Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
And there is a reason why their source asked some of the information stay classified, there is a reason why they complied, and there is a reason why they vet all their own info before releasing it.
Wikileaks is not out there to intentionally endanger soldiers.
What I find supremely funny about this is that people are outraged that documents that show soldiers have killed civilians without due cause, but they aren't outraged about the civilians being killed but instead that the document MAY endanger some lives of soldiers in the future.
So the posters who believe this show an inconsistent valuation of human life. For them the only life that is valued is clearly the Canadian soldier. Afghani lives are obviously not valued as highly and that much is blatantly obvious from your logic.
Earlier in this thread Peter12 says the following, "To execute the will of a state one must be prepared to accept some human cost. Civilians die in war, it is the sad and inevitable consequence of violence."
So his values are clearly on display for all to see. He doesn't mind civilians dying if it is the execution of the will of Canada. However he is very much against the releasing of truth if it has a chance of increasing the risk of Canadian soldiers dying?
So civilian deaths are justified because some politicians in Canada thought going into Afghanistan was good idea. But truth isn't valuable enough to potentially increase the risk of soldiers dying?
Talk about some wacky "values"
|
This assumes that the release of these documents has the ability to decrease civilian deaths, but that's not necesarilly true. The release of documents could very well increase the risk of harm to both soldiers and civilians. Now I haven't parsed these documents to see if that's the case, but your whole theory here is premised on an assumption that could very well be completely false.