>That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Occupation doesn't generally happen without bloodshed. Involving oneself in occupation is an investment in bloodshed. The jews who died during the Nazi regime didn't make a choice to involve themselves in bloodshed.

>Can I have your social security number, address, phone number, mother's maiden name, and when you are going to be away from your home? We have no secrets around here

If I were involved in attempting to use force to extort land or resources, I would assume the risk that my identity would be exposed. This is one reason I don't involve myself in these things.

>This tells me you haven't read any of the documents released.

That makes two of us, evidently.

"Occupation doesn't generally happen without bloodshed. Involving oneself in occupation is an investment in bloodshed. The jews who died during the Nazi regime didn't make a choice to involve themselves in bloodshed."

And the people in the documents didn't ask wikileaks to release the names to the world and potentially to their enemies. Bloodshed could be avoided, but wikileaks is willfully looking the other way.

"If I were involved in attempting to use force to extort land or resources, I would assume the risk that my identity would be exposed. This is one reason I don't involve myself in these things."

That's like saying, because you gamble at a casino, it's an accepted risk that you will lose all your money (after we just found out that the casino has been cheating at all of the games).

"That makes two of us, it seems."

There are actual names in the documents released. I'm not going to make your point for you. If you want to continue to look foolish, it's fine by me.

>And the people in the documents didn't ask wikileaks to release the names to the world and potentially to their enemies. Bloodshed could be avoided, but wikileaks is willfully looking the other way.

If someone is an informant for an occupying force they have assumed a role in the occupation. This involves risk.

>That's like saying, because you gamble at a casino, it's an accepted risk that you will lose all your money (after we just found out that the casino has been cheating at all of the games).

If you decide to gamble, you put your money at risk. You know the odds are stacked against you: you just don't know to what extent. The rational choice is not to play.

"If someone is an informant for an occupying force they have assumed a role in the occupation. This involves risk."

Isn't this true? Why is this being downvoted? Anyone who informs for one side in war against the other has involved himself in the war and can be expected to be punished if the other side got to know about it. This was true during the American War of Independence and is no less true now. Reconciliation might happen after the war, not during the war.

This applies to people informing against the Taliban as well as against the American/NATO occupation force. Which side is "good" is somewhat irrelevant. Which side you find "good" probably depends on where you were born more than anything else.

> That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Stop to think about what the scenario entails. If X occupies Y, the Xes kill the Ys in great number. Releasing information that kills Xes, and thus moves the occupation closer to an end, prevents the killing of more Ys. Every soldier kills some to prevent the death of many—it's all about the numbers.