Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Kowalski

I Am Bradley Manning

171 posts in this topic

None of that has anything to do with Manning (or anyone else) publishing Government secret's en masse, with complete disregard for the consequences of the people named within those documents.

You asked me to provide my reasons for calling govt actions "McCarthyism", but you didn't insist I restrict those reasons to just 1 action. If you are now going to move the goalposts in an attempt to invalidate my reply, then I will offer no further comment, as your actions might indicate an insincerity* to contemplate that I may have a valid point.

As for Assad, the US govt is just itching to jump in there and help the "rebels" topple him. They may not have publically called him an "enemy of the State", but you can bet your boots they have propaganda to that effect already printed and ready to be disseminated.

Courtrooms have absolutely nothing to do with idealism, and everything to do with finding the truth.

And your comment, to which that portion of my response was directed, had nothing to do with "courtrooms" but was:

Well, now I'm just confused. Am I tweeting the nuclear launch codes or not? I'd hate to prevaricate, and continue the magic roundabout, and all.

While the military exists - so will military secrets. It's been that way for the past few Millennia, or so. See Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" for further details.

And was essentially about whether it was necessary for States to keep secrets, and not directly about Manning or his court case.

*I do not wish to appear condescending, but perhaps the medication you are taking to recover from your operation is inhibiting your usually acute mental faculties?

If so, I am happy to wait for a more opportune time to continue our little debate, and would wish you a speedy, and discomfort-free, recovery.

Edited by Leonardo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the information Manning leaked:

Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and now attorney for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, was among the few individuals in the room at the military court facility in Fort Meade, Maryland, as Manning made that declaration. Ratner wrote at the time:

Over the course of nearly two hours, Private Manning detailed with startling clarity his precise motivations for each leak. On the
and
, he expressed his shock and dismay at the rampant use of targeted killings as a conflict-resolution tactic. On the
cable: the world should know of the U.S. and U.K.’s bullying tactics against Iceland to accept austerity measures in the wake of the global financial meltdown. On the Iraqi police’s arrests and disappearances of anti-corruption leafleters: that U.S. should not support those stifling democratic processes in Iraq. On the
: the Obama administration’s stance is two-faced, claiming on the one hand to want to close the prison, yet on the other, knowingly holding innocent and low-level prisoners. On the
: the so-called “leader of the free world” engaged in “seemingly criminal activity” via backdoor deals is wrong and hypocritical. And on the most famous of his leaks, the “
” video: the soldiers’ “bloodlust” as they wantonly shot Reuters journalists whom they had mistaken for insurgents from an apache helicopter, along with the ensuing cover-up must be open to public review.

Link: http://www.commondre...ne/2013/08/21-2

The US army intelligence analyst suspected of giving classified material to WikiLeaks says a White House review has concluded that the alleged leaks did no real damage to national security.

Bradley Manning's defence attorney made the claim in a court filing he released publicly on Monday.

The filing also claims a defence department review found that all the information allegedly leaked was either dated, represented low-level opinions, or was already known because of previous public disclosures

Link: http://www.theguardi...tional-security

Edited by Kowalski
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article here:

FORT MEADE, Md. -- Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Wednesday for releasing 700,000 documents about the United States' worldwide diplomacy and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Manning was a 25-year-old Army private first class at the time of his arrest. He saw himself as an idealist acting to end the wars, and said in online chats with hacker Adrian Lamo that he was particularly concerned about the abuse of detainees in Iraq. No political or military higher-ups have ever been prosecuted for detainee abuse or torture in Iraq, Afghanistan or at Guantanamo Bay.

"One of the serious problems with Manning's case is that it sets a chilling precedent, that people who leak information ... can be prosecuted this aggressively as a deterrent to that conduct," said Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel and advocate in Human Rights Watch's U.S. Program. "Shouldn't we be deterring people who commit torture?"

Link: http://www.huffingto..._n_3789867.html

Edited by Kowalski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This puts things in perspective:

The only US marine to face sentencing for the killing of two dozen unarmed Iraqis in one of the Iraq war's defining moments has been spared jail time after defending his squad's storming of the homes of Haditha as a necessary act "to keep the rest of my marines alive".

Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich's sentence ends a six-year prosecution for the 2005 attack. Eight Marines were initially charged; one was acquitted and six others had their cases dropped.

Wuterich, who admitted ordering his squad to "shoot first, ask questions later" after a roadside bomb killed a fellow Marine, ended his manslaughter trial by pleading guilty on Monday to a single count of negligent dereliction of duty.

The deal that dropped nine counts of manslaughter sparked outrage in the besieged Iraqi town and claims that the US didn't hold the military accountable.

Link: http://www.theguardi...ase-spared-jail

By the way, Wuterich did this: https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=595

Edited by Kowalski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I Am Bradley Manning

I believe you mean Chelsea

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You asked me to provide my reasons for calling govt actions "McCarthyism", but you didn't insist I restrict those reasons to just 1 action. If you are now going to move the goalposts in an attempt to invalidate my reply, then I will offer no further comment, as your actions might indicate an insincerity* to contemplate that I may have a valid point.

To my knowledge - I have not insisted on anything, nor moved any goalposts. McCarthyism, as far as I generally understand it, is to accuse citizens of disloyalty to the state without any actual evidence of such.

In the Manning case, he pleaded guilty to leaking classified government information. I don't see how that could possibly qualify as McCarthyism.

As for Assad, the US govt is just itching to jump in there and help the "rebels" topple him. They may not have publically called him an "enemy of the State", but you can bet your boots they have propaganda to that effect already printed and ready to be disseminated.

I doubt that the US will attempt to invade Syria, given Russia's public backing of them. Russia will veto any UN resolution, leaving the US only the option of trying to form another coalition of the willing, without even the pretence of a UN resolution to back them in doing so.

What the US will do, however, is continue to try and smuggle weapons into the rebels. See the CIA and Benghazi, for further details.

IMO, most of the conflicts in this world are thinly veiled continuations of the proxy war between the US and Russia jostling for position.

And your comment, to which that portion of my response was directed, had nothing to do with "courtrooms" but was:

And was essentially about whether it was necessary for States to keep secrets, and not directly about Manning or his court case.

State's have kept secrets from one another, ever since their inception. The reason they do so is because it is advantageous for them to do so, for the same reason that companies keep secrets from one another:

In order to obtain competitive advantage.

Until State's cease competing with each other, and all Nation's fall under one single world banner - then it will continue.

*I do not wish to appear condescending, but perhaps the medication you are taking to recover from your operation is inhibiting your usually acute mental faculties?

If so, I am happy to wait for a more opportune time to continue our little debate, and would wish you a speedy, and discomfort-free, recovery.

Quite possibly - though I seem to recall that we generally talk at cross purposes, regardless of my state of medication.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my knowledge - I have not insisted on anything, nor moved any goalposts. McCarthyism, as far as I generally understand it, is to accuse citizens of disloyalty to the state without any actual evidence of such.

In the Manning case, he pleaded guilty to leaking classified government information. I don't see how that could possibly qualify as McCarthyism.

McCarthyism relates to the actions of govt, not the actions of those the govt targets. I totally agree that Mannings actions did not amount to McCarthyism - but that was never the argument I was setting forth.

And McCarthyism is a little bit more than just falsely accuse of disloyalty, but that is part of it, yes. McCarthyism also incorporates govt activities to heighten the state of fear in the population through invalid propaganda. The quenching of dissent by unfair means other than false accusations. And developing a pronounced nationalism against a perceived, but phantom, enemy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And McCarthyism is a little bit more than just falsely accuse of disloyalty, but that is part of it, yes. McCarthyism also incorporates govt activities to heighten the state of fear in the population through invalid propaganda. The quenching of dissent by unfair means other than false accusations. And developing a pronounced nationalism against a perceived, but phantom, enemy.

So is your claim, essentially, that Al Qaeda and it's offshoots are mere phantoms, and that the Government is currently using invalid propaganda to heighten the state of fear?

Because given that they still seem to be killing people around the world on a regular basis, as well as organising mass jailbreaks and that the United States is still it's primary target - I find that difficult to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is your claim, essentially, that Al Qaeda and it's offshoots are mere phantoms, and that the Government is currently using invalid propaganda to heighten the state of fear?

Because given that they still seem to be killing people around the world on a regular basis, as well as organising mass jailbreaks and that the United States is still it's primary target - I find that difficult to believe.

I did not name the phantom, but since you require it - Iraq, Iran.

And yes, the US govt is portraying (or has portrayed) those States as being a far greater threat than they actually represent. In fact, they did, or do, not represent any material threat to the US whatsoever.

While the US may also be using a proxy (Israel) as a, or the, target for that threat, the fact remains it is the US who is taking (or taken) an aggressive military stance against them and ensured the US population is suitably 'informed' and directed to be antagonistic towards said States.

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not name the phantom, but since you require it - Iraq, Iran.

And yes, the US govt is portraying (or has portrayed) those States as being a far greater threat than they actually represent. In fact, they did, or do, not represent any material threat to the US whatsoever.

So why has the UN Security Council unanimously adopted several resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran for nuclear proliferation?

Are they all in on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why has the UN Security Council unanimously adopted several resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran for nuclear proliferation?

Are they all in on it?

So why has the UN Security Council unanimously adopted several resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran for nuclear proliferation?

Are they all in on it?

It`s a just explanation for a future war tactic. Tiggs I never took you for a government schill but you have me doing a face palm. Do you know that back before the cia was involved in the aka changing of the gaurd so to speak Iran was as close to a US success as far as democracy goes. On a scale of on 1 to 10 the US fails in spreadinging it`s values as a 2 for the last oh how many years.

You want me to provide proof, provide me proof of US intervention helping vs the opposite. This was Iran before the US and the Brits got into it and over turned an elected government.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A manufactured enemy by the state.

Hence Tiggs the US creates enemies for what. As said you can turn a blind eye but the truth is in the pudding and Iraq was also a created enemy. To me it sounds like you don`t care about a goverments ill doings but support them. Who is the enemy.

The United Ununited States of America is the most dangerous and corupt govenment on the planet and you want to deffend them.

CALL THEM OUT

lets name some allies that the US has that can be called hypocrytical. You go first.

Edited by The Silver Thong
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He saw himself as an idealist acting to end the wars, and said in online chats with hacker Adrian Lamo that he was particularly concerned about the abuse of detainees in Iraq.

Does it even matter that his best online associates were hackers, anarchists and Julian Assange? I think it does.

He did not communicate with kids back home or try posting the evil he saw in the forums of any of hundreds on online sites, no, he went to the hacker sites and began putting out trailers of who to leak stuff to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it even matter that his best online associates were hackers, anarchists and Julian Assange? I think it does.

He did not communicate with kids back home or try posting the evil he saw in the forums of any of hundreds on online sites, no, he went to the hacker sites and began putting out trailers of who to leak stuff to.

Ya why not take it to the very people that tried to bury it in the first place.

oh wait I want to text my kids of a government crime first. Hold on a sec lol

Edited by The Silver Thong
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would you report a government crime to the government. I sure as schitt would not. I would make it public so the act is public.

Calling the police has becaome the action one wants to do the least.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A manufactured enemy by the state.

Hence Tiggs the US creates enemies for what. As said you can turn a blind eye but the truth is in the pudding and Iraq was also a created enemy. To me it sounds like you don`t care about a goverments ill doings but support them. Who is the enemy.

The United Ununited States of America is the most dangerous and corupt govenment on the planet and you want to deffend them.

CALL THEM OUT

lets name some allies that the US has that can be called hypocrytical. You go first.

Just out of curiosity, have you maybe seen a certain east Asian country, right above the 38th parallel perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It`s a just explanation for a future war tactic. Tiggs I never took you for a government schill but you have me doing a face palm. Do you know that back before the cia was involved in the aka changing of the gaurd so to speak Iran was as close to a US success as far as democracy goes. On a scale of on 1 to 10 the US fails in spreadinging it`s values as a 2 for the last oh how many years.

You want me to provide proof, provide me proof of US intervention helping vs the opposite. This was Iran before the US and the Brits got into it and over turned an elected government.

[media=]

[/media]

So the Shah, who was supported by the US, was overthrown by an Islamic revolution that was supported by the CIA? :unsure2:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Shah, who was supported by the US, was overthrown by an Islamic revolution that was supported by the CIA? :unsure2:

Sounds about right, it on the internet it has to be right after all!

Oy, to think schools actually used to teach stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, have you maybe seen a certain east Asian country, right above the 38th parallel perhaps?

That a person may often be wrong, or act for ill, does not prevent that person from occasionally being right, or acting for right.

The argument "Well, NK are bad guys, and the US calls them out, so they must be right about all those other guys as well." is so badly flawed it doesn't even deserve to be called an argument.

And if you aren't subtly promoting this pov, then what was the point of the post [above] you made?

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Shah, who was supported by the US, was overthrown by an Islamic revolution that was supported by the CIA? :unsure2:

It's worse than that. It was the CIA who fomented the coup which deposed the democratically elected govt which had originally deposed the Shah's rule.

CIA acknowledges involvement in '53 coup.

But the Shah still received US foreign aid - because (paraphrasing Nixon) it isn't a coup if the US does it.

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 'them' listening in on us allegedly, i will defer my comment for now :passifier:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It`s a just explanation for a future war tactic.

Again - perhaps you could walk us all through exactly why the entire permanent UN Security Council - including China and Russia - would unanimously sanction Iran eight times in the last seven years if it were just a US Future War Tactic?

Tiggs I never took you for a government schill but you have me doing a face palm.

So far this thread I've been accused of being a Nazi sympathiser, a McCarthyist and a government schill. It'd be nice if you could all at least coordinate your Ad Hominems.

You want me to provide proof, provide me proof of US intervention helping vs the opposite. This was Iran before the US and the Brits got into it and over turned an elected government.

Actually - that was Iran after the US and the Brits put the Shah into power during 1953. Let me see - I believe that you described it as "as close to a US success as far as democracy goes".

1979 was the Islamic revolution, when the Ayatollah came to power and deposed the Shah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again - perhaps you could walk us all through exactly why the entire permanent UN Security Council - including China and Russia - would unanimously sanction Iran eight times in the last seven years if it were just a US Future War Tactic?

So far this thread I've been accused of being a Nazi sympathiser, a McCarthyist and a government schill. It'd be nice if you could all at least coordinate your Ad Hominems.

Actually - that was Iran after the US and the Brits put the Shah into power during 1953. Let me see - I believe that you described it as "as close to a US success as far as democracy goes".

1979 was the Islamic revolution, when the Ayatollah came to power and deposed the Shah.

Why is it...honestly, just asking...that everyone knows that Iran is the Number One exporter of Terrorism in the world today and has been since the Islamic Revolution, and yet; Reagan didn't touch them, Bush Senior didn't touch them, Clinton wouldn't touch them, Bush W wouldn't touch them, and clearly Obama will not touch them?

Furthermore; Sanctions not withstanding...what could anyone really do 'to' Iran, militarily speaking, without erupting the entire region in a Hellish war?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You asked me to provide my reasons for calling govt actions "McCarthyism", but you didn't insist I restrict those reasons to just 1 action. If you are now going to move the goalposts in an attempt to invalidate my reply, then I will offer no further comment, as your actions might indicate an insincerity* to contemplate that I may have a valid point.

As for Assad, the US govt is just itching to jump in there and help the "rebels" topple him. They may not have publically called him an "enemy of the State", but you can bet your boots they have propaganda to that effect already printed and ready to be disseminated.

And your comment, to which that portion of my response was directed, had nothing to do with "courtrooms" but was:

And was essentially about whether it was necessary for States to keep secrets, and not directly about Manning or his court case.

*I do not wish to appear condescending, but perhaps the medication you are taking to recover from your operation is inhibiting your usually acute mental faculties?

If so, I am happy to wait for a more opportune time to continue our little debate, and would wish you a speedy, and discomfort-free, recovery.

It appears that Tiggs confuses "courtrooms" with Star Chambers, and he is certainly not the only one. Manning's case was very much a Star Chamber, but one rather expects that from the military. UCMJ is not really about justice, it is about discipline.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not name the phantom, but since you require it - Iraq, Iran.

And yes, the US govt is portraying (or has portrayed) those States as being a far greater threat than they actually represent. In fact, they did, or do, not represent any material threat to the US whatsoever.

While the US may also be using a proxy (Israel) as a, or the, target for that threat, the fact remains it is the US who is taking (or taken) an aggressive military stance against them and ensured the US population is suitably 'informed' and directed to be antagonistic towards said States.

I would offer that the phantom, the bogey man, is really "terrorism" and the generic arab with an AK47, even if he is defending his country from foreign invaders.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.