Originally Posted by between
Huh? Does anyone seriously claim the uprising in Tunisia wasn't kicked off by the release of those cables 'stolen' by Bradley Manning? And Tunisia led to Egypt. Very few individuals can be held responsible for the liberation of entire nations - but Manning is one of those individuals. A true American hero.
I've never heard of this, yet the poster acts as though it's common knowledge.
So far, I haven't heard of anything substantial resulting from wikileaks, other than possibly putting some foreign people in harm's way by leaking their identity.
I don't go to blogs etc., just watch cable news outlets and major news web sites. All I've ever really seen reported about the wikileaks is that the material is embarassing.
Now people are claiming wikileaks started revolutions in those mid east countries?
I was looking forward to the supposed upcoming leaks about the big banks. Still waiting for that.
Fern
LOL This is a natural outgrowth of the progressive idea that America is evil, so anything that is anti-America is automatically good.I've never heard of this, yet the poster acts as though it's common knowledge.
So far, I haven't heard of anything substantial resulting from wikileaks, other than possibly putting some foreign people in harm's way by leaking their identity.
I don't go to blogs etc., just watch cable news outlets and major news web sites. All I've ever really seen reported about the wikileaks is that the material is embarassing.
Now people are claiming wikileaks started revolutions in those mid east countries?
I was looking forward to the supposed upcoming leaks about the big banks. Still waiting for that.
Fern
If you wanted to deride his point of view, it would have been easier to just point out some major damage that wikileaks has caused, wouldn't it? (Unless of course...) Granted, your post comes off sounding slightly more mature than comptr6's chiding mockery, but hardly any more compelling.LOL This is a natural outgrowth of the progressive idea that America is evil, so anything that is anti-America is automatically good.
I suspect Fern was wondering about the alleged damage to American security caused by wikileaks.Wikileaks released cables (stolen from the USA) depicting the extravagant, corrupt lifestyles of the Tunisian rulers. That set the Tunisian people off. The link between wikileaks and the Tunisian revolution is not disputed by serious people.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tunisia-wikileaks-2011-1
http://wikileaks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/13/wikileaks_and_the_tunisia_protests
http://www.thenational.ae/news/worl...aled-about-leila-ben-alis-excesses-in-tunisia
Are you living inside the USA? I'm guessing the quality of the news you are watching is pretty low. My advice would be to watch some Al Jazeera online - it's offering pretty much the best, most uncensored and gripping coverage anywhere on what's happening in the middle east.
My point was supporting Fern's, that there IS no evidence of major damage done by wikileaks. Thus my statement that attributing the protests across the Middle East and even Islamic Africa is a natural outgrowth of the idea that anything anti-American must be good and therefore have good results.If you wanted to deride his point of view, it would have been easier to just point out some major damage that wikileaks has caused, wouldn't it? (Unless of course...) Granted, your post comes off sounding slightly more mature than comptr6's chiding mockery, but hardly any more compelling.
[keanu]Whoa.[/keanu] Sorry for missing the tone of your post. I'm relieved to hear it too, as I'm used to thinking of you as a pretty sensible poster. It was... disorienting.My point was supporting Fern's, that there IS no evidence of major damage done by wikileaks. Thus my statement that attributing the protests across the Middle East and even Islamic Africa is a natural outgrowth of the idea that anything anti-American must be good and therefore have good results.
My point was supporting Fern's, that there IS no evidence of major damage done by wikileaks. Thus my statement that attributing the protests across the Middle East and even Islamic Africa is a natural outgrowth of the idea that anything anti-American must be good and therefore have good results.
Between later posted some supporting evidence for his belief, though, but none of the three support wikileaks as more than just a spark. I'm not surprised though that anyone regularly watching and/or reading al-Jazeera feeds would think this though; I've watched a lot of their English language feeds in the past and found them as a rule to be virulently anti-American.
No problem, I could have worded it better.[keanu]Whoa.[/keanu] Sorry for missing the tone of your post. I'm relieved to hear it too, as I'm used to thinking of you as a pretty sensible poster. It was... disorienting.
Yeah, it's anti-Western, pro-Islamic. Still useful information sometimes, as long as you remember they are batting for the other side.Al-Jazeera isn't really only anti-American, it's mostly repetition of mistakes done by any team that acts under the NATO flag, the only time they ever bring out any other nationality is when they have a reason to be pissed off at any other nation.
It's not a good source of information, it's like Islamic Fox News or Daily Mail or something of the sort.
That said, too much shit has happened for it to be ignored, there will be things reported for decades to come about what happened in the last 10 years and i'm not so sure people will look back at it with thoughts that make them proud.
No problem, I could have worded it better.
Yeah, it's anti-Western, pro-Islamic. Still useful information sometimes, as long as you remember they are batting for the other side.
Why should he? The person violated the military laws.
You get a CIC that micromanages and it destroy the military. The CIC position is to point to what he wants to get accomplished and then turn the military loose on getting the job done.
When politics starts getting involved; military personal die needlessly
Why should he? The person violated the military laws.
You get a CIC that micromanages and it destroy the military. The CIC position is to point to what he wants to get accomplished and then turn the military loose on getting the job done.
When politics starts getting involved; military personal die needlessly
Well then, why doesn't Mr Obama stop the torture.
Embarrassing for Obama. Confusing for Fox. Should they back the tough treatment of a leaker of govt secrets even if it means backing Obama? Or should they condemn Obama for damaging our credibility with regard to human rights violations even if that gives aid and comfort to america haters? What to do, what to do?
AP reporter maddogs press secretary about human rights and access to Manning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUctxdsKk9Q&feature=player
Good interview, nice to see a real reporter for a change who points out the falsehoods of pretty cliches at odds with the ugly facts. Obama is wrong on the treatment of Manning.
I agree, the traitor should be tried, convicted, and executed.
No games, torture, or undue duress. Simply a swift end to a traitor who gave out classified military information to the public, whereby enemy review of said information may be used to out and kill our 'allies' in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's the logical conclusion.
This is not without some conflict. There are obviously a lot of people among us who feel differently. I naturally want to support free information and close scrutiny of the government. The real problem arises with the sort of information released detailing covert allies who, if not covert, would otherwise be killed by terrorists.
In all, if we GTFO of active participation in foreign countries none of this would matter. Is the blood of the fallen on the hands of the man who sent us there, keeps us there, or told our enemy who to target? In direct relation to being 'at war', with active military operations, exposure of sensitive information must be prevented. If we fail to prevent it, it HAS to be punished, does it not? The man, through the sort of information provided, has committed treason. He is a traitor and traitors are executed.
Tell me guys, how do you not come to this conclusion?
I'm curious, are you in favor of the execution of the attempted assassins of Hitler?
They were 'traitors'.
Now, was their motive to help enemies of Germany?
Was Manning's motive to help enemies of the United States?
The answer to both is clearly no.
I don't mean a wishy-washy 'well, from the Nazi point of view...' Are you in favor of it?
Gee, you too? Does everyone throw out logic and the law to rationalize his treatment? And have you read anything I posted in this thread?
If you had bothered to read, he is NOT suicidal, nor on suicide watch. Several doctors have examined him and stated he is not suicidal. In fact, when the brig commander put him ON suicide watch, he ended up getting relieved of command for exceeding his authority, and Manning was taken off it right away. Read before posting ,it saves time.
So given the UCMJ that clearly states no punishment for detainees, and the fact that he is not on suicide watch, what possible reason could they have to do all of this.
What possible reason to take away his pillow?-- he could smother himself to death??
To wake him up if they can't see his head?-- his head could be up his ass and not visible to security personnel
Check on him every 15min?-- why not between beers...
Don't let him exercise?--- excersize what??
How does that ensure his safety? Sure sounds like punishment to me. In fact, he is the only detainee that is max isolation, all other detainees are in medium containment. Sure sounds like he is being singled out, and remember he hasn't been convicted of anything and is still innocent. The same docotrs that said he isn't suicidal also have recommended he be moved to medium containment. But that has been ignored. I wonder why?
No one has come up with a reason why he is being treated like this, and no one has come up with a reason to explain whyu the examples I mentioned cansomehow be linked to his safety. I wonder why?--- awww maybe because he deserves it...you know....traitor to his country and all...
But others like narmer, who can't post a single fact, can throw out homophobic insults, thus proving how ignorant of the matter he really is, and how childish he is.
Manning violated the UCMJ and will be held accountable for his actions. He's currently being held in accordance with the UCMJ. End of story.