are classified, but I suspect that it's unlikely that there have only been casualties which are classified.
        tzs 13y ago
        My point was that when someone is targeted by groups like the Taliban, we (the non-Taliban) generally don't find out HOW that group found out about that person. For instance, suppose someone is killed for providing education to girls, and suppose that person's name and activities were mentioned in a leak. We couldn't conclude that the Taliban killed him because of the leak. Maybe a Taliban sympathizer reported the person. Maybe one of the girls unwisely spoke in public about how great it was to be learning, and a Taliban member overheard and followed to find out who was teaching girls.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ojbyrne 13y ago
You can say the exact same thing about drone strikes.
jlgreco 13y ago
Who?
jaekwon 13y ago
You're just repeating propaganda. Get that bug out of your mind.
paradoja 13y ago
Who died? Is there any evidence of that? This article http://www.thenation.com/blog/174622/seven-myths-about-bradley-manning http://www.thenation.com/blog/174622/seven-myths-about-bradl... (in the myth #5) shows some evidence, in fact, of the opposite. Even the military finds no deaths from the leaks: http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/31/59869.htm http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/31/59869.htm
- tzs 13y ago
  > Who died? Is there any evidence of that? Anyone who tries to seriously answer that question here will get down voted so far that their answer will be pretty much the same color as the background. This is a topic that simply cannot be discussed on HN.
  - gruseom 13y ago
    You're right that there's a bias here, but there are also people on the other side and (I hope) a nontrivial number who don't identify with sides and are here to learn. So your understanding is that it's true that people died as a result of Manning's leaks? My understanding is that it's not true and that military leaders have said publicly that it wasn't true. If that's wrong, I'd appreciate hearing why.
    - tzs 13y ago
      > So your understanding is that it's true that people died as a result of Manning's leaks? No. If someone has died as a result of the leaks, it is very unlikely we would ever discover that. When, say, the Taliban kills someone, they generally don't leave a thank you note for whomever provided them the information to identify the target. Asking for specific names is as pointless as asking for specific hurricanes made worse by climate change, or for specific lung cancer fatalities whose lung cancer was caused by cigarette smoking. The only way to access the damage, if any, from the leaks is probabilistically. That's the same way we know climate change has caused increased hurricane damage, and the same way we know cigarettes have killed people. If discussion now goes the way it usually does, the above two paragraphs are going to be interpreted by many as me claiming that cigarettes have never killed anyone. :-(
      - anthonyb 13y ago
        I disagree. There's a fairly large incentive for the US military / intelligence and its supporters to demonstrate that the leaks have killed people, or otherwise caused damage. If there were casualties, wouldn't we have heard about them by now? Of course, I could be wrong, and there have been, but in operations which are classified, but I suspect that it's unlikely that there have only been casualties which are classified.
        tzs 13y ago
        My point was that when someone is targeted by groups like the Taliban, we (the non-Taliban) generally don't find out HOW that group found out about that person. For instance, suppose someone is killed for providing education to girls, and suppose that person's name and activities were mentioned in a leak. We couldn't conclude that the Taliban killed him because of the leak. Maybe a Taliban sympathizer reported the person. Maybe one of the girls unwisely spoke in public about how great it was to be learning, and a Taliban member overheard and followed to find out who was teaching girls.