Bradly Manning Not Guilty Of Aiding Enemy

[Geoist]

Where exactly do the soldiers say that they are only firing on the cameramen?

I never said they were only firing upon the journalists. But they were clearly one of the targeted.

As for the wider issue you talk about, they were part of the legitimate armed forces of a state, fighting against terrorists, together with the government of that sovereign state.

The terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were almost exclusively from Saudi Arabia. Many of the people we ended up fighting in Iraq were insurgents who sought to expel an invading force. Al Qaeda was not a real active force in Iraq until after we invaded.

Your bias is too strong for you to recognize facts.

I have a bias against war, aye. And what facts am I missing? I acknowledge there were other men who were armed in the area. I also acknowledge the soldiers falsely identified the journalists as insurgents.

 

[Artevelde]

I never said they were only firing upon the journalists. But they were clearly one of the targeted.

They were firing on a whole group of people that included armed people that posed a threat. That the journalist chose to move with this group is a risk they took.

 

[Artevelde]

The terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were almost exclusively from Saudi Arabia. Many of the people we ended up fighting in Iraq were insurgents who sought to expel an invading force. Al Qaeda was not a real active force in Iraq until after we invaded.

Iraq violated the terms of the armistice concluded in 1991. It was therefore perfectly legitimate for the allies to resume hostilities and end the Iraqi threat once and for all. This has nothing to do with 9/11 and everything with the continuing threat posed by the Baathist dictatorship in Iraq.

 

[Tovarish]

Manning deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more than Barack Obama.

 

[Artevelde]

Manning deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more than Barack Obama.

Neither of them deserves it. But it has become pretty much a mockery of what it used to stand for.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

They were in a helicopter, not on the ground so there was plenty of time to verify that this group was the enemy...

Why would the platform make a difference? What do you know about what the situation on the ground was?

Of course they weren't a threat to the bird, they were several miles away. I'm just curious as to why you think they had to be a threat to the helicopter in order to be a threat. That's an odd assumption to make.

 

[Tovarish]

Manning deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more than Barack Obama. "While President Obama began and continued unconstitutional wars overseas, Bradley Manning, whose actions have taken exactly zero lives, shedding light on the real causes of these wars. Which of them has done more for the world - is very clear. "Ron Paul (Twitter).

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Events such as Mai Lai and the killing of two Reuters journalists make atrocities.

That's it? Very interesting.

Oh okay, buddy, I will just take your word for it. :roll:

Good, cause so far you seem to be speaking completely out of your ass.

I have. There was no reason those men should have been killed.

...and?

 

[Geoist]

They were firing on a whole group of people that included armed people that posed a threat. That the journalist chose to move with this group is a risk they took.

Journalists do not simply photograph and report on one side of the battlefield. And if those men were properly ID'd, I am positive they would not have fired upon the group, for fear of international media outrage.

 

[Geoist]

Iraq violated the terms of the armistice concluded in 1991. It was therefore perfectly legitimate for the allies to resume hostilities and end the Iraqi threat once and for all. This has nothing to do with 9/11 and everything with the continuing threat posed by the Baathist dictatorship in Iraq.

A breach on some of the terms of a resolution did not warrant full-out invasion. Especially at a time when we should have focused on Afghanistan. In hindsight, you really think the Iraq War was a good idea?

 

[Geoist]

That's it? Very interesting.

How so?

Good, cause so far you seem to be speaking completely out of your ass.

Says the one who simply responds to many posts with "Wow" and "Lol"

...and?

What do you mean "and?" I have already established my opinion on the situation. The soldiers misidentified the two men as insurgents. This is no different than any friendly fire situation.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

How so?

I asked what you defined as atrocities and you just named two examples, rather than actually giving a definition. That's interesting. If you don't see how, I'll expound: instead of giving parameters that things would either fall within or without, you just implicitly said that anything you thought was an atrocity was indeed an atrocity, allowing for your subjective opinion to become what you believe to be an objective one. That's interesting. You basically said: I think that anything I think is an atrocity is an atrocity, and let that self-licking ice cream cone stand as something worthy of thought.

Says the one who simply responds to many posts with "Wow" and "Lol"

I can't help if people say ridiculous **** about things they know nothing about it. It's funny though.

What do you mean "and?" I have already established my opinion on the situation. The soldiers misidentified the two men as insurgents. This is no different than any friendly fire situation.

And friendly fire isn't called murder, so....fill in the blanks...

 

[Artevelde]

A breach on some of the terms of a resolution did not warrant full-out invasion. Especially at a time when we should have focused on Afghanistan. In hindsight, you really think the Iraq War was a good idea?

I presume you would have preferred keeping up the regular bombing of Iraq for a couple of more decades?

Iraq breached the conditons throughout a lengthy period and somtimes in pretty major ways.

I think ultimately history will Judge whether this was a worthwhile effort (it's much too soon to tell definitively now), but I would say that lifting the threat of Saddam Hussein to the stability of the region and turning Iraq into a killing ground for many thousands of jihadi terrorists was pretty succesful.

 

[Geoist]

I asked what you defined as atrocities and you just named two examples, rather than actually giving a definition. That's interesting. If you don't see how, I'll expound: instead of giving parameters that things would either fall within or without, you just implicitly said that anything you thought was an atrocity was indeed an atrocity, allowing for your subjective opinion to become what you believe to be an objective one. That's interesting. You basically said: I think that anything I think is an atrocity is an atrocity, and let that self-licking ice cream cone stand as something worthy of thought.

You did not specifically ask for a 'definition.' You asked 'what makes atrocities.' I gave two examples that make atrocities. If you want a definition you can Google it and whatever pops up will probably be in line with my view of what an atrocity is.

I can't help if people say ridiculous **** about things they know nothing about it. It's funny though.

When people grow up they learn that other people may have varying opinion about different issues. Let me know when you get there.

And friendly fire isn't called murder, so....fill in the blanks...

It is not outright murder, but it can be manslaughter. Charges can be brought against soldiers in such cases.

 

[Geoist]

I presume you would have preferred keeping up the regular bombing of Iraq for a couple of more decades?

I prefer our State minding its own business. Why do conservatives get so up in arms about the govt telling them what size soda they can drink but have no problem continuously bombing neighborhoods in foreign nations?

Iraq breached the conditons throughout a lengthy period and somtimes in pretty major ways.

Did they invade anyone?

I think ultimately history will Judge whether this was a worthwhile effort (it's much too soon to tell definitively now), but I would say that lifting the threat of Saddam Hussein to the stability of the region and turning Iraq into a killing ground for many thousands of jihadi terrorists was pretty succesful.

Can you provide proof that there are fewer jihadists in the world today because of the Iraq War? I think enough time has passed to judge what a gawd-awful mess that decision was.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

You did not specifically ask for a 'definition.' You asked 'what makes atrocities.' I gave two examples that make atrocities. If you want a definition you can Google it and whatever pops up will probably be in line with my view of what an atrocity is.

I didn't ask for examples. I think we already knew that you think atrocities are whatever you define them as. You're that type of guy.

When people grow up they learn that other people may have varying opinion about different issues. Let me know when you get there.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. This might be the most ironic thing I've ever heard. You, the person who is convinced that anything you disagree with is unconstitutional, unnecessary, evil, and immoral? LOL

It is not outright murder, but it can be manslaughter. Charges can be brought against soldiers in such cases.

They can, but they're usually not. Can you think of any reason why that is, other than a big evil conspiracy?

 

[Geoist]

I didn't ask for examples. I think we already knew that you think atrocities are whatever you define them as. You're that type of guy.

And you also didn't ask for a definition. You just stated, "what makes an atrocity."

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. This might be the most ironic thing I've ever heard. You, the person who is convinced that anything you disagree with is unconstitutional, unnecessary, evil, and immoral? LOL

Do you understand the context of what I was addressing? You should, because I was addressing your comment that anyone who disagrees with you is 'ridiculous' and must not know anything about what they are talking about. Do you really think you win debates that way? :roll:

They can, but they're usually not. Can you think of any reason why that is, other than a big evil conspiracy?

Just like in society in general, if there is enough evidence to prosecute then they are prosecuted and convicted if found guilty.
Business | `Friendly Fire' Case Shows High Price Of Military Mistakes | Seattle Times Newspaper

Point is, friendly fire is a crime worthy of many years in prison.

 

[Artevelde]

I prefer our State minding its own business. Why do conservatives get so up in arms about the govt telling them what size soda they can drink but have no problem continuously bombing neighborhoods in foreign nations?



Did they invade anyone?



Can you provide proof that there are fewer jihadists in the world today because of the Iraq War? I think enough time has passed to judge what a gawd-awful mess that decision was.

It doesn't surprise me that you lack any historical perspective and prefer snap judgements.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

And you also didn't ask for a definition. You just stated, "what makes an atrocity."

And that's asking for what makes up an atrocity. Not an example of one lol

Do you understand the context of what I was addressing? You should, because I was addressing your comment that anyone who disagrees with you is 'ridiculous' and must not know anything about what they are talking about. Do you really think you win debates that way? :roll:

You still don't see the irony, do you?

Just like in society in general, if there is enough evidence to prosecute then they are prosecuted and convicted if found guilty.
Business | `Friendly Fire' Case Shows High Price Of Military Mistakes | Seattle Times Newspaper

Point is, friendly fire is a crime worthy of many years in prison.

Can you think of why charges are rarely brought up? Other than a conspiracy, of course.

 

[Geoist]

It doesn't surprise me that you lack any historical perspective and prefer snap judgements.

It doesn't surprise me that you resort to personal insults instead of debating the issue.

Btw, I am a history teacher.

 

[Geoist]

And that's asking for what makes up an atrocity. Not an example of one lol

Are you incapable of looking up the definition of atrocity?

You still don't see the irony, do you?

What I see is you being a troll.

Can you think of why charges are rarely brought up? Other than a conspiracy, of course.

I am sure there are many reasons. A large number of crimes committed in the general public do not get prosecuted either. Does not change the fact that they are crimes.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Are you incapable of looking up the definition of atrocity?

Different people consider different things atrocities, obviously. To wit: you're calling something an atrocity that I think is laughable. Obviously our definitions are different.

What I see is you being a troll.

What?

I am sure there are many reasons. A large number of crimes committed in the general public do not get prosecuted either. Does not change the fact that they are crimes.

You're being extremely intellectually lazy. I get the feeling that you only read books/articles/publications that you already know you'll agree with. You seem like that kinda guy.