world

WikiLeaks source Manning sentenced to 35 years

122 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

122 Comments
Login to comment

“As a result, there will be a thousand more Bradley Mannings,” Assange said in London

Um, Assange, not everyone ends up in the comfort of an embassy to avoid rape charges. Must be easy for you to say how many people are willing to step and and get treated like Manning as opposed to yourself. At least Manning admitted he was wrong and will pay the price and maybe even get some mental care for his issues. You used him knowing damn well you were dealing with an unstable person and I suspect your desire for fame played more of a part than you are willing to admit.

Manning, a hero to supporters who regard him as a whistleblower who lifted the lid on America’s foreign policy, said he had been offended by the callous remarks of the pilot.

Then release the video of the pilot. There was absolutely no need to release things that had nothing to do with crimes. It just made the lives of good people around the world more difficult. It makes it very hard for me to believe his motives when he willingly created so much collateral damage to people who deserved none of it. I will never understand that.

-8 ( +11 / -19 )

Expected sentence from a place like that. Very sad and Americans should be ashamed of his treatment, but few will, many would wish him and Snowden. Like a backwater in a Hillbilly trailer park seems how many Americans think, not all but many, very many,

3 ( +13 / -10 )

What happened to the murderers aka US soldiers who killed the Reuter Journalists among others? Obama is such a disgrace to humanity. No wonder Snowden seeks refuge in Russia. He would have no chance of a fair trial in the US.

2 ( +12 / -10 )

Superlib,

Then release the video of the pilot.

It is released. It's on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Assange, not everyone ends up in the comfort of an embassy to avoid rape charges

They are not really rape charges. In both cases it was consensual sex. Read about it.

http://www.news.com.au/newstest2/archive-old-assets/assange-rape-charges-stem-from-two-one-night-stands-in-sweden/story-e6frfkyi-1225967407341

I sincerely hope there will be a thousand more Bradley Mannings, as Assange says.

Only if more people have the bravery to throw light on criminality and corruption in government agencies do we have any hope of creating a free society.

Manning actually did his duty.

He upheld the constitution.

Obama, Bush and Cheney totally ignored the constitution.

10 ( +18 / -8 )

America is becoming more and more like the Soviet Union of the Cold War with show trials and surveillance everywhere.

8 ( +18 / -10 )

Then release the video of the pilot. There was absolutely no need to release things that had nothing to do with crimes. It just made the lives of good people around the world more difficult. It makes it very hard for me to believe his motives when he willingly created so much collateral damage to people who deserved none of it. I will never understand that.

As always, you get it right.

@bertie

They are not really rape charges. In both cases it was consensual sex. Read about it.

I think, I will take the girl's word over your tabloid assumptions. If the charges and allegations were not true, then Sweden wouldn't have it in for this guy. Assange is NO fool. He knows what he did. Again, an innocent person NEVER runs, NEVER.

I sincerely hope there will be a thousand more Bradley Mannings, as Assange says.

And I sincerely hope that each and every single one of them get caught and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Only if more people have the bravery to throw light on criminality and corruption in government agencies do we have any hope of creating a free society.

We have a free society, just not for criminals

Manning actually did his duty.

I see, that's why he is going to prison for 35 years, then it was a good thing, so hopefully if every person like Manning do their duties like him, they can equally get as much prison time. Which is a good thing.

He upheld the constitution.

By giving classified information away to wikileaks and foreigners.

Obama, Bush and Cheney totally ignored the constitution.

If that were true, they'd be in prison, and yet, Manning is. Don't confuse the two, please.

-15 ( +5 / -20 )

He should have got more. If he can get parole in 7 years, it's far too light. He should have got 50 years minimum.

We can only hope that some other prisoner sees fit to give his own sentence.

Assange is a rapist who should be in jail too. He's a hypocrite. He loves giving out secrets, but runs away and hides when his are out there.

-19 ( +8 / -27 )

"Again, an innocent person NEVER runs, NEVER."

Except when someone press bogus charges as a middlewoman in order to win an extradition.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

an innocent person never runs, yeah sure mate. If the girl sitiing beside you and cried chikan and point her fingers at you? Guess what, you are guilty as charge. RUN IDIOT.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

Bernie: It is released. It's on YouTube:

That sound you just heard was my point flying over your head.

They are not really rape charges. In both cases it was consensual sex. Read about it.

Tell that to the women.

I sincerely hope there will be a thousand more Bradley Mannings, as Assange says.

We've got plenty of concrete. The wigs might be a problem, tho.

Only if more people have the bravery to throw light on criminality and corruption in government agencies do we have any hope of creating a free society.

Agreed. Just not sure why they have to hurt innocent people in the process.

You have no credibility if your position requires you to intentionally ignore what he did to people who had nothing to do with this. I'm not at all afraid to admit that the video deserved to be leaked. That's whistle-blowing. Americans actually like that. But obviously you need to make your point by ignoring everything else, and that's not a conversation, that's a fanatic. Heroes try to right wrongs. Heroes don't take down hundreds, if not thousands of bystanders in the process. He is not the man you think he is and neither is Assange.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

Pretty embarrassing for the US to have a high-profile political prisoner probably for the next decade or so. Its more the kind of thing you would expect from a tin-pot dictatorship or military junta. His treatment so far, including solitary confinement while stripped naked and without his glasses, amounts to torture. He will have a huge fight to keep his sanity.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

It makes it very hard for me to believe his motives when he willingly created so much collateral damage to people who deserved none of it. I will never understand that.

Collateral damage? Such as?

The only confirmed "collateral damage" were documented by the video release by Manning. And how many years did those murderers get? 0

Again, an innocent person NEVER runs, NEVER.

That is just like saying videos that show no crime are NEVER classified, NEVER.

Regarding the rape charges. Why did the Swedish authorities refuse to question him in the UK? Its clearly a trap to extradite him to the US.

-20 ( +7 / -27 )

He is not a political prisoner as he has not been jailed for his political or religious views. He is active duty military and stole thousands of classified documents. Extremely clear cut under the law. He knew there would be serious consequences for his actions.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

The EAW contained four complaints from two different women: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held plaintiff 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" plaintiff 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with plaintiff 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" plaintiff 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body.[256][257]

==> There is no "charge of rape" in the case of Assange and never was.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

35 years. He deserved some punishment for being indiscriminate in what documents he made public. One should not just hand over bucket loads of documents for otheres to see if there is anything bad in there. If it is an action of conscience, then he should have known the pertinent content that raised his conscience and limit release to that. I wonder how the trial would have gone had he used better discretion in what to leak.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

" Manning has revealed widespread abuses on the part of the US Army during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the deaths of civilian, the torture of prisoners, as well as the other grave abuses of the international human rights law.

Despite all the efforts of rights groups and the UN Human Rights Council, no one in the US was held accountable for these crimes."

What's despicable is the fascist-type cheerleaders frothing at the mouth to harshly punish Manning. Disgusting. The Soviet States of America.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

" Manning has revealed widespread abuses on the part of the US Army during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the deaths of civilian, the torture of prisoners, as well as the other grave abuses of the international human rights law.

You make it seem like as if the majority of US servicemen are criminals and that their is a total breakdown of heavy and constant abuse in the military. Is that what you're implying?

Despite all the efforts of rights groups and the UN Human Rights Council, no one in the US was held accountable for these crimes."

So you are in the military and you see day to day operations and you know every single thing that is going on? Who is prosecuted, who got arrested, who was charged, you think that there is 24 hour military coverage that tracks ever individual? You don't know who got prosecuted and who didn't. Just because you didn't hear about it, doesn't mean, no one was held accountable! You are just making stuff up!

What's despicable is the fascist-type cheerleaders frothing at the mouth to harshly punish Manning. Disgusting. The Soviet States of America.

What's even more despicable are the loons that think this guy is some sort of hero, when he is not. The man is a convicted criminal and deserves what he got. I feel nothing for this traitor. I am just sorry he didn't get life. That would have a more appropriate for him.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Actually Assange did offer to stand trial if Sweden sworn he will not be extradited to US ( which Sweden has extradition treaty with ) and that request was denied so he has very very valid reasons to run from Sweden

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Actually Assange did offer to stand trial if Sweden sworn he will not be extradited to US ( which Sweden has extradition treaty with ) and that request was denied so he has very very valid reasons to run from Sweden

It's a bit strange that you would think suspects can make demands on the authorities as a condition to being questioned, especially blanket demands regarding the breaking of international agreements before the first question has even been asked. Obviously no government in the world would agree to that. Just about every legal expert, apart from his paid lawyer, said the chances of him being sent to the US were virtually non-existent.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

“When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system,”

Just about sums up justice in America today - or the Soviet Union of yester-year.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

SimondB,

Just about sums up justice in America today - or the Soviet Union of yester-year.

Sad, but true.

Any regime that has to use that amount of force to hold its position is doomed.

As JeanValJean describes it, "The Soviet States of America."

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Some facts for the clueless:

There has not been a single confirmed instance of any U.S. personnel dying as a result of a Wikileaks document. Wikileaks has, however, documented more than 200 000 murders by the U.S. military of civilians that were "classified". Just to put that in context that's about the population of Des Moines, Iowa, or Richmond, Virginia.

Pause to think about that for a moment. If terrorists wiped out an entire U.S. city there'd be hell to pay and cries for rivers of blood... but when the U.S. ambles over to Afghanistan and Iraq and kills a similar number of people they expect people to be grateful??!! Wtf?

The public prosecutors in Sweden wanted nothing to do with the allegations against Assange. Only after extensive political pressure, and several public prosecutors stepping down from the case, did they find a public prosecutor with more ambition than morals. The trial is 100% political, and several Swedish judges have gone on record saying that if Assange was bought to trial is it unlikely that it would result in a conviction. In short the entire purpose of the trial is to get Assange into a country where he can be extradited. Given Sweden's excellent human rights record this is a tragedy.

Military courts are a very bad joke. Let's take the Guantanamo "trials" of 12 people charged only 4 people were actually tried... of those 4 half of the decisions were overturned by the court of appeals, one was pretty much ignored by the Aussie government as nonsense, and the last guy was never sentenced. That's a 100% error rate right there. Saying that Manning is guilty because a military court said it was so is ridiculous. Military courts are famously flawed. I'm not just cherry-picking here either. Of the 16 death sentences passed by the military court 10 have been overturned by civil courts because of numerous mistakes made by the military courts.. again, an unacceptably high rate of wrongful convictions in the type of trial where you'd expect them to be extra-careful.

The U.S. military is famously undisciplined. How many articles have you read about French, German, British or in fact any other nation's military being involved in rapes, murders, etc. in the last couple of years? Just look at Okinawa, they put the base on lockdown and within a two week period there were 3 instances of people wandering off base and getting so drunk that they couldn't get back... and those were only the guys with no head for booze. The U.S. military courts website is PROUD that the military crime rate is below the civilian crime rate... that's not something to be proud of. Statistically the U.S. military has the highest crime rate of any G8 country. You shouldn't be defending this, you should be crying out for more discipline. These are people entrusted with weapons that could kill MILLIONS and you're PROUD that they're less criminal than gangsters?
5 ( +15 / -10 )

It's a bit strange that you would think suspects can make demands on the authorities as a condition to being questioned, especially blanket demands regarding the breaking of international agreements before the first question has even been asked.

Just about sums up justice in America today - or the Soviet Union of yester-year.

So you are trying to say America is like the Soviet Union, how so? You are saying the Soviet changed? As SuperLib pointed out, it is actually quite astounding how someone who is a criminal can try to make demands as if that individual has all the cards in their hands.

Manning got a fair trail, he was convicted, he broke the law and he has to pay, what is so difficult to understand. Assange will hide in that embassy probably for the rest of his life and why? Because he is also a coward. @Alex, if he were innocent, stand your ground, but for some reason, liberal logic dictates, even if you are right, running is an acceptable alternative if you don't want to face justice, but if a conservative would have been charged with the same crimes, the liberal outcry would be overbearing. Snowden was just a situation to piss off the Obama situation, if Snowden were an average Joe Blow, there is no way Russia would have gone out of their way to give this criminal the accommodations he has gotten so far. Because he had something that they wanted, he was treated like diplomat. At least in the US, both men would have gotten a fare trail. But they chose another route.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

@bass

it is actually quite astounding how someone who is a criminal can try to make demands as if that individual has all the cards in their hands.

You're confusing "criminal" and "suspect".

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

@luca

You're confusing "criminal" and "suspect".

NO, Assange is a criminal who knowingly put out information that could hurt the US and other nations. He put the information NOT because he's a warm and fuzzy guy, because he is anti-government and wants to destroy ANY government he does not agree with. Jeopardizing agents out in the field that are doing covert operations and outing them and knowing that they could get killed is a criminal act, but yes, he is innocent, therefore he hides out in an Ecuadorian embassy, also wanted suspect on rape charges in Sweden. Seems like a lot of people want to get their hands on him. Yeah, I do know the difference. Assange is both.

@bertie

Any regime that has to use that amount of force to hold its position is doomed.

Translation, it sucks that Manning was found guilty, the evidence stuck and was overwhelming and I don't like it.

@frungy

If terrorists wiped out an entire U.S. city there'd be hell to pay and cries for rivers of blood... but when the U.S. ambles over to Afghanistan and Iraq and kills a similar number of people they expect people to be grateful??!! Wtf?

WT... is right. The US did not and never has targeted civilians for the pure pleasure of it. Did you have a few rogue soldiers that went overboard, yes you did and they were arrested and dealt with and their families compensated, but the vast majority of US soldiers are noble and are doing their jobs as ordered. If the US gets attacked by enemy forces, they are supposed to try and talk it out, lay down and take it. Allow these thugs to hide behind women and children and use them as human shields while they cowardly gun at our soldiers? How convoluted is that assumption?

The U.S. military is famously undisciplined.

I think that was a very prejudiced accusation to make. Shame on you!

How many articles have you read about French, German, British or in fact any other nation's military being involved in rapes, murders, etc. in the last couple of years?

That depends on who you talk to. Also, as a journalist, I do know for a fact that the liberal media in the US as also worldwide is anti-war and will drown out and write any reports to undermine ANY credibility or support for ANY military action, this has been going on since Vietnam. I have worked and been with many brave men and women of the armed forces, reported in Iraq, twice and have the utmost respect for our military, NOT because I am an American, but I have seen what they go through. And we owe our freedoms to them, NOT just the US or Japan.

Just look at Okinawa, they put the base on lockdown and within a two week period there were 3 instances of people wandering off base and getting so drunk that they couldn't get back... and those were only the guys with no head for booze.

Straw-man argument. Yes, you have some individuals that have royally messed up and something should be done about it, you blame the entire military though. Weed out those bad apples, but don't stereo-type or cast gross generalizations.

The U.S. military courts website is PROUD that the military crime rate is below the civilian crime rate... that's not something to be proud of. Statistically the U.S. military has the highest crime rate of any G8 country. You shouldn't be defending this, you should be crying out for more discipline. These are people entrusted with weapons that could kill MILLIONS and you're PROUD that they're less criminal than gangsters?

All in all the US military is still the best at what it does, so would you be happier if British troops were stationed in Okinawa? How about Australians or the French, would that be acceptable, methinks that it would be to you. Your bias is showing.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

The US did not and never has targeted civilians for the pure pleasure of it. Did you have a few rogue soldiers that went overboard, yes you did and they were arrested and dealt with and their families compensated

I'm assuming you mean the families of the dead civilians were compensated. How much exactly do you think is ample compensation for the loss of a breadwinner/spouse/child/parent killed by someone 'going overboard'? How much would you be happy to settle for if it were your family? Do you imagine the victims get anywhere near that?

the vast majority of US soldiers are noble and are doing their jobs as ordered.

I think frungy's point is that it's not the 'few rogue soldiers' that are the problem, but the soldiers doing their jobs as ordered, invading sovereign countries on the basis of a pack of lies and killing innocent citizens - the results of which are 'classified'.

All in all the US military is still the best at what it does

What exactly do you think it does?

so would you be happier if British troops were stationed in Okinawa?

No troops would be best, but on the whole I don't think British troops stationed abroad stir up quite as much dust as the US troops do. The parallel I suppose would be UK forces in Germany - taking up nowhere near as much land, causing much less trouble and now apparently set to pull out by 2019.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

" You don't know who got prosecuted and who didn't. Just because you didn't hear about it, doesn't mean, no one was held accountable! You are just making stuff up!"

Then provide data, please.

" but the vast majority of US soldiers are noble and are doing their jobs as ordered."

Doing as ordered wasn't a very good argument at Nuremberg, was it.

Yes, anti-war. Oh! Being a warmonger is by definition patriotic? Now I see! Freedom is Slavery, too, right?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

@ Probie

We can only hope that some other prisoner sees fit to give his own sentence.

Let's just get this right. You are advocating the murder of someone simply for exposing some murderers. You need a serious recalibration of your moral compass. Patriotism is only second behind religion as a factor promoting irrationality and cruelty, as you have perfectly demonstrated.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

so bankers get a bailout and whistleblowers go to jail for decades. Yeah, looks like America is circling the drain something fierce and picking up speed

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Then provide data, please.

Sorry, don't have that kind of clearance, but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Nice try though.

" but the vast majority of US soldiers are noble and are doing their jobs as ordered."

Doing as ordered wasn't a very good argument at Nuremberg, was it.

This is NOT Nuremberg.

Yes, anti-war. Oh! Being a warmonger is by definition patriotic? Now I see! Freedom is Slavery, too, right?

You are way off track!

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Jean: What's despicable is the fascist-type cheerleaders frothing at the mouth to harshly punish Manning. Disgusting. The Soviet States of America.

Jean, the there is only one thing you want: revenge. You don't care who does it or who gets hurt along the way. Manning gave you that and you have no problems ignoring the decent people he hurt who had nothing to do with whistle-blowing. Your comparison to the Soviet Union is mental masturbation for a man who has built up so much BS in his mind that he can say anything that feels good and not care how it makes him look. This case is complicated, important, and heavy all in one. You aren't up to the task and you have very little to offer other than catchphrases.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@bass, deny it all you like, but the vitriol towards those who tell the truth, such as Manning, Snowden, Ellsberg, and the other prosecuted government exposers in addition to the militarization of police and the many other violations of basic liberties theoretically protected by the Constitution clearly illustrate the Sovietization that has accelerated in the last two decades. Rather Orwellian indeed.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

bass4funkAug. 22, 2013 - 02:12PM JST @frungy WT... is right. The US did not and never has targeted civilians for the pure pleasure of it.

The U.S. has. One word, "Vietnam". Looks like you're wrong again.

Did you have a few rogue soldiers that went overboard, yes you did and they were arrested and dealt with and their families compensated,

Wrong again. Those reports were classified... do you know what that means? It means the U.S. army never admitted their involvement, never paid compensation, and charges were never filed (how can you have a trial for a crime that is too secret to talk about?).

Even when they were, such as in the public case of Lawrence Hutchins III, sentences have been light, and have been overturned.

Oh, and the "compensation" you're going on about? When it is paid it is only about $1 000 per victim. That would mean that if Al Quaeda could just pony up $ 5 million they could "compensate" all the victims of 9/11... By contrast the 9/11 victim compensation fund paid out $1.8 million per victim... so in effect the U.S. government is saying that 1 US citizen = 1000 other people.

but the vast majority of US soldiers are noble and are doing their jobs as ordered. If the US gets attacked by enemy forces, they are supposed to try and talk it out, lay down and take it.

This is nonsense logic. In not a single incident that was classified were the U.S. forces under fire when they killed civilians. In every single case the U.S. was the aggressor.

Allow these thugs to hide behind women and children and use them as human shields while they cowardly gun at our soldiers? How convoluted is that assumption?

It is just false. It portrays this as a stand-up fight when all the data we have shows that mostly people are going about their normal daily lives then a drone rocks up and kills a whole lot of people indiscriminately. Or you're asleep in your bed and someone kicks in the door and starts shooting. These are not "set piece" battles like you see on Hollywood, the U.S. are terrorists, killing innocent civilians in their beds and while they're having wedding parties.

The U.S. military is famously undisciplined.

I think that was a very prejudiced accusation to make. Shame on you!

Oh, really? Then prove me wrong. It would be prejudiced if I was wrong, but the fact is that I'm not. Don't believe me? Talk to the RAF (Royal Air Force). They got really sick of being fired at by trigger happy USAF morons who couldn't check their IFF.

That depends on who you talk to. Also, as a journalist, I do know for a fact that the liberal media in the US as also worldwide is anti-war and will drown out and write any reports to undermine ANY credibility or support for ANY military action, this has been going on since Vietnam. I have worked and been with many brave men and women of the armed forces, reported in Iraq, twice and have the utmost respect for our military, NOT because I am an American, but I have seen what they go through. And we owe our freedoms to them, NOT just the US or Japan.

Many governments were involved in the war in Iraq. As a "journalist" who claims to have been there I'd think you'd know that, but I've long doubted your claims in that regard. According to your logic ANY military involved should have been subjected to the same criticism... but you can't provide any instances of wrongdoing by another military. Thank you for proving my point, that the U.S. military are undisciplined.

Straw-man argument. Yes, you have some individuals that have royally messed up and something should be done about it, you blame the entire military though. Weed out those bad apples, but don't stereo-type or cast gross generalizations.

Go and read up on the difference between "straw man" and "cherry picking". I may have been guilty of cherry picking (i.e. choosing a situation where discipline is known to be poor and generalizing), but that is not a straw man argument. The simple fact is though that U.S. discipline is awful. There are GANGS in the U.S. military. Not just one or two, but many.

All in all the US military is still the best at what it does, so would you be happier if British troops were stationed in Okinawa? How about Australians or the French, would that be acceptable, methinks that it would be to you. Your bias is showing.

The U.S. military is the biggest, but not the best by any measure, unless you're happy to be the "best" at killing women and children. Vietnam? Got its ass kicked. Sudan? Got its ass kicked. Libya? Hahahahaha... that was a disaster. And every time the civilian body count has been higher than the number of dead soldiers. The only think the U.S. army is "best" at is their inability to tell a 5 year old child holding a dolly from an adult holding a gun.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Good thing he wasn't spreading false information, he might have gotten the death penalty.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Frungy,

Thank you for some excellent, well thought out and well written posts.

The time you must have taken to write these posts is much appreciated, as is your sanity and good reasoning.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Against this background of comments like "American troops don't target civilians for fun" and so on, everyone should check out John Pilger's The War You Don't See, which is available free online on his site at: http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-you-dont-see

It's a breathtaking documentary about the content of the information that came to light via Manning and Assange. I know that it probably won't affect the opinions of the 'America is my truth, my honor, my religion' brigade, but for everyone else, it paints a very clear picture of what was going on Iraq and Afghanistan, and the attempts to prevent the public from knowing about it. The so-called 'treachery' of making these war crimes known to us should instead be considered heroically brave.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

We can only hope that some other prisoner sees fit to give his own sentence.

Let's just get this right. You are advocating the murder of someone simply for exposing some murderers. You need a serious recalibration of your moral compass. Patriotism is only second behind religion as a factor promoting irrationality and cruelty, as you have perfectly demonstrated.

I'm guessing you, and everyone else on here wahing about this scumbag going to jail, have never been in the military, and certainly never had to deal with any classified information. To put it simple: when you sign up for that, you sign forms saying you will keep secret stuff secret, under punishment by law. Manning went against that= he committed a crime, and should be punished accordingly. 35 years is letting him off easy. They should have made an example of him, and banged him up for a lot longer with no parole.

Yeah, I am advocating murder. Because traitors deserve it. All this "well, nobody has died because of what he released" garbage: that doesn't matter. What he did was still a crime.

Snowden is the same. The fact he first ran to China, and now is in Russia, shows that HIS moral compass is spun right around to saving himself, even though those 2 countries do a hell of alot worse to their people's rights than the U.S. does. If he is so righteous, he should have stayed and faced trial. He's not. He's an attention-seeker.

The same horrified masses who are complaining about their e-mail/phone logs being stored by the government, will more than likely be watching the entertainment news, or reading blogs about famous people doing stuff and lapping it all up. When it's THEM that is being watched, they don't like it though.

Why does everyone who leaks some governments secrets be automatically hailed as a hero?

The video that Manning leaked was a video of an accident. The guys in the helicopter weren't firing on those people for the fun of it. They thought they were holding an AK and an RPG. It was a mistake. Stuff like that happens in war.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

@Probie

Yeah, I am advocating murder. Because traitors deserve it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Probie Last time I checked, Presidents take an oath too, how is it Bob, that that escapes your reasoning. Too much coke? Being a muppet to the State is not honorable.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The guys in the helicopter weren't firing on those people for the fun of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0I6S8mva-s#t=03m41s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0I6S8mva-s#t=06m45s

It was a mistake. Stuff like that happens in war. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A26WOvkMzo#t=26m46s

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

But Manning's most high-profile champion, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, declared Wednesday's ruling a "significant tactical victory" for his anti-secrecy cause.

Easy for him to say - he's not serving 35 years.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Why does everyone who leaks some governments secrets be automatically hailed as a hero?

They are not automatically hailed as a hero. One example that comes to mind is the Plame affair. Actually, the government didn't really care who was behind that leak, which was potentially more damaging than Manning's leak.

The guys in the helicopter weren't firing on those people for the fun of it.

I do remember them saying things like "Sweet!" after murdering one of those innocent civilians. And these guys are considered heroes:

http://www.army.mil/article/5524/Quick_reaction_helps_pilots_thwart_attack/

-20 ( +3 / -23 )

@bertie

I know that jab was for me, come on, dude. This is not high school.

@jean

@deny it all you like, but the vitriol towards those who tell the truth, such as Manning, Snowden, Ellsberg, and the other prosecuted government exposers in addition to the militarization of police and the many other violations of basic liberties theoretically protected by the Constitution clearly illustrate the Sovietization that has accelerated in the last two decades. Rather Orwellian indeed.

No denying and there was NO truth telling, there was governmental and private information stolen. It doesn't matter what you say or how you want to contort this, Manningis going away and that's that! That's the ONLY thing, I care about.

@frungy

The U.S. has. One word, "Vietnam". Looks like you're wrong again.

Sorry, but NO.

Did you have a few rogue soldiers that went overboard, yes you did and they were arrested and dealt with and their families compensated,

Wrong again. Those reports were classified... do you know what that means? It means the U.S. army never admitted their involvement, never paid compensation, and charges were never filed (how can you have a trial for a crime that is too secret to talk about?).

Did you also know that the military have their own rules for dealing with their own and yes, many of the accused were reprimanded, maybe not publicly, but heads did roll as they should have.

Even when they were, such as in the public case of Lawrence Hutchins III, sentences have been light, and have been overturned.

That is NOT for you or I to judge as to what is lenient and what is harsh or are you saying you know more then the military lawyers? Nice try.

Oh, and the "compensation" you're going on about? When it is paid it is only about $1 000 per victim. That would mean that if Al Quaeda could just pony up $ 5 million they could "compensate" all the victims of 9/11... By contrast the 9/11 victim compensation fund paid out $1.8 million per victim... so in effect the U.S. government is saying that 1 US citizen = 1000 other people.

First of all, I know for a fact that many of the victims were paid a lot of money, a lot of that has been classified. But it is a lot more than that. Stop reading Daily Kos, you're getting the wrong information.

but the vast majority of US soldiers are noble and are doing their jobs as ordered. If the US gets attacked by enemy forces, they are supposed to try and talk it out, lay down and take it.

This is nonsense logic. In not a single incident that was classified were the U.S. forces under fire when they killed civilians. In every single case the U.S. was the aggressor.

Lol, wow! The liberal blogs are really getting to you.

Allow these thugs to hide behind women and children and use them as human shields while they cowardly gun at our soldiers? How convoluted is that assumption?

It is just false. It portrays this as a stand-up fight when all the data we have shows that mostly people are going about their normal daily lives then a drone rocks up and kills a whole lot of people indiscriminately. Or you're asleep in your bed and someone kicks in the door and starts shooting. These are not "set piece" battles like you see on Hollywood, the U.S. are terrorists, killing innocent civilians in their beds and while they're having wedding parties.

You watch too much TV, seriously, if you believe that, then fine. I was there as a reporter in 1991 and in 2005, I have seen enough conflict. What you are saying is an absolute and outright lie.

The U.S. military is famously undisciplined.

Again, not true.

I think that was a very prejudiced accusation to make. Shame on you!

Oh, really? Then prove me wrong. It would be prejudiced if I was wrong, but the fact is that I'm not. Don't believe me? Talk to the RAF (Royal Air Force). They got really sick of being fired at by trigger happy USAF morons who couldn't check their IFF.

Frungy, this is not a court of law, this is a blog site, again, you are asking questions to the wrong person. I didn't know the US military was on trial, I can go on about the RAF as well, but what for? Seriously.

That depends on who you talk to. Also, as a journalist, I do know for a fact that the liberal media in the US as also worldwide is anti-war and will drown out and write any reports to undermine ANY credibility or support for ANY military action, this has been going on since Vietnam. I have worked and been with many brave men and women of the armed forces, reported in Iraq, twice and have the utmost respect for our military, NOT because I am an American, but I have seen what they go through. And we owe our freedoms to them, NOT just the US or Japan.

Many governments were involved in the war in Iraq. As a "journalist" who claims to have been there I'd think you'd know that, but I've long doubted your claims in that regard.

Oh, so now you know me, my life?

According to your logic ANY military involved should have been subjected to the same criticism... but you can't provide any instances of wrongdoing by another military. Thank you for proving my point, that the U.S. military are undisciplined.

That was your opinion, not mine.

Straw-man argument. Yes, you have some individuals that have royally messed up and something should be done about it, you blame the entire military though. Weed out those bad apples, but don't stereo-type or cast gross generalizations.

Go and read up on the difference between "straw man" and "cherry picking". I may have been guilty of cherry picking (i.e. choosing a situation where discipline is known to be poor and generalizing), but that is not a straw man argument. The simple fact is though that U.S. discipline is awful. There are GANGS in the U.S. military. Not just one or two, but many.

Sure, as in every other military branch in most countries.

All in all the US military is still the best at what it does, so would you be happier if British troops were stationed in Okinawa? How about Australians or the French, would that be acceptable, methinks that it would be to you. Your bias is showing.

The U.S. military is the biggest, but not the best by any measure,

Sorry, but yes, it is, the best, without a doubt. Can we go back to talk about Manning.

unless you're happy to be the "best" at killing women and children. Vietnam? Got its ass kicked. Sudan? Got its ass kicked. Libya? Hahahahaha... that was a disaster. And every time the civilian body count has been higher than the number of dead soldiers. The only think the U.S. army is "best" at is their inability to tell a 5 year old child holding a dolly from an adult holding a gun.

Your trolling now.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The guys in the helicopter weren't firing on those people for the fun of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0I6S8mva-s#t=03m41s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0I6S8mva-s#t=06m45s

We must be looking at different videos. Soldiers whooping and laughing when they score in their video-game shoot-up? Yelling 'Let's shoot!!'? Telling each other 'It's their own fault for bringing kids to a battle'? Tittering when a tank runs over a body?

And it all starts when they decide a group of people in which one man is carrying a camera is a whole group of men with AK47s and RPGs. There was no 'battle' (or 'engagement' as the self-satisfied, psychopathic myopic game shooters call it). Just hi-tech shooting from a safe distance at unarmed people going about their business, and again at the people who come to pick up the bodies and non-existant 'weapons'.

The whole thing is pretty disgusting and makes me want to vomit. Bradley Manning is being sent to prison for telling the American people the kind of thing their brave troops are getting up to? Whoever is in charge of Bushmaster, Crazy Horse and Hotel are the people who should be being tried for treason and war crimes. Or even plain old murder.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Yeah cleo, I know, I messed up the quote function thing. Someone else wrote that the 'guys werent firing for fun', but there is video that directly contradicts that.

There is loads more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0I6S8mva-s#t=10m04s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0I6S8mva-s#t=09m25s

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

cleo,

You made just the point I was about to make.

Probie wrote:

Stuff like that happens in war.

Yes, it does.

People do insane things in war time.

How on Earth could that be termed a war?

It was a massacre built on lies.

And men whooping and hollering as they happily slaughtered 10 people, including two Reuters reporters and children is a crime for which those responsible - ALL the way to the TOP - should be brought to justice.

Manning didn't do that. All he did was to make this insane act visible.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@bertie, cleo

You make it seem like it was the norm as to how the US military operates and to your disappointment, it is a very rare exception.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

You make it seem like it was the norm as to how the US military operates and to your disappointment, it is a very rare exception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A26WOvkMzo#t=26m46s

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

He deserved some punishment for being indiscriminate in what documents he made public.

Just as soon as the people who should have made those documents in the first place get some punishment, lets talk about that. Until then, I see no reason why the question should be anywhere near the table or why Manning should get one day of jail time. Criminals should be punished in chronological order.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Courage Manning, you'll be out soon.

First of all, I know for a fact that many of the victims were paid a lot of money,

You know ? How many victim where there in Iraq ? They pay how if they don't know how many ? Launch a bag of $US from the sky and survivors grab some ? If you were a journalist, you'd come with facts not your "I know for a fact". Thanks to Manning and wikileaks for doing the job the pseudo-journalists have not the guts to do.

Also, as a journalist, I do know for a fact that the liberal media in the US as also worldwide is anti-war and will drown out and write any reports to undermine ANY credibility or support for ANY military action, this has been going on since Vietnam.

Surely. Look at what they write about Syria. If I take how they inflated it about Vietnam as a reference, I have to believe there isn't even a problem in Syria, only the police routine to deal with street violence.

The video that Manning leaked was a video of an accident. .... Stuff like that happens in war.

"So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored." So why do you want to hide it ? American people that want the Japanese to teach about comfort women, Nankin, they can only wish the same for their kids. When they teach to American school kids the wars in Viet-Nam, Iraq and about the great US army, they have to show them the archive photos, and that famous video without editing. Let the citizens know that sh*t happens in wars. It's their wars. Let kids that may later join the army see the job. Bored kids of Oklahoma would love to know there is a perfect career waiting for them.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Bored kids of Oklahoma

Exactly. They talk so much about "honor" and "glory", but it seems for many of them that this is just BS to cover up the fact that they signed up to continue playing their video games but in real life, to kill some (in their words) "sand n*ggas", and to make much more money than they would at the local Walmart.

Manning and Assange have revealed the truth behind this myth of "honor" and "glory", detail after excruciating detail. That's the real reason why they are the target of so much vitriol from US military personnel, not because they have endangered anyone.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Manning has about as much chance of obtaining a pardon as I have becoming Pope. I think he will be in for the long haul, as he should be.

RR

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

it is a very rare exception

How does anyone know if it's a 'rare exception' or not, if everything is classified and secret?

Just one instance of this kind of horror should be enough to have those of you who claim to love America and respect your troops up in arms at the way these video gamers disgrace the military and by association the whole country. Instead you whine 'It don't happen that often' and bay for the blood of the messenger. That response is as nauseating as the original atrocities you try to whitewash.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

This is the whole point - it isn't secret anymore... it's all available... it's just that the leaks haven't been disseminated properly by the media. See a minute or two from the link below: "the leaks involved 90,000 reports from Afghanistan and 490,000 reports from Iraq, including detailed kill counts" They added up the kill counts... in the hundreds of thousands for Afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A26WOvkMzo#t=32m30s

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This is the whole point - it isn't secret anymore... it's all available...

Exactly. But the 'string him up/put him in front of a firing squad/I hope they kill him in prison' crowd want to keep everything secret, and want us to believe (or maybe they want to be allowed to believe) that everything is honour, glory and apple pie.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Honour and glory.

What honour is there in slaughtering 12 completely unprotected people from a helicopter gunship? Or in a president, sitting in complete safety in an office in Washington ordering drones to be sent out to kill people labeled "terrorists" on someone's opinion and anyone else who happens to be standing in the vicinity.

What glory was there in the Garani massacre, details of which Manning also made public through Wikileaks, in which 147 innocent people were bombed and killed by a "courageous" B1 bomber?

And what honour is there in starting wars for personal gain and greed?

These are things for which we have to thank Manning.

America should feel shame.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

BertieWoosterAug. 22, 2013 - 05:01PM JST Frungy, Thank you for some excellent, well thought out and well written posts. The time you must have taken to write these posts is much appreciated, as is your sanity and good reasoning.

Thank you for your comment, some days it feels like the whole world has gone insane, and I greatly appreciate it when I'm proven wrong. I'm not doing this for public applause though, I genuinely feel that if I can reach even one person and make them realize that they're supporting a murderous government that thinks nothing of slaughtering hundreds of thousands and then sacrificing their own citizens by locking them up behind bars to protect their secrets, then I've done some good. I'm not a U.S. citizen, I can't vote in the U.S. elections, but if even one person listens then maybe, just maybe it'll make a small difference.

cleoAug. 22, 2013 - 09:29PM JST How does anyone know if it's a 'rare exception' or not, if everything is classified and secret?

I tend to be very wordy, and I think that a lot of people hit their TL;DR limit. You've put the key point very elegantly and very succinctly here. This is the very reason that freedom of speech was enshrined in the U.S. constitution. One of the core ideas behind democracy is "an informed voter". America claims it is the land of the free and home of democracy, but for so long as the state is free to cover up all of its crimes (and who knows what else they're covering up) then there is no freedom or democracy in the U.S.

It puts the incumbent President in a position that Reagan would have killed to be in.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Manning has about as much chance of obtaining a pardon as I have becoming Pope. I think he will be in for the long haul, as he should be.

I totally agree. Do the crime, do the time.

@bertie

What honour is there in slaughtering 12 completely unprotected people from a helicopter gunship? Or in a president, sitting in complete safety in an office in Washington ordering drones to be sent out to kill people labeled "terrorists" on someone's opinion and anyone else who happens to be standing in the vicinity.

Personally, I would rather have this president capture the enemy, interrogate them put them in Guantanamo and then whatever needs to be done. But Obama doesn't want that, he would rather obliberate them and be done with it, which for me is fine as well.

What glory was there in the Garani massacre, details of which Manning also made public through Wikileaks, in which 147 innocent people were bombed and killed by a "courageous" B1 bomber?

I have no problem with that, the perpetrators were rightfully punished, but you are conflating the issue with what Manning did, which was criminal in its purest form. But at least now justice is served and he'll think and reflect on his crimes and that should be a lesson doe anyone else that would do the same.

And what honour is there in starting wars for personal gain and greed?

Ask Al Qaeda and the Taliban, I also want to know why?

These are things for which we have to thank Manning.

I personally thank the justice system for locking his butt up, right where it belongs.

America should feel shame.

On the contrary, America is NOT on trail, for all the good the US has done, the only person that should feel shame, remorse and regret is Manning. He's got 35 years with at least a minimum of 8 to think and dwell on his criminal actions.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

for all the good the US has done

You really have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker... Ignorance is bliss, I guess. It's amazing, and deeply depressing, how effective the old propaganda machine can be.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes, hammereddownnail,

Almost the exact words I used myself a week ago in regard to our esteemed comrade.

It must be so lovely to be able to believe.

Faith is such a wonderful thing.

Except that it does tend to cloud the vision a little.

And the spelling.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

What honour is there in slaughtering 12 completely unprotected people from a helicopter gunship?

How strange that you make a point of quoting this, but then do not bother to answer. What honour is there in slaughtering 12 completely unprotected people from a helicopter gunship?

What glory was there in the Garani massacre

I have no problem with that, the perpetrators were rightfully punished

I tried digging around a bit for information on this; I found plenty of references to the US claiming the numbers of civilian dead weren't as high as claimed, but no references at all to the perpetrators being brought to trial, never mind punished. Do you have any links?

you are conflating the issue with what Manning did, which was criminal in its purest form.

Maybe it was criminal in that it was apparently a violation of the totalitarian laws of the country, but violating something that is already tawdry and soiled is is hardly a mortal sin.

But at least now justice is served and he'll think and reflect on his crimes and that should be a lesson doe anyone else that would do the same

I imagine the Godfather followed similar reasoning when he had the horse's head put in the bloke's bed. Don't mess with the Big Guy behind you, because he's way scarier than the so-called 'enemy' in front of you. Classic thuggery.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I'm not sad about this guy going to jail. He did what he felt he needed to do, but he signed up to protect the national interest of his country and failed to do so by leaking the information. However controversial they may be, a nation has a right to protect it's interest.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

isoduckyAug. 23, 2013 - 12:44AM JST I'm not sad about this guy going to jail. He did what he felt he needed to do, but he signed up to protect the national interest of his country and failed to do so by leaking the information. However controversial they may be, a nation has a right to protect it's interest.

Actually that's not what he signed up to do, and the current state secrecy isn't in the nation's interests. In fact just the opposite. You're being bled dry by an arms industry that is, at best, a short-term solution to a long-term economic problem. The U.S. is now in a catch-22. It can't stop the wars because that would crash the arms industry and lead to a second great depression... but the money it is spending on the wars is stopping it from investing in changes it needs to enact drastically needed economic reforms.

China has already overtaken the U.S. by many measures, and the U.S. PR machine has already spun into motion denying the Chinese economic data (while ignoring that everyone knows that the U.S. economic data has been mostly fantasy and good PR for the last two decades).

Manning's oath had nothing to do with protecting national interests, but even if it did he was doing the U.S. a huge favor... its a shame that some people have been so badly educated and so deeply indoctrinated that they simply cannot see the bigger issues here.

MadvertsAug. 23, 2013 - 12:50AM JST Heh, this thread is like some sort of support group for people taking their anti-Americanism to a prescription therapy level.

Ah, the old "victim card". I am constantly amazed how people from the U.S. can expect people to like them or their country or their whining when they're involved in an unjust war that thus far has claimed, conservatively, a third of a million civilian victims.

What precisely do you expect? That people will suddenly back down because you accuse them of being anti-American? Right now the U.S. is looking a LOT like the Nazis... except with worse dress sense. Nobody buys the U.S. propaganda except people born and raised with it, and even then I'm pleased to see that a surprising large number of U.S. citizens are waking up and realizing that their government has been lying to them. Manning played a small part in that and deserves to be congratulated.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I think he's a lucky boy, I mean girl. The Americans can hand out some hefty sentences, and not being plagued with irrational hatred of the US, I submit he got off rather lightly.

Manning is one messed up person and I almost feel sorry for her - gender disorder must be bad enough without having to go through this to accept it. I freely acknowledge she is a victim in this affair, whilst the little man hiding from sex crimes allegations in the London embassy enjoys the last gasps of his pathetic reality show.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

MadvertsAug. 23, 2013 - 01:18AM JST I think he's a lucky boy, I mean girl. The Americans can hand out some hefty sentences, and not being plagued with irrational hatred of the US, I submit he got off rather lightly.

There's nothing irrational about my dislike for the ongoing slaughter of women and children currently being carried out by the U.S. military with the full support of their government (but not the full support of the U.S. people, many of whom voted for Obama when it was part of his platform that he would end the war on terror).

What is irrational is attributing the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you to irrationality.

Manning is one messed up person and I almost feel sorry for her - gender disorder must be bad enough without having to go through this to accept it.

Or possibly Manning just wants to be in the female prison where rape in the showers is less likely and the inmates are much prettier. I can completely understand that.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@Madverts

Come on; you don't strike me as the type to mock someone over their gender-identity problems. But sock-washing jokes and changing from "boy" to "girl " to "he" to "she" inside the same post just isn't nice.

And why this obsession with law-breaking? Bad laws are there to be broken. That's the duty of all of us, and the action of heroes.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Fungry, for the purpose of this argument I'm going to assume are you have a friend name Nic who is married with a family. Nic works for a company who is a major player in X industry. He handles sensitive material, it's part of his job. One day he decides he doesn't like the advantage/position/direction of his company and he decides to post what he knows online. It's traced back, he is fired from his job and sued. Do you agree with the company and it's actions? This is the same issue with Mr. Bradley and the US government. No nation is perfect, and no government plays fair. Part of a governments job is to put it's nation in a better position relative to other nations. Sometimes this means doing controversial things. If you have an employee actively hindering progress, they need to be dealt with. Mr. Bradley was an employee of the US government.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Frungy: There's nothing irrational about my dislike for the ongoing slaughter of women and children currently being carried out by the U.S. military with the full support of their government

Here's what you and others don't get: Your feelings about the US government are absolutely irrelevant to the legal status of Manning. The only point you're making is that you'll support anyone or anything that goes after the government regardless of who he hurts in the process.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You really have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker... Ignorance is bliss, I guess. It's amazing, and deeply depressing, how effective the old propaganda machine can be.

Sorry, but the US has done more good as a noble nation than bad from humanitarian aid to nation building, donations. I never said, the US wasn't perfect, of course not. Who rebuilt Germany and Japan? It wasn't France or the UK or Korea or China. Ignorance stems a lot of times from people that see things through tinted rose-colored glasses, NOW that is real bliss and to me, sadly disturbing, some of you are funny at Cherry picking instances that seem like they are the majority of mistakes that the US make when in actuality, it is a very small fraction of a noble nation. Doesn't mean, we are better, but we do care, even in our worst situation, Americans will always reach in their pockets to try and help, always.

@frungy

Actually he didn't. He engaged in constitutionally protected free speech.

Well, looks like he ain't free no more! lol

There's nothing irrational about my dislike for the ongoing slaughter of women and children currently being carried out by the U.S. military with the full support of their government (but not the full support of the U.S. people, many of whom voted for Obama when it was part of his platform that he would end the war on terror).

You know, I really love how you gloss over a few incidents of women and children being slaughtered, when I can give you thousands of examples where every nation has done so and the US is no exception, goes with the territory. In 200 years, when another great world war comes, if you think innocent women and children won't get killed and or slaughtered, you are living in Bizarro world. I am NOT an Obama supporter, but I fully applaud him for stepping up the drone program and taking out these high value targets and I feel sorry if ANY innocent life is lost, but that's the only way to get these thugs and since they are cowardly, they will hide amongst the general population waiting it out, sometimes dressing as women, because as real man would never put innocent people in harms way, hoping they don't get bombed, so they can regroup and strike at us, that just won't happen again.

What is irrational is attributing the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you to irrationality.

lol

Or possibly Manning just wants to be in the female prison where rape in the showers is less likely and the inmates are much prettier. I can completely understand that.

I'm just going to stay away from that one.

@Superlib

Exactly.

@isoducky

The problem is, most liberals can't see through your rational and logical argument, as Super said, if it goes against the government, they are heroes. If Manning was operating a drone and did an airstrike and killed a high value target, then he would be vilified and scorned from the liberals of the pacific and atlantic continents.

Again, Bradley got what he deserved and I am happy that justice was served.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

bass4funk Aug. 23, 2013 - 03:52AM JST You know, I really love how you gloss over a few incidents of women and children being slaughtered, when I can give you thousands of examples where every nation has done so and the US is no exception, goes with the territory. In 200 years, when another great world war comes, if you think innocent women and children won't get killed and or slaughtered, you are living in Bizarro world.

The widespread systemic killing of Afghan children is shocking to say the least. But, you notice the same systemic killing of children by U.S. drones in Pakistan? The Taliban didn't aid Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA which is the U.S. goverment. Al Qaeda doesn't represent an entire religion and cannot "make war" on behalf of 1.6 billion peaceful people. You can't fight an ideology with bullets. Humans always make claims that "their" cause is the righteous one no matter how evil it may be. Bush did and so has has Obama. U.S. lost the moral high ground a long, long time ago.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Lucabrasi,

"But sock-washing jokes and changing from "boy" to "girl " to "he" to "she" inside the same post just isn't nice."

Please file under "couldn't resist", cross referenced with "actions have consequences" and certainly "error under rapidly changing announcements".....

Manning's transgender issue isn't new it has been part of her defence all along. In my opinion it is but a wanton use of the victim card, designed to further bolster support from the radical left who's raison d' être is to be victimised.....and then disclosed at the time of her sentencing for crimes she has admitted and apologised for for maximum effect.

I'm no psychologist but claiming "I did it to change the world" alongside "I did it because I'm not sure what sex I am" are two astronomically opposed improbable excuses that it's open to the land of scoff, even if I have frequently defended equal rights of LG BT people.

The only I justice here is the inept individuals that allowed Manning access to sensitive material in such a known and mentally unstable state have not been tried,or the ego maniac in the embassy.

She got off lightly.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The widespread systemic killing of Afghan children is shocking to say the least. But, you notice the same systemic killing of children by U.S. drones in Pakistan?

The Taliban didn't aid Al Qaeda.

I never said they did.

Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA which is the U.S. goverment.

Glad to know that you know more than the CIA, NSA and the Pentagon. You must know something they don't.

Al Qaeda doesn't represent an entire religion and cannot "make war" on behalf of 1.6 billion peaceful people.

And yet, those few individuals that are being backed by countries like Iraq and Syria to name a few is really nothing to worry about.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4677978/ns/world_news-hunt_for_al_qaida/t/al-qaida-timeline-plots-attacks/

You can't fight an ideology with bullets.

No, but one less dead Al Qaeda terrorist is one less problem to worry about. And as long as there are factories manufacturing the bullets, they'll be used.

Humans always make claims that "their" cause is the righteous one no matter how evil it may be. Bush did and so has has Obama. U.S. lost the moral high ground a long, long time ago.

Well, we just see things differently, you like most average liberals believe in hippie flower power, I believe more in the philosophy of fight fire with fire or like Malcolm X would say, talk to them in the language that they know and that's a heavy response will meet back with a heavy response. So they attack us and we should just sit down have some tea and cookies and see if we come to a mutual agreement? that will never happen. stop making excuses for these terrorists. And personally, I could give a fig of how the world thinks, if they were being attacked in the same manner, they would do the same thing, of course they would. But at the same time, many countries in Europe are turning Right-wing, there is a huge wave of anti-Muslim sentiment going on. It's just a matter of time before Europe breaks out into racial and religious wars. It already is happening in France and Germany and England. This is not an American problem, this is a western problem, the US is a side issue.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

the US has done more good as a noble nation than bad from humanitarian aid to nation building, donations. ..... Who rebuilt Germany and Japan?

Sixty years ago, bass. Different people. We're talking about the laughing, whooping, video-game cowards on the loose and killing civilians now. Having a granddad who was a good man doesn't confer automatic sainthood on his grandkids no matter what they do.

one less dead Al Qaeda terrorist is one less problem to worry about

And one more dead civilian is five to ten more problems to worry about, when the previously neutral or maybe even friendly friends and relatives of the 'collateral' victims see that the US is directly responsible for their deaths - and denies any responsibility.

So they attack us

The problem is that the 'they' who you think are attacking you are not the same 'they' that get shot at from the safety of the helicopter gunships or the remote-control drones. If I have an argument with you, does it give me the right to kill your child or grandchild? What's the difference?

Who were the people in hammereddownnail's video attacking, with their one camera and non-existant weapons, walking down a street empty of any Americans?

stop making excuses for these terrorists

Not talking about the terrorists, bass. Asking about (eg) the slaughter of 12 completely unprotected people from a helicopter gunship, which you seem to want to ignore.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sixty years ago, bass. Different people. We're talking about the laughing, whooping, video-game cowards on the loose and killing civilians now. Having a granddad who was a good man doesn't confer automatic sainthood on his grandkids no matter what they do.

To a point, I agree, however, the overall intentions of most Americans are to help people in need no matter who the person(s) may be.

And one more dead civilian is five to ten more problems to worry about, when the previously neutral or maybe even friendly friends and relatives of the 'collateral' victims see that the US is directly responsible for their deaths - and denies any responsibility.

But that is usually not the case. And being around these people, I have often seen them many times milking the situation for money or even just a witch hunt. The majority of them hide behind women and children, thus putting them in harms way. No one is addressing this particular serious problem.

The problem is that the 'they' who you think are attacking you are not the same 'they' that get shot at from the safety of the helicopter gunships or the remote-control drones. If I have an argument with you, does it give me the right to kill your child or grandchild? What's the difference?

No, but you can also put boots on the ground and having a possible repeat of Mogadishu and the US and other armed forces will not take that kind of chance. So your choices are limited when dealing with these thugs. When you have these animals using women and children as human shields, it does make them very difficult. So you can either go in heavy-handed and risk heavy casualties even more so or you can do drone strikes and strategically kill a high value target, yes, there might be innocent people around the target, but how will you isolate the target? Ask them to step outside? Arms up? That will never happen. You are in a catch 22 position. You always try to avoid innocent civilian casualties, but the truth of the matter is, it doesn't always work like that, so you need to take the option of the less of two evils.

Not talking about the terrorists, bass. Asking about (eg) the slaughter of 12 completely unprotected people from a helicopter gunship, which you seem to want to ignore.

From what I have heard, it was a retaliatory attack against those people that were either connected to Al Qaeda or random for some soldiers that your brutally massacred by them. They wanted to send them a message and give them a payback. Tragic and unfortunate as it was, those men WERE punished and I heard one of them received the death penalty, but don't quote me on this, but as as I heard, that's about what happened.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

isoduckyAug. 23, 2013 - 02:08AM JST Fungry, for the purpose of this argument I'm going to assume are you have a friend name Nic who is married with a family. Nic works for a company who is a major player in X industry. He handles sensitive material, it's part of his job. One day he decides he doesn't like the advantage/position/direction of his company and he decides to post what he knows online. It's traced back, he is fired from his job and sued. Do you agree with the company and it's actions? This is the same issue with Mr. Bradley and the US government. No nation is perfect, and no government plays fair. Part of a governments job is to put it's nation in a better position relative to other nations. Sometimes this means doing controversial things. If you have an employee actively hindering progress, they need to be dealt with. Mr. Bradley was an employee of the US government.

Okay, I'll take your analogy and run with it. What's important is what's in the sensitive material he discloses. Let's say, for example, that he discovers that the company has been producing products that kill people, but that it has been keeping it a secret.

Now comes Nic's big court date. The company walks up to the Judge and says, "We're suing Nic here for informing the public that we knowingly killed people, but kept it secret. Waah, waaah, poor us, he damaged our lucrative business!.". ... the Judge raises an eyebrow and promptly orders the Company executives arrested, issues search warrents for any further material, and dismisses the suit against Nic with damages.

That you cannot SEE that what the U.S. government is doing is wrong is what is truly and deeply disturbing. That you accept and support the killing of innocent men, women and children as normal is likewise deeply disturbing. I think the U.S. may well need more shrinks than it already has.

bass4funkAug. 23, 2013 - 03:52AM JST You know, I really love how you gloss over a few incidents of women and children being slaughtered

For someone who claims to be a journalist I think you may need a dictionary, perhaps you should look up the meaning of the phrase, "gloss over".

when I can give you thousands of examples where every nation has done so and the US is no exception, goes with the territory.

Nonsense. Firstly there are plenty of countries that haven't. Take Switzerland, or Ireland. Secondly, most nations have done a little thing called "growing up", a process that I can thoroughly recommend. They don't rampage around the world killing people and respect others. The U.S. and China are pretty much the same right now, aggressive, imperialist governments bent on colonial agendas. All of the other developed countries have got over their colonial phase, discovered that it is more expensive that its worth, and gone back to managing their own countries.

In 200 years, when another great world war comes, if you think innocent women and children won't get killed and or slaughtered, you are living in Bizarro world.

Oh, I wasn't aware that you changed your name to NostraBass4funk. Tell me, what are tomorrow's winning lottery numbers?

And I sincerely hope that in 200 years we'll have all grown up enough to realise that war is a pretty lousy idea.

I am NOT an Obama supporter, but I fully applaud him for stepping up the drone program and taking out these high value targets

What high value targets? Are you playing GTA where hitting women and children gives more points? Its not like anyone in the U.S. actually checks who was killed, or if they could identify them anyway. Instead they just count bodies and declare them all "militants"... even if they're under 4 foot tall and carrying dolls. The CIA claims 2224 militants killed vs 286 civilians ... but wikileaks reports show that these figures are complete nonsense, and the CIA just makes it a secret every time it messes up... and routinely classifies everyone killed as a militant. Oh, and 5% of the kills were "minors" (the CIA's fuzzy way of saying "children").

The Peshwar high court figures are very much closer to reality when compared to the Wikileaks reports. 47 militants dead, 1500 civilians dead... Wow U.S. those drone strikes are SUPER effective... at killing civilians.

and I feel sorry if ANY innocent life is lost,

No you don't. If you really felt sorry you'd do something about it.

but that's the only way to get these thugs and since they are cowardly, they will hide amongst the general population waiting it out, sometimes dressing as women, because as real man would never put innocent people in harms way, hoping they don't get bombed, so they can regroup and strike at us, that just won't happen again.

The sheer illogic here staggers me. The U.S. chooses how and when it attacks. They could, for example, send green beret in with a knife to slit the terrorist's throat when he's on the toilet... they could snipe him from a mile away... they could send him a green card and arrest him at immigration... but you're telling me that it is the most efficient course to wait until there's a large public gathering, like a wedding and to bomb EVERYONE at the wedding??? Pull the other one, its got bells on it.

The U.S. chooses to attack large public gatherings, it chooses to kill masses of civilians, it chooses to then lie to the public, and when its caught in the act of lying it chooses to send one of its own citizens to prison instead of admitting it lied..

... and you know what's pathetic? That some people actually buy their lies and applaud their "defense of freedom". It just goes to show, you get the government you deserve.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

the overall intentions of most Americans are to help people in need

I'm sure they are. All the more reason for those decent Americans to be properly upset about what their government and military are doing in their name.

being around these people, I have often seen them many times milking the situation for money or even just a witch hunt. The majority of them hide behind women and children

Who are the 'these people' you're talking about? I'm talking about the women and children, the unarmed civilians.

your choices are limited when dealing with these thugs...you can do drone strikes and strategically kill a high value target

Again, who are 'these thugs'? Go back and watch nail's video, then explain to me how people walking down the street with a camera are transformed in the eye of the US military into dangerous thugs armed with AK47s and RPGs, not one of which is anywhere to be seen. Nor is there any mention by the long-distance video game shooters of any person in the group being identified as a 'high value target' - no 'That's so-and-so who attacked us yesterday/is leader of an Al Qaeda group', nothing.

You always try to avoid innocent civilian casualties

Always?? Watch the video. Among all the 'let's shoot!' 'nice!' and 'yee-haw's, try to find one single note of caution. You won't. There isn't one. Not one.

you need to take the option of the less of two evils

Lemme see, shoot dead a dozen innocent people, or fail to kill one unidentified man with a camera that might be an RPG (they make RPGs that small these days?). I think your idea of the lesser evil is the opposite of mine.

From what I have heard, it was a retaliatory attack...those men WERE punished and I heard one of them received the death penalty

From what you've heard? Where did you hear it? Why were they punished for carrying out a retaliatory attack? Maybe it wasn't any such, but just an out-of-control shoot-up, as it appears to be on the video? Where can we see records of where/when/how the punishment was carried out?

I'm sorry, but 'from what I'm heard' carries no weight whatsoever.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"People do crazy things in war time."

This was a comment, actually a feeble excuse for the actions of the helicopter crew in the Collateral Murder video. I forget who wrote it. Profuse apologies and all that, but it's been sticking in my mind.

I'm not denying that people do crazy things under the tremendous stresses of battle. But, if there is good discipline, the craziness can be kept to a minimum. Someone else commented on this, but discipline is lacking. There has been plenty of craziness from US servicemen in Okinawa when the only stresses were severe boredom.

The Collateral Murder video also reveals the lack of discipline. That a soldier is punished for revealing this is unforgivable. And something I just cannot think with is the fact that even though the video is highly visible, on YouTube for anyone to see, the soldiers who committed the war crime and the officers above them who condoned it, going right up to the top of the chain went COMPLETELY UNPUNISHED.

"People do crazy things in war time," so WHY was there a war in the first place?

I'm not completely against war. There may be times when it is the only solution. But the problems that the U.S.A. was having with Iraq could have been solved much more easily, more cheaply and with MUCH less loss of life and MASSIVE damage to property.

What was the problem they were trying to solve with the Iraq war?

Did they solve it?

Was it worth it?

Manning took responsibility for what he saw. He put humanity and his knowledge of what is right and fair above the danger that would result by revealing these things to the world.

Manning shone the light of truth on darkness and evil.

For that he will not be forgotten.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I'm surprised the MODS are letting this turn into a debate about Iraq. heheh....just kidding. ;) Good for business.

cleo: video-game cowards

You should go to a site called LiveLeak.com. They have combat videos there amongst others. You'll find just about every soldier from every country doing the same thing. Or, don't go and keep holding on to your point, your choice.

Manning is in jail and no amount of rehashing of the war in Iraq will change that. It's time for you guys to move on. There is probably something good on TV tonight anyway.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

You'll find just about every soldier from every country doing the same thing.

I'm sure I would, but I'm not into snuff stuff so I won't go and look. Nail's video was quite enough to last me, thank you.

So, every soldier from every country turns into a video-game wannabe coward? Or is it only when he's getting his jollies shooting innocent civilians? For my part I think any soldier from any country who deliberately and from a position of absolute safety kills anyone not posing a direct and immediate threat is a cowardly little piece of excrement, and when the Mannings of other countries come up with the evidence, I'll be just as scathing.

(Memo - 'Other people do it too' is no excuse.)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

bass4funk is quite vocal apparently,

Well I couldnt agree less on the noble aspect of US military, a majority is a college dropouts with not a yota of intelligence shining thru , clearly evidenced by 99% percent of encounters with one of them.

Unfortunately, there were often examples when US would try and extradite unrelated people to US, one example was that UK white hacker who caused no damage and had to fight with his teeth to stay in UK, unfortunately US is not to be trusted with absolutely anything, anyone intelligent enough would do the same as Assange.

Assange might not be the most likeable person out there but he did something important and US went even as far as bribe his employees / volunteers to get their hands on him.

Seriously , US today is the world joke, the only reason nobody is laughing openly is because they drop every cent into army bypassing health and education which is why most are obese and with low intelligence levels. That said, the debt they got is enormous and the serious crisis is not very far away... they really should stop the whole army program, regress in themselves ,reinvent and buy US back from China .

2 ( +4 / -2 )

That you cannot SEE that what the U.S. government is doing is wrong is what is truly and deeply disturbing. That you accept and support the killing of innocent men, women and children as normal is likewise deeply disturbing. I think the U.S. may well need more shrinks than it already has.

I believe in killing terrorists. As for innocent men, women and children, talk to the terrorists that hide behind them. I already outlined the option, there is NO way you can reason or talk to them. So in my opinion, do whatever needs to be done.

For someone who claims to be a journalist I think you may need a dictionary, perhaps you should look up the meaning of the phrase, "gloss over".

Personal, Ad hominem attacks won't get you anywhere. Leave the emotion out of it, or you lose credibility.

Nonsense. Firstly there are plenty of countries that haven't. Take Switzerland, or Ireland. Secondly, most nations have done a little thing called "growing up", a process that I can thoroughly recommend. They don't rampage around the world killing people and respect others. The U.S. and China are pretty much the same right now, aggressive, imperialist governments bent on colonial agendas. All of the other developed countries have got over their colonial phase, discovered that it is more expensive that its worth, and gone back to managing their own countries.

You mean like this? http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/racist-incidents-double-in-past-year-says-immigrant-council-of-ireland-1.1502887

A little older, but very, very relevant. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/archive/Blacks_bear_the_brunt_of_racism_in_Switzerland.html?cid=3023446

as for Europe, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/130524/european-racism-greece-italy

So not only are you entirely wrong, racism is on the rise, hardly grown. Sorry, spent 20 years in Europe, they have a very, very long way to go.

Oh, I wasn't aware that you changed your name to NostraBass4funk. Tell me, what are tomorrow's winning lottery numbers?

If I do, it wouldn't be a secret.

No you don't. If you really felt sorry you'd do something about it.

Now you can read my heart and mind? So then what are you doing to change the status quo? How are you contributing to the cause, except coming on JT and whining?

The sheer illogic here staggers me. The U.S. chooses how and when it attacks. They could, for example, send green beret in with a knife to slit the terrorist's throat when he's on the toilet... they could snipe him from a mile away... they could send him a green card and arrest him at immigration... but you're telling me that it is the most efficient course to wait until there's a large public gathering, like a wedding and to bomb EVERYONE at the wedding??? Pull the other one, its got bells on it.

You watch way too much TV, way too much.

The U.S. chooses to attack large public gatherings, it chooses to kill masses of civilians, it chooses to then lie to the public, and when its caught in the act of lying it chooses to send one of its own citizens to prison instead of admitting it lied..

You are overly exaggerating. I know you think the mission of the US is to hunt down and to kill innocent people, because it makes us feel good to see blood and carnage, because it's fun for us. Frungy, you just want to hear ANY negativity about the US armed forces, Because that is what YOU want to see. I take it personally because I have family going back to the Revolutionary wars that served bravely and you are lumping all Americans as the same. That is VERY insulting.

... and you know what's pathetic? That some people actually buy their lies and applaud their "defense of freedom". It just goes to show, you get the government you deserve.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@bass

Revolutinaries in the family, eh? That would be "traitors" to the British government of the team. Treason in it's worst form. Ironic in this situations, no? ; )

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No, meaning they were on the opposite side. come on now.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It seems bass cannot tell the difference between individual numpties showing racist tendencies at home, and countries sending their huge militaries overseas to stick it to the furriner (specially the furriners living on top of 'wor oil') as a matter of national policy. :-)

Of course, the reporters who wrote those articles rightly got sent to prison for betraying their country.

Oh hang on, no they didn't.

I believe in killing terrorists.

So you approve of the Brits all them years ago shooting at your revolutionary (=treasonous, terrorist) forebears? We were only doing what had to be done to deal with the traitors, after all.

it makes us feel good to see blood and carnage, because it's fun for us

Pretty hard to watch that laughing, tittering, whoop-it-up video and not get that impression.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@cleo

There is NO difference, many foreigners are attacked, brutalized and harassed on a daily basis by a growing portion of the White majority and for what? I know quite a few people that were attacked in Germany, Russia, Holland and in the UK, don't make light of it! Violence is violence, don't cherry pick! The point is, you will find violence everywhere and every country does it. And don't start with the oil argument, we all need oil, all of us or are the keys you are typing on now made up of steel. ;-)

Oh hang on, no they didn't.

Yes, they did. This is what always, always gets me about the liberal media, they will say and point out all of the negativity, accidents, mistakes, crimes, but anything positive NOPE or how justice was done? NOT a chance, but this is what the liberal media wants, to stir up resentment and apathy and or course do what they do best, one-sided skewed reporting.

So you approve of the Brits all them years ago shooting at your revolutionary (=treasonous, terrorist) forebears? We were only doing what had to be done to deal with the traitors, after all.

And you got your ***** handed right back to you. But you are most certainly welcome.

Pretty hard to watch that laughing, tittering, whoop-it-up video and not get that impression.

It's not an everyday of a moment event, I know you wish it to be, but sorry, No. One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There is NO difference, many foreigners are attacked, brutalized and harassed on a daily basis ... The point is, you will find violence everywhere and every country does it.

Are you trying to tell me that the individuals who commit racist acts (and no one is denying such acts do occur) do so with the blessing and support of their national government? That it's national policy? The point is that the people described in the articles are NOT supported by the national government; what they do is wrong and illegal, and if/when they get caught they are subject to the full force of the law.

Oh hang on, no they didn't.

Yes, they did.

What?? Have you completely lost the plot? Find me one report of any of those reporters (I'll give you their names - Christopher McKinley (Ireland), Mark Ledsom (Switzerland), Paul Ames (Europe)) being sent to prison, called traitors or even put on trial for writing those articles.

the liberal media, they will say and point out all of the negativity, accidents, mistakes, crimes, but anything positive NOPE or how justice was done? NOT a chance, but this is what the liberal media wants, to stir up resentment and apathy

What are you talking about?

It's not an everyday of a moment event, I know you wish it to be

No, I do not wish it to be. I find just the one incident quite disturbing enough. It's not an everyday event, but it is a crime and I do not understand why you would not want it to be brought out in to the open and dealt with in a just manner, or why you would consider the person who revealed the crime to be a traitor deserving of prison time.

those men WERE punished and I heard one of them received the death penalty

Still no links to back up this claim? Thought not.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

cleo: So, every soldier from every country turns into a video-game wannabe coward? Or is it only when he's getting his jollies shooting innocent civilians?

You're pretty emotional. Calm down.

For my part I think any soldier from any country who deliberately and from a position of absolute safety kills anyone not posing a direct and immediate threat is a cowardly little piece of excrement, and when the Mannings of other countries come up with the evidence, I'll be just as scathing.

So as you and I sit here from the safety of our computers I have to sit here and listen to you tell me that people in the military are cowards for not putting themselves into dangerous situations needlessly?

(Memo - 'Other people do it too' is no excuse.)

Maybe it's a human condition relating to how people deal with the stress of war. You do a lot of finger wagging as if you have combat all figured out and others are doing it wrong.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Cleo,

Bass4funk is a troll.

Ignore him.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Are you trying to tell me that the individuals who commit racist acts (and no one is denying such acts do occur) do so with the blessing and support of their national government?

I never said that, but nonetheless, it still occurs and is getting more and more out of control.

That it's national policy? The point is that the people described in the articles are NOT supported by the national government; what they do is wrong and illegal, and if/when they get caught they are subject to the full force of the law.

Not always and very often not.

What?? Have you completely lost the plot? Find me one report of any of those reporters (I'll give you their names - Christopher McKinley (Ireland), Mark Ledsom (Switzerland), Paul Ames (Europe)) being sent to prison, called traitors or even put on trial for writing those articles.

They did, that's a fact, I don't have the information anymore, I'm not with msnbc, so I don't have access to those files anymore.

No, I do not wish it to be. I find just the one incident quite disturbing enough. It's not an everyday event, but it is a crime and I do not understand why you would not want it to be brought out in to the open and dealt with in a just manner, or why you would consider the person who revealed the crime to be a traitor deserving of prison time.

It bothered me as well, very disturbing, but as I said, the men responsible for this are already paying for this. They were judged in a military court. Good enough.

Still no links to back up this claim? Thought not.

Cleo, spare me. We are not in kindergarden. egging me wont help I already told you, whether you believe me or not is irrelevant, but the military is not an open court like the OJ trial. They are not open to the public. The military deal with their own. Sounds goods to me.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

SuperLib -

I have to sit here and listen to you tell me that people in the military are cowards for not putting themselves into dangerous situations needlessly?

Diddums Lib, you don't have to 'listen' to anything here. It's just an opinion board. Skip over any opinions, including mine, that you don't like.

you tell me that people in the military are cowards for not putting themselves into dangerous situations needlessly?

No. They're cowards for shooting at defenceless people from the safety of their out-of-range armoured helicopters or remote-controlled drones. They don't have to 'put themselves in danger'.

as if you have combat all figured out

What 'combat'? There was no 'combat'.

bass-

I never said that,

Actually yes you did, you said there was NO difference between individuals committing racist acts at home and violent acts committed by countries.

They did, that's a fact

Pouting and saying it's a fact doesn't make it so. Those reporters are demonstrably still doing their jobs. There is nothing in any of the articles you linked to that would get them so much as a rap across the knuckles, never mind a prison sentence for treason. You're making stuff up.

The military deal with their own. Sounds goods to me.

Sounds fishy if not downright criminal to me. Those men were out-and-out murderers who delighted in their murderous actions and committed their crimes using US military property, paid for out of the taxes of decent American citizens. Why would they not be tried as murderers? And why would the person who made their crimes public be considered a criminal?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Getting back to topic; we don't live in a transparent society, We have never lived in a transparent society, and quite frankly, we (human beings) don't want to live in a transparent society. In a transparent society every action a nation does is truthfully explained. Would you elect a leader that went to war to claim resources, denied pure competition to protect national industries, create laws ensuring a cheap labor? If you said no, you can't live in the US/England/France, Japan/Brazil, or China/Vietnam/the African continent.

Now for the relevance, every government does things to protect it's nation sovereignty. They do this with immigration, tariffs, taxes, even transportation. Mr. Manning (he was born and charged as a man, when he completes reassignment, I'll change my titles), an employee of the government, hindered his government's ability to maintain sovereignty, and was punished for it. Whistle-blowing is not absolved of consequences, that would suggest his actions occurred in a vacuum. To those who say the US needs to be held accountable, I ask on what basis and to who? Remote controlled combatants (aka drones) are unregulated at this point by any world body. They are not covered in the Geneva Convention, so if you want to argue for accountability push for a ratification first. If there is a pattern of indiscriminate killing then there is a case for a war crime. There is a case of excessive collateral damage, but without regulation on drones, there is no line to be crossed. Secondly, people really don't want a nation to play fair. Because simply put, we are not a world of uniformed logical rational beings. We are a world of many different types rationals, logics, behavioral values. We are a jungle, and you will not survive long playing fair.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Traitor or hero. In the end it comes down to whether you view the US as ultimately good or bad for the world.

I view it as good. Therefore, Manning done the world a great wrong.

Obviously, many here view the US as bad. Some compare it to the Soviets, and even worse.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Actually yes you did, you said there was NO difference between individuals committing racist acts at home and violent acts committed by countries.

Clarification, what I was referring to is the act of violence, no matter the size level, violence is violence, therefore, whether its in the home or committed by other countries, it's the same thing. I have seen enough brutality by racist, mindless troglodytes more than a dozen Times.

Pouting and saying it's a fact doesn't make it so. Those reporters are demonstrably still doing their jobs. There is nothing in any of the articles you linked to that would get them so much as a rap across the knuckles, never mind a prison sentence for treason. You're making stuff up.

Sorry, Cleo, but I'm not. Again, if you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didn't happen, I do not make stuff up, I have no need, nor do I have a reason to do so. I have nothing to gain from lying and that's not how I was raised. I know it happened, I know that the liberal media at the time didn't give it the front page notoriety it deserved. Thank the liberal media for that and my former network.

Sounds fishy if not downright criminal to me. Those men were out-and-out murderers who delighted in their murderous actions and committed their crimes using US military property, paid for out of the taxes of decent American citizens.

And as such, were tried and convicted, that's all I know, but justice was done, that's the main result and goal.

Why would they not be tried as murderers?

They were, in a military court and the murders were committed and sentenced.

And why would the person who made their crimes public be considered a criminal?

Because, it was already established what they were and they paid a heavy price for their actions. Sorry, but the military almost never make their make their trials public.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I know that the liberal media at the time didn't give it the front page notoriety it deserved.

I think we must be talking at cross purposes. What do you mean by 'it'? I'm talking about your claim that the three journalists who wrote the three articles you provided links to were sent to prison for betraying their country. There was nothing in those articles that was a betrayal of any country, just straightforward reporting. If they were tried and sentenced (which they were not) why would the 'liberal media' refrain from making a stink about it? Innocent journalists jailed for doing their job would make great liberal media headlines.

but the military almost never make their make their trials public

Except when circumstances beyond their control force them to. Maybe they need to change their modus operandi, because it's obvious at the moment they're getting things very, very wrong; and without disclosure there is no incentive for them to even try and get things right.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/u-s-soldier-in-afghan-massacre-gets-life-with-no-parole#comment_1630399

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@cleo

I think we must be talking at cross purposes. What do you mean by 'it'? I'm talking about your claim that the three journalists who wrote the three articles you provided links to were sent to prison for betraying their country. There was nothing in those articles that was a betrayal of any country, just straightforward reporting.

I never said such a thing, you need to read properly, my point was that in those links that I've provided that the claim was made that Frungy was saying that Europe has more or less evolved from the shadow of violence, they have grown up and gave Ireland and Switzerland as an example and I said, that its not true, Europe is just as bad when it come to violence against people of color, whether we are talking about killing a family or attacking and stabbing a person because of their race or religion boils down to the same thing, violence and No country is immune from it.

If they were tried and sentenced (which they were not) why would the 'liberal media' refrain from making a stink about it? Innocent journalists jailed for doing their job would make great liberal media headlines.

Well they were, sentenced, just because YOU didn't hear about, they got what was coming to them, but you believe what you want. Lol .

Chill, sit back and take a deep breath. Life is good.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Of course, the reporters who wrote those articles rightly got sent to prison for betraying their country.

Oh hang on, no they didn't.

Yes, they did.

bass, I think you are the one who needs to read properly. There you are clearly stating that the reporters who wrote those articles rightly got sent to prison for betraying their country, which is ridiculous and obviously not the case. And now you say,

they got what was coming to them

What exactly was the crime these journalists committed for which you think they 'got what was coming to them'? They reported on racism in Europe, something that is no secret. Please, take a chill pill and stop knee-jerk disagreeing with everything a person writes who you perceive not to be on 'your side'. You're getting yourself into a ludicrously deep hole.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@cleo

bass, I think you are the one who needs to read properly. There you are clearly stating that the reporters who wrote those articles rightly got sent to prison for betraying their country, which is ridiculous and obviously not the case. And now you say,

I wasn't talking about the reporters. I was talking about the soldiers and the video that Manning revealed. You are jumping ahead of yourself.

What exactly was the crime these journalists committed for which you think they 'got what was coming to them'? They reported on racism in Europe, something that is no secret. Please, take a chill pill and stop knee-jerk disagreeing with everything a person writes who you perceive not to be on 'your side'. You're getting yourself into a ludicrously deep hole.

I just explained.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Seems like a pretty fair result to me. Just a few weeks a go the lefties on the site were crying about how this guy would never have a fair trial and would probably get "ninety years". I guess all their paranoia (and anti-American propaganda) was proven to be groundless. Parole after 1/3 of his sentence and credit for over 1200 days already served. Its an absolutely fair verdict.

@cleo

The problem is that the 'they' who you think are attacking you are not the same 'they' that get shot at from the safety of the helicopter gunships or the remote-control drones.

Nobody would have this "problem" if we weren't fighting people who are cowards. The enemy who uses terrorist tactics, refuses to fight in a uniform, refuses to observe even the rudimentary conventions of warfare ... such an enemy gets what he deserves. If "fighters" (and I use the term loosely) consider it "smart" to hide themselves or their weapons in and amongst children and women then they (not the American military trying desperately to distinguish between a father on his way to prayer and a jihadi on his way to a suicide bombing) are responsible for the collateral damage. But carry on with your bug-eyed talking about video game warriors - you're just showing you don't have a clue about what these people are dealing with on a daily basis.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@cleo

@Hidingout, Agreed.

Nobody would have this "problem" if we weren't fighting people who are cowards. The enemy who uses terrorist tactics, refuses to fight in a uniform, refuses to observe even the rudimentary conventions of warfare ... such an enemy gets what he deserves. If "fighters" (and I use the term loosely) consider it "smart" to hide themselves or their weapons in and amongst children and women then they (not the American military trying desperately to distinguish between a father on his way to prayer and a jihadi on his way to a suicide bombing) are responsible for the collateral damage. But carry on with your bug-eyed talking about video game warriors - you're just showing you don't have a clue about what these people are dealing with on a daily basis.

Easy logic to understand. No one wants to hurt ANY innocent people, but as Hidingout pointed out, they know full well the implications if we fire and kill innocent people, thus on purpose they do this, so they can confidently strike at us, knowing, that we have to follow the Rules if engagement. This is the only way the jihadists know how to evade capture, hide among the civilians and hope to live and fight another day and avoid being killed by allied forces, but you liberals NEVER say anything if innocent soldiers are murdered. The hyprocrisy is at an all time stench!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

hidingoutAug. 24, 2013 - 01:51PM JST Seems like a pretty fair result to me. Just a few weeks a go the lefties on the site were crying about how this guy would never have a fair trial and would probably get "ninety years". I guess all their paranoia (and anti-American propaganda) was proven to be groundless. Parole after 1/3 of his sentence and credit for over 1200 days already served. Its an absolutely fair verdict.

He didn't get a fair trial, that would have been a civil trial. He got a military trial, and in case you're not aware, parole isn't automatic, its determined by a parole board so saying that he'll be out in that time is incorrect.

bass4funkAug. 24, 2013 - 04:12PM JST Easy logic to understand. No one wants to hurt ANY innocent people, but as Hidingout pointed out, they know full well the implications if we fire and kill innocent people, thus on purpose they do this, so they can confidently strike at us, knowing, that we have to follow the Rules if engagement. This is the only way the jihadists know how to evade capture, hide among the civilians and hope to live and fight another day and avoid being killed by allied forces, but you liberals NEVER say anything if innocent soldiers are murdered. The hyprocrisy is at an all time stench!

... except that the U.S. is deliberately targeting public events where they KNOW the majority of people are innocent civilians, such as weddings, and where they only have a dim suspicion that one or two of the people (out of a group of 40 or 50) MIGHT be terrorists.

They could, for example, wait until the terrorists are driving to the wedding in their car on an open road with no-one else around, or they could wait until the terrorists head into the toilet to take a leak, and then just hit the toilet...

No, the U.S. is DELIBERATELY targeting civilians too. The message is pretty clear from where Afghans are standing, don't associate with anyone who might be a terrorist or you and your entire family will be killed. The problem is that terrorists don't wear name cards, don't introduce themselves as "Hello, I'm Ahmed the Terrorist", and most people have no clue, but the U.S. kills them anyways because... well, who's going to stop them? And it keeps the Afghan people afraid and suspicious and reluctant to associate with anyone (because you never know who the U.S. will target next)... in short the REAL terrorists here are the U.S.A., keeping an entire country in terror.

Well done U.S.A,. your WAR ON TERROR just turned into the WAR FOR TERROR. It is definitely going to come back and bite you in the rear again someday.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

bass4funk

I wasn't talking about the reporters. I was talking about the soldiers

Then why did you quote my comment about the reporters?

No one wants to hurt ANY innocent people, but as Hidingout pointed out, they know full well the implications if we fire and kill innocent people, thus on purpose they do this, so they can confidently strike at us, knowing, that we have to follow the Rules if engagement.

You cannot tell the difference between terrorists, soldiers and reporters in a discussion on the Internet, where you have all the time in the world to check what's going on; hard to imagine you would/could make the distinction in a tense situation. And judging from the video, it's clear that the soldiers are NOT following any recognised rules of engagement, they're just finding groups of people walking down the street, identifying them as 'people' - not as terrorists, not as terrorists hiding behind innocent people - and shooting them from on high like fish in a barrel.

you liberals NEVER say anything if innocent soldiers are murdered

The 'innocent soldiers' are in someone else's country shooting up weddings and people walking down the street minding their own business. The people in the video posed no threat to either the soldiers in their helicopters or the general American public on the other side of the world.

Frungy -

They could, for example, wait until the terrorists are driving to the wedding in their car on an open road with no-one else around

Except it appears there is neither the will nor the means to identify the 'terrorists' with any degree of accuracy; the tactic is just kill a bunch of people, and maybe there'll be one or two bad guys in there somewhere. If there isn't, it can always be claimed later that one man carrying a camera looked like 6 or 7 men carrying AK47s and RPGs and hey, in war 'stuff happens'.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

He didn't get a fair trial, that would have been a civil trial. He got a military trial

Which was fair in every respect. Have you heard anyone complaining that his rights or liberties were trampled on during the legal process? A civil trial would have just been a circus and would have wasted far more money.

and in case you're not aware, parole isn't automatic, its determined by a parole board so saying that he'll be out in that time is incorrect.

Yes, I know parole isn't automatic. But he'll have public sympathy on his side, and I suspect he'll be paroled at some point. Even if he ends up doing half of the sentence, that's pretty good for a crime of this magnitude. Posters above saying America is like the former USSR are nuts, imagine what sort of sentence Manning would have received in PRC or Russia or even Japan for similar crimes.

Lets say he does 15 years. I think a sentence that light (and don't forget that people were suggesting he'd get ninety) makes Snowden's decision to escape to PRC and then Russia a bad one. I think Snowden fell for the anti- American propaganda (which was in good supply on this very site) suggesting that there was torture and a kangaroo court awaiting him. I'd rather take my chances on a fair trial in the USA than try to run from the CIA for the rest of my life. Snowden screwed himself. Twice.

... except that the U.S. is deliberately targeting public events where they KNOW the majority of people are innocent civilians, such as weddings, and where they only have a dim suspicion that one or two of the people (out of a group of 40 or 50) MIGHT be terrorists.

No, the U.S. is DELIBERATELY targeting civilians too. The message is pretty clear from where Afghans are standing, don't associate with anyone who might be a terrorist or you and your entire family will be killed.

I reject completely the notion that this is American military policy. Its absurd that you would even state such a thing. Of course there have been instances (probably many) where people got blown away at a public event or a "wedding" (isn't it always a wedding). Only an idiot would expect a war to be mistake free or atrocity free. There was also an instance of a deranged military psychologist opening fire on his unarmed colleagues during an orientation meeting. Or a case of a guy who went AWOL and slaughtered a bunch of villagers in the night for no apparent reason. Or the case of the guys who posed for pictures with bodies of the militants they had just killed. Are we to suppose that those cases represent American military policy as well - I ask because it seems like you think its the right thing to do to pass judgement on an entire organization because of the crimes of a few guys in a helicopter gunship one afternoon.

Mistakes happen. People get trigger happy. Life becomes cheap. Hatred is bred. I don't disagree with you that the war on terror is a failure and a joke. At this point they should just shut it down because they are bleeding money they can't afford, and its impossible to win when terrorists move around the globe. Even if you stamp out the problem in one area it will just surface elsewhere. But I think you do the sincerity of this discussion a disservice when you state that the American military has a policy of targeting civilians. That's just flat out false.

@cleo

The 'innocent soldiers' are in someone else's country shooting up weddings and people walking down the street minding their own business.

First off, the reason the American's "are in someone else's country" is because they finally got sick of fundamentalist followers of a certain religion staging terrorist attacks all over the world to the point that we now have to endure body scanners and can't take toothpaste on an airplane. Nobody is sending their army against North Korea and the Kim dynasty. Nobody bothers about Robert Mugabe or any of the other brutal African leaders The point is you can be as oppressive and crazy as you like within the confines of your own borders and nobody will bother you. Once a fanatic starts organizing into groups and planning "missions" to blow up airplanes, attack Embassies, execute people at random in cafes, bars, hotels, at bus stops or on trains IN OTHER PEOPLE"S COUNTRIES, then someone has to step up and hunt them down. Unfortunately the US has gone about it the wrong way.

Second, like Frungy you suggest that US forces habitually and deliberately kill innocent civilians. Shame on you. This so called war on terror has dragged on as long as it has because the Americans are fighting with one hand tied behind their back. They cannot use the weapons at their disposal precisely because they would certainly kill civilians. At every step of the way this war has been prolonged because US military acts against its own interests in an attempt to fight in such a way as to limit collateral damage. Suggestions to the contrary would constitute an overly hysterical reaction to a few isolated instances.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@cleo

Then why did you quote my comment about the reporters?

You cannot tell the difference between terrorists, soldiers and reporters in a discussion on the Internet, where you have all the time in the world to check what's going on; hard to imagine you would/could make the distinction in a tense situation.

Unlike you, I do have to work and there is a thing called "a mix up" it happens, Hey, I'm only human, I'm perfect, but not that perfect. :-)

And judging from the video, it's clear that the soldiers are NOT following any recognised rules of engagement, they're just finding groups of people walking down the street, identifying them as 'people' - not as terrorists, not as terrorists hiding behind innocent people - and shooting them from on high like fish in a barrel.

Yes, I agree. No arguments here.

The 'innocent soldiers' are in someone else's country shooting up weddings and people walking down the street minding their own business. The people in the video posed no threat to either the soldiers in their helicopters or the general American public on the other side of the world.

Ok, so that is your opinion and that is a less than a sliver of minuscule of the military. As I said, they are paying for those crimes, but the vast majority of our military perform well. If you don't think so, well, that is your personal opinion, but why don't you go to the US spend some time getting to meet some of the fine men and women in uniform, you might be surprised that they are NO different than you and me and are not from outer space.

Except it appears there is neither the will nor the means to identify the 'terrorists' with any degree of accuracy; the tactic is just kill a bunch of people, and maybe there'll be one or two bad guys in there somewhere. If there isn't, it can always be claimed later that one man carrying a camera looked like 6 or 7 men carrying AK47s and RPGs and hey, in war 'stuff happens'.

You absolutely don't have the slightest idea of war, how it works or what you are talking about. Now you are not making ANY compelling argument, you are just spouting emotional rant. Again, when I hear this, coming from a person that has never seen combat or doesn't know anything about how military operations works to just opine as if it is the easiest thing to do. Easy to plan out military operations and easily have access to the objective target(s) When you are out in the field and have seen and been in a real combat situation then you can state your case in a credible fashion, because you have been out there and you know and have seen the enemy and seen what goes on, but until then, you are just going on by pure emotional speculation.

And once again, Hidingout summed it all up.

You may not like that analysis, but it's true. NO ONE else is getting involved, and yes, I will submit, the US has made some mistakes through the years in many of their operations, but that happens with every country that has gotten into military combat, but overall, we will NOT stand by and allow fundamental islamists wage war against us and not respond back, that will never happen. Also, you and the usual suspects on JT don't have to approve, but the US will protect itself, its people and self-interests and we don't need approval or a green light to allow us to do that. Lastly, you should hold your displeasure to the cowardly and wretched islamist terrorists that would even think about hiding behind their women and children knowing that they are putting them in harms way, but hoping that the allied forces don't shot at them while hiding behind the innocents. It's ok to sneak up and do a surprise attack and blow up some soldiers and slip away into the darkness, but if we come back and hunt them down for the crime they perpetrated, now the tables are turned because of acting like a man that longs for martyrdom all of a sudden hides behind his family is a piece of****! And for a group of people that scream they long for death and infidels should all die and they have NO sympathy for them is ok, on the other hand. Every story I heard before that many of these top terrorists were killed, they looked terrified, OBL being one of them. So on one end, they fanatics want to kill infidels, but they themselves don't want to be killed or suffer the brunt of ANY repercussions, do you have any idea how insane that thought process is?

And like Hidingout pointed out, the Rules of Engagement ties our hands as to how we can engage the enemy and the enemy knows most of this, this is the reason why they do what they do, they know that the majority of America or any military is to limit collateral damage and to avoid innocent human causality. The terrorists take full advantage of this, which makes are job extremely difficult. If the US had a constant record of ONLY killing women and children indiscriminately and intentionally on a regular basis then you would have a point. Before another 9/11 happens, rest assured, the US will apprehend or kill any of these terrorists that even contemplate on taking up such an action and in order to stay alive, they will do what they have to do and that is hid amongst the innocent population of dress like the women. Martyrs??? NO! Absolute and disgusting cowards.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

hidingoutAug. 25, 2013 - 03:01AM JST Which was fair in every respect. Have you heard anyone complaining that his rights or liberties were trampled on during the legal process? A civil trial would have just been a circus and would have wasted far more money.

100% of the Guantanemo "military trials" were overturned. More than two thirds of military trials resulting in death sentences are overturned. Military trials are famously inaccurate and unjust.

Yes, I know parole isn't automatic. But he'll have public sympathy on his side, and I suspect he'll be paroled at some point. Even if he ends up doing half of the sentence, that's pretty good for a crime of this magnitude.

You clearly don't understand the word "crime". For there to be a crime someone must be injured. No-one was injured but Manning. The U.S. Military rants about how it might cause soldiers' deaths, but despite hundreds of thousands of wikileaks so far there has not been a SINGLE death attributable to them, nor a single terrorist attack based on the information released.

The only criminals here are the U.S. military. The only victim, Manning.

I reject completely the notion that this is American military policy. Its absurd that you would even state such a thing. Of course there have been instances (probably many) where people got blown away at a public event or a "wedding" (isn't it always a wedding). Only an idiot would expect a war to be mistake free or atrocity free.

There are none so blind as those who choose not to see. It IS official U.S. military procedure, as is the new "double tap" procedure where drones circle around to come back to the original site to kill off rescuers, including medical and emergency rescue personnel, which is in clear and blatant violation of international rules of engagement.

But you won't believe me because you "reject completely" the idea that the U.S. military could in any way be wrong.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

There are none so blind as those who choose not to see. It IS official U.S. military procedure, as is the new "double tap" procedure where drones circle around to come back to the original site to kill off rescuers, including medical and emergency rescue personnel, which is in clear and blatant violation of international rules of engagement.

If the terrorists are trying to regroup to help their wounded, yes, I do support a fly around yes, "a double tap" to make sure the enemy is not a threat anymore. And again, there are many laws man has made and have been broken, that doesn't mean, we are not allowed to kill the people trying to kill us, in that case, the laws will have to take a backseat when it come to the safety of our troops or country.

But you won't believe me because you "reject completely" the idea that the U.S. military could in any way be wrong.

And you "reject entirely" that the enemy is always right.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If the terrorists are trying to regroup to help their wounded, yes, I do support a fly around yes, "a double tap" to make sure the enemy is not a threat anymore

That's a pretty thuggish idea. No different from the terrorist tactic of timing a second roadside IED to go off a few minutes after the first, to kill and maim those coming to the rescue of the people hurt by the first explosion. I imagine you think that is the cowardly, dastardly kind of thing you'd expect the bad guys to do? (I do). But it's different when the good guys do it?

So on one end, they fanatics want to kill infidels, but they themselves don't want to be killed or suffer the brunt of ANY repercussions, do you have any idea how insane that thought process is?

As insane as sitting pretty in an attack helicopter out of harm's way, raining death and bullets on anyone and everyone down below? What's the difference between soldiers wanting to get the enemy without getting got themselves, and the people fighting the soldiers not wanting to get got? Just the fact of being on different sides? And you accuse me of emotional arguments?

As Frungy says, there are none so blind.

You absolutely don't have the slightest idea of war

Yes, I consider myself very, very lucky. I hope it stays that way.

If the US had a constant record of ONLY killing women and children indiscriminately and intentionally on a regular basis then you would have a point.

But it isn't only women and children, is it? US troops who are either scared out of their wits or infected with the anything that moves must be an enemy bug or even simply not paying attention are notorious for friendly fire incidents, too, whether it's lack of care or lack of ability to distinguish friend from foe.

British forces were mistakenly attacked by US and other coalition units at least 11 times

the British seemed to have become resigned to being shot at by their allies as an occupational hazard

a British patrol, festooned with the blue light sticks, agreed on as a sign to identify themselves as friendly, reported they had been shot at by US troops who had no night vision goggles and had been listening to their iPods

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/22/american-troops-friendly-fire-iraq

But you won't believe me because you "reject completely" the idea that the U.S. military could in any way be wrong.

And you "reject entirely" that the enemy is always right.

Do you bother to read what you write at all before you hit the submit button?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

That's a pretty thuggish idea. No different from the terrorist tactic of timing a second roadside IED to go off a few minutes after the first, to kill and maim those coming to the rescue of the people hurt by the first explosion. I imagine you think that is the cowardly, dastardly kind of thing you'd expect the bad guys to do? (I do). But it's different when the good guys do it?

I'm talking about terrorists, yes, I'm fine with it.

As insane as sitting pretty in an attack helicopter out of harm's way, raining death and bullets on anyone and everyone down below? What's the difference between soldiers wanting to get the enemy without getting got themselves, and the people fighting the soldiers not wanting to get got? Just the fact of being on different sides? And you accuse me of emotional arguments?

Read mine and hidingouts previous posts, I already clarified my position. Also, I was not emotional, no reason to be. I understand what it takes to get the enemy.

Yes, I consider myself very, very lucky. I hope it stays that way.

That's why you can make comments about something you absolutely no nothing about.

But it isn't only women and children, is it? US troops who are either scared out of their wits or infected with the anything that moves must be an enemy bug or even simply not paying attention are notorious for friendly fire incidents, too, whether it's lack of care or lack of ability to distinguish friend from foe.

Doesn't only happen to the US, nice try.

British forces were mistakenly attacked by US and other coalition units at least 11 times

We have more firepower and weaponry, it happens, tragic as it is.

the British seemed to have become resigned to being shot at by their allies as an occupational hazard

Goes with the territory

a British patrol, festooned with the blue light sticks, agreed on as a sign to identify themselves as friendly, reported they had been shot at by US troops who had no night vision goggles and had been listening to their iPods

So now you want to cherry pick as if its the norm? Come on. Lol, but again, nice try.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm talking about terrorists, yes, I'm fine with it.

And I was asking you about when the shoe is on the other foot. You're fine with that, too?

I was not emotional

lol. 'when we do it, it's sensible, when they do it, it's dastardly' is a pretty emotional argument.

Doesn't only happen to the US, nice try

No, it happens to the Brits, courtesy of the US. Thanks a bunch.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And I was asking you about when the shoe is on the other foot. You're fine with that, too?

Depends

lol. 'when we do it, it's sensible, when they do it, it's dastardly' is a pretty emotional argument

Yup.

No, it happens to the Brits, courtesy of the US. Thanks a bunch.

That's war.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

bass4funkAug. 25, 2013 - 08:54AM JST If the terrorists are trying to regroup to help their wounded, yes, I do support a fly around yes, "a double tap" to make sure the enemy is not a threat anymore. And again, there are many laws man has made and have been broken, that doesn't mean, we are not allowed to kill the people trying to kill us, in that case, the laws will have to take a backseat when it come to the safety of our troops or country.

According to the Geneva convention firing on those trying to help the wounded, retrieve bodies or on any medical personnel is a war crime.

Circling back a few minutes later to DELIBERATELY catch those giving mercy to the dead and dying is a clear and blatant war crime.

Have you read the story of the good Samaritan? He was completely uninvolved, but came to give aid.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Oh bass.

You chide me for 'spouting emotional rant' (aka taking issue with soldiers shooting at random), claim that you yourself 'was not emotional' and then when I point out the fact that your 'it's OK if we do it, bad when they do it' argument is an emotional one, reply with 'Yup'? Do you even know what day it is? Consider yourself chid.

So it seems you support the strategy of killing anyone and everyone who isn't American because in the fog of war they might be terrorists, friendly fire is something America's allies have to just suck up because the yanks have got more fire power, and you're all in favour of war crimes so long as it's those lovable well-armed US soldiers who are just like you and me when they're at home who are committing them. I think that about sums it up, yes?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@frungy

According to the Geneva convention firing on those trying to help the wounded, retrieve bodies or on any medical personnel is a war crime.

Yes, but if they are known enemy combatants, trying to help their jihadists buddies, guess what...I'm pulling the trigger and emptying my magazine, only to reload and repeat the process again.

Circling back a few minutes later to DELIBERATELY catch those giving mercy to the dead and dying is a clear and blatant war crime.

Like I said, if they are known enemies, Shoot first, ask questions later. Because, if they have a chance to cut of my head, guess what...they would without blinking. I'm not going to be another Nick Berg.

Have you read the story of the good Samaritan? He was completely uninvolved, but came to give aid.

Good for him, done a lot of humanitarian work in the past myself and still do, but I will show no mercy on a jihadists in the battlefield. He wouldn't show me, for sure, so...

Oh cleo

You chide me for 'spouting emotional rant' (aka taking issue with soldiers shooting at random), claim that you yourself 'was not emotional' and then when I point out the fact that your 'it's OK if we do it, bad when they do it' argument is an emotional one, reply with 'Yup'? Do you even know what day it is? Consider yourself chid.

Hmmm, you bantering with me, that's NOT childish?

So it seems you support the strategy of killing anyone and everyone who isn't American because in the fog of war they might be terrorists,

I'm speaking only for myself, would never harm innocent women and children or anyone for that matter, but you, Frungy and Jean have ZERO idea as to how wars are fought. But you want to lecture us as if you are 4 star combat hardened Generals? I don't get that. When you guys do that, it makes you all look laughable, seriously. Having an opinion is one thing, but lecturing someone without ANY knowledge is a completely different can of beans.

friendly fire is something America's allies have to just suck up because the yanks have got more fire power, and you're all in favour of war crimes so long as it's those lovable well-armed US soldiers who are just like you and me when they're at home who are committing them. I think that about sums it up, yes?

Lol, what can I say, you just made me...oops. But I do like how you lump us all in one pot. LMAO

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

that's NOT childish?

Who said anything about being childish? The word I used is the past tense of the verb to chide meaning to rebuke.

guess what...I'm pulling the trigger and emptying my magazine, only to reload and repeat the process again

...followed by ...

I'm speaking only for myself, would never harm innocent women and children or anyone for that matter

...unless they might be a terrorist, or might be standing in front of a terrorist, or might be coming to the aid of a maybe terrorist you just shot, right?

I do like how you lump us all in one pot.

I'm not lumping anyone in any pot, bass. Just trying to fathom from your own words which pot it is you've got your foot stuck in.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Who said anything about being childish? The word I used is the past tense of the verb to chide meaning to rebuke.

Then I refute it.

...followed by ...

Whatever I need to do to make sure that threat isn't a treat to my life.

...unless they might be a terrorist, or might be standing in front of a terrorist, or might be coming to the aid of a maybe terrorist you just shot, right?

Depending, it's my life or there's and I am not going to lose it, so....

I'm not lumping anyone in any pot, bass. Just trying to fathom from your own words which pot it is you've got your foot stuck in.

None.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Readers, enough of this bickering. Please focus your comments on the story and not at each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They're not. I've watched drone cameras from these attacks and there are literally seconds between the drone clearing the horizon and launching. The U.S. is deliberately killing ANYONE who tries to help, and is making NO effort to establish whether they're jihadists, reuters reports trying to get pictures, or nuns from the local convent out on a mission of mercy. They just don't care.

Not true and you know it.

And this is your whole logic? Become like the enemy? ... you do realise that this makes you worse than them, don't you? They have the excuse of being brainwashed into it, you made a deliberate choice.

They come out me, I'll do whatever is necessary to keep myself alive.

... the idea of you doing humanitarian work is truly scary. Someone who things that morality works on a "they did it first" system ... shudder. Please, stay away from humanitarian work. Stay away from small children. Don't ever breed. Stay away from animals. In fact humanity in general would be better off if you stayed away from everyone entirely.

And you are entitled to your opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Manning could be freed on parole within a decade"

Could the government then garnish his wages until he pays back what he cost the taxpayers?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Could the government then garnish his wages until he pays back what he cost the taxpayers?

As a whistleblower he is probably saving the US taxpayers billions of dollars and is entitled as a whistleblower to receive compensation for that savings.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

but you, Frungy and Jean have ZERO idea as to how wars are fought

Thanks to Manning, we have access to the US military's own data on how wars are now fought: "The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents)" source: http://wikileaks.org/irq/

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"As a whistleblower he is probably saving the US taxpayers billions of dollars"

I doubt that. I do know for a fact that a decade in a federal prison will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_tam

Its name is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, meaning "[he] who sues in this matter for the king as [well as] for himself." A more literal translation would be "who as much for [our] lord the king as for himself in this action pursues" or "follows."

Legally (outside of military kangaroo courts) he is considered a hero and savior to the king.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites