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

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.

As a point of order, Tiggs, I never accused you of being a McCarthyist. I did accuse you of failing to recognise McCarthyism, and I did accuse the US govt of practising McCarthyism, but of you I made no such accusation.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The CIA has been doing this type of stuff for years.....

Check this out: http://www.search.ask.com/web?q=CIA+involved+in+Diem+Coup&apn_dtid=%5EBND406%5EYY%5EUS&apn_dbr=&d=406-302&itbv=&crxv=&atb=sysid%3D406%3Auid%3D814267a9929ddb2c%3Asrc%3Dhmp%3Ao%3DAPN10645A&hdoi=&apn_ptnrs=AG6&o=APN10645A&l=dis〈=en&gct=hp&tbv=&tpid=&shad=s_0046%2Cs_0016&trgb=&apn_sauid=&hpds=&apn_uid=&tpr=2&doi=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Probably because the press reported it as being a Military courtroom. I seem to recall that Manning turned down the opportunity for trial by jury.

As a point of order, Tiggs, I never accused you of being a McCarthyist. I did accuse you of failing to recognise McCarthyism, and I did accuse the US govt of practising McCarthyism, but of you I made no such accusation.

As someone who believes that Iran is dangerous - what else would I be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who believes that Iran is dangerous - what else would I be?

Misled.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misled.

One of us most certainly is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there is no doubt as to who that is...

I think if you check, Manning DID have a jury. UCMJ does provide a jury in the major cases, but I'm pretty sure they are all officers. Not that it would have mattered in this political case.

The C-in-C pronounced Manning guilty some years ago. If that doesn't set the stage for a Star Chamber, I don't know what does.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you check, Manning DID have a jury.

* Sighs *

The judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, began deliberating Friday after closing arguments brought to an end the nearly two-month trial. Manning asked for a military judge, rather than a jury, to hear his case.

Source: CBS news

The C-in-C pronounced Manning guilty some years ago. If that doesn't set the stage for a Star Chamber, I don't know what does.

Probably helps, of course, that Manning actually pleaded guilty to most of the charges, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of us most certainly is.

Okay, let's indulge in a little thought experiment. Let's presume, for the sake of this experiment, that you are correct and Iran does present a danger to the US. What are the circumstances that have led to that? And what is the danger that Iran actually presents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whistleblowers are not bad people. They are doing the right thing by exposing inhumane actions, or immoral actions. For example i believe Edward Snowden did the right thing by revealing that the government was eavesdropping on the American people. I realize Freedom is not Free but come on if the people voted YOU into Office then why are you Spying on US?

Edited by stevemagegod
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let's indulge in a little thought experiment. Let's presume, for the sake of this experiment, that you are correct and Iran does present a danger to the US. What are the circumstances that have led to that? And what is the danger that Iran actually presents?

Aside from the obvious direct US casualties caused via it's sponsored terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas (and on occasion - Al Qaeda), the most immediate danger to the US is Iran's program to create nuclear weapons and it's expected delivery of those weapons to it's sponsored terrorist groups in strategic locations throughout the globe.

Longer term, Project Kowsar will give Iran ICBM's capable of hitting the US Mainland directly. A single atmospheric nuclear burst would effectively cripple the United States.

The circumstances that have led to Iran's hatred of the US is the US's attempts to interfere with Iran's government, both during world War 2 and after, by installing a US friendly regime and then backing Iraq to fight Iran in the Iraq/Iran war, after the Iranian revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Libertarian Texas congressman Ron Paul spoke to Larry King on a new episode of Politicking, advocating an end to the surveillance programs exposed over recent months and calling for former Army Private Bradley Manning's immediate release from prison.
Paul, who conducted an "Ask Me Anything" session Thursday on the social news site Reddit, is perhaps best known as the perennial presidential hopeful who has advocated for a deregulated free market economy and drastic cuts in US foreign aid. He recently launched the Ron Paul Channel, an online news network that will air three 30-minute shows each week.
Most military personnel who are caught committing war crimes never receive any penalties,” Paul said in the Reddit question-and-answer session. “I think he should be released now, [and] that he has done us a great service by letting the people know the truth.”

Link: http://rt.com/usa/larry-king-ron-paul-875/

He tells it like it is! :)

Edited by Kowalski
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* Sighs *

The judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, began deliberating Friday after closing arguments brought to an end the nearly two-month trial. Manning asked for a military judge, rather than a jury, to hear his case.

Source: CBS news

Probably helps, of course, that Manning actually pleaded guilty to most of the charges, too.

Bravo Tiggs, Manning chose not to have a jury. I stand corrected, happily.

Now if only you would be equally candid in engaging in hypothetical question discussions.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, BR, any message that you're trying to convey to me has got buried beneath your ad hominem attacks. I have absolutely no idea what it is that you're trying to imply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the obvious direct US casualties caused via it's sponsored terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas (and on occasion - Al Qaeda), the most immediate danger to the US is Iran's program to create nuclear weapons and it's expected delivery of those weapons to it's sponsored terrorist groups in strategic locations throughout the globe.

There is no direct evidence that Iran's nuclear program includes weaponisation. While the IAEA has not inspected all Iranian nuclear sites, what inspections they have carried out provide no cause for alarm along those lines.

If the US has specific information that an Iranian weaponisation program is in place, they should release that information to justify their bellicosity. Otherwise, the pursuit of nuclear technology for the purpose of power generation is within the rights of the Iranian State to pursue, being signatory to the NPT.

Project Koussar is irrelevant unless there is proof Iran is actively seeking the weaponisation of nuclear technology.

Basically, the US should put up, or shut up.

As for Iran's sponsored terrorism...

The circumstances that have led to Iran's hatred of the US is the US's attempts to interfere with Iran's government, both during world War 2 and after, by installing a US friendly regime and then backing Iraq to fight Iran in the Iraq/Iran war, after the Iranian revolution.

Personally, although I deplore they have resorted to violence, I can understand why Iran chooses this method of response to the violent US intrusion (and revolution is very violent) into their sovereign affairs. Additionally, with US foreign policy attempting to isolate Iran and surround it with US-backed or friendly nations, I can make analogies between their situation and that of Israel. So, will you be as forthright in your condemnation of that State and it's actions to defend it's sovereignity?

Don't blame Iran for America's troubles when those troubles are of America's making. Instead of trying to isolate and marginalise Iran, America should recognise it's role in making Iran what it is today and look to a peaceful resolution with, first off, an apology for it's past actions.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no direct evidence that Iran's nuclear program includes weaponisation. While the IAEA has not inspected all Iranian nuclear sites, what inspections they have carried out provide no cause for alarm along those lines.

Well, one of us is definitely living in an alternate Universe, then.

From the BBC:

The UN's nuclear watchdog says it has information indicating Iran has carried out tests "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".

In its latest report on Iran, the IAEA says the research includes computer models that could only be used to develop a nuclear bomb trigger.

As for Iran's sponsored terrorism...

Personally, although I deplore they have resorted to violence, I can understand why Iran chooses this method of response to the violent US intrusion (and revolution is very violent) into their sovereign affairs. Additionally, with US foreign policy attempting to isolate Iran and surround it with US-backed or friendly nations, I can make analogies between their situation and that of Israel. So, will you be as forthright in your condemnation of that State and it's actions to defend it's sovereignity?

Is Turkey lobbing mortars into Iran's cities on a regular basis? Is Pakistan calling for Iran's utter destruction? Is Turkmenistan putting bombs on buses to kill Iranian children?

Because, if not - then there's probably a difference between Iran and Israel's position.

Don't blame Iran for America's troubles when those troubles are of America's making. Instead of trying to isolate and marginalise Iran, America should recognise it's role in making Iran what it is today and look to a peaceful resolution with, first off, an apology for it's past actions.

Perhaps you missed the link I posted showing that Iran was instrumental in assisting Al Qaeda's destruction of the twin towers.

As such - I expect you'll find that apologising to Iran is pretty much the last thing on the American diplomacy "To do" list.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no direct evidence that Iran's nuclear program includes weaponisation. While the IAEA has not inspected all Iranian nuclear sites, what inspections they have carried out provide no cause for alarm along those lines.

If the US has specific information that an Iranian weaponisation program is in place, they should release that information to justify their bellicosity. Otherwise, the pursuit of nuclear technology for the purpose of power generation is within the rights of the Iranian State to pursue, being signatory to the NPT.

Project Koussar is irrelevant unless there is proof Iran is actively seeking the weaponisation of nuclear technology.

Basically, the US should put up, or shut up.

As for Iran's sponsored terrorism...

Personally, although I deplore they have resorted to violence, I can understand why Iran chooses this method of response to the violent US intrusion (and revolution is very violent) into their sovereign affairs. Additionally, with US foreign policy attempting to isolate Iran and surround it with US-backed or friendly nations, I can make analogies between their situation and that of Israel. So, will you be as forthright in your condemnation of that State and it's actions to defend it's sovereignity?

Don't blame Iran for America's troubles when those troubles are of America's making. Instead of trying to isolate and marginalise Iran, America should recognise it's role in making Iran what it is today and look to a peaceful resolution with, first off, an apology for it's past actions.

So you agree that America and or Israel should be justified in totally annihilating Iran if you are wrong and Iran in fact DOES assemble and use a nuclear weapon? Or would you , even then, say we had it coming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is IDIOTIC to believe that Iran is not working toward a nuclear weapon. Clearly they are working on the delievery system and the detonation system. Even if they do build a plutonium fueled medical reactor, it would take hours for them to remove some plutonium and load it into a weapon. Even if Iran uses 295 kg (of a speculated 300kg) to fuel a reactor, they could easily have 5 kg for several weapons. Each 1 kg weapon being rated at 10 kilotons or more. Each would be very comparable to a Nagasaki/Hiroshima level explosion.

To ignore such a threat, and just hope rosy-posy that nothing happens is the height of naivety.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would people recommend then? Iran should be Annihilated pre-emptively, because they're Mad and Evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elimination of key personnel and key facilities perhaps.

Would it be better to stop Hitler before he got into Poland, rather then wait and see?

Sure, Iran might not be a Hitler level issue, but what if it is and we did nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is, you can blame GW for antipathy towards the idea of doing anything about Iran, because he said exactly the same things about Iraq, and everyone now knows (and most people knew at the time) that it was a lie. So even if the evidence about Iran may be immeasurably stronger, no one will believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would people recommend then? Iran should be Annihilated pre-emptively, because they're Mad and Evil?

I have absolutely no idea what should be done. I don't see any good long term solutions that don't involve regime change, to be honest - and that's partly what started the whole mess in the first place. My best guess is that the Powers Who Be are sabotaging the nuclear program in hope that the Arab spring will finally roll into Iran before it's operational.

Trouble is, you can blame GW for antipathy towards the idea of doing anything about Iran, because he said exactly the same things about Iraq, and everyone now knows (and most people knew at the time) that it was a lie. So even if the evidence about Iran may be immeasurably stronger, no one will believe it.

That is the problem with crying Wolf of Mass Destruction.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, BR, any message that you're trying to convey to me has got buried beneath your ad hominem attacks. I have absolutely no idea what it is that you're trying to imply.

That's why mine are not ad hominem.

IF mine were ad hominems, there would be no doubt in your non-military mind. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree that America and or Israel should be justified in totally annihilating Iran if you are wrong and Iran in fact DOES assemble and use a nuclear weapon? Or would you , even then, say we had it coming?

Absolutely not.

Even if Iran does have a program for the weaponisation of nuclear technology, and actually get to the point of having a nuclear weapon, that is no justification for military intervention.

For all Tiggs accusations of Iran sponsoring terrorism, and I did not deny those accusations, has Iran EVER supplied WMD's to a terrorist organisation?

Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would effect the current status quo between Iran and Israel, and certain other of Iran's belligerent neighbours, but would not lead to the sort of "mad mullah" scenario being promoted by those nations and their Western allies. Iran already has WMD's (chemical, biological) and the addition of nuclear to this would change practically nothing.

The hyperbole surrounding Iran's presumed plan to acquire nuclear weapons technology is just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why mine are not ad hominem.

IF mine were ad hominems, there would be no doubt in your non-military mind. :tu:

I've already stated that they are ad hominems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely not.

Even if Iran does have a program for the weaponisation of nuclear technology, and actually get to the point of having a nuclear weapon, that is no justification for military intervention.

For all Tiggs accusations of Iran sponsoring terrorism, and I did not deny those accusations, has Iran EVER supplied WMD's to a terrorist organisation?

Does Syria count?

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.