Bradley Manning Hit with New Charges in WikiLeaks Case, Including "Aiding the Enemy"

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Mark Cabian, Mar 3, 2011.

  1. lulzgasm Member

    That doesn't change the fact that some on the ground are guarding poppy fields, under orders to.
    Just because those on the ground are trying to do as much good as they can despite Pentagon idiocy doesn't change the fact that the purpose of military is NOT nation building.
  2. The old invisible enemy. Osama is the US Goldstein. An almost mythical enemy that everybody can project hate onto. This evil guy who blew up New York and lives in a cave. Whick justifies all manner of invasions and taking of civil rights.

    Thank God for Wikileaks and anybody that provides info to them.
  3. lulzgasm Member

    Look, I know what it feels like to have a family member over there. I remember how pissed off I used to get at anyone who I perceived was criticizing the military. Believe me, I know how you feel, I've been through it.

    But when Abu Graib broke, the very first thing I heard from my cous in ws how pissed he was at the dipshits who followed such orders. Because he knew that what those dipshits did makes the military look bad in the eyes of the public. He didn't criticize the public for being outraged over what happened. He criticized the dipshits who followed the orders AND the dipshits who gave such orders.

    Don't be pissed at the folks who leaked "collateral Murder." Manning isn't the traitor. The asshats who tried to cover it up instead of prosecuting the idiots who gave the orders and the idot who followed them. They're the real traitors , not Manning. Considering how reporting abuses to the chain of command did nothing to stop the abuses going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, Manning did the only thing he could do.

    Also, the guy who runs Cryptosom stated that Manning gave the info to the FBI, not Wikileaks. If that's true (IF), then why is Manning in prison and not the FBI agent he gave the information to?
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

    We didn't found them. We funded them. Those people have been fighting for centuries. My post predates yours. Furthermore, I already acknowledged the fact that we funded them. What, you wish the Soviets would have conquered them?
  5. Anonymous Member

    I don't consider them traitors at all. Moral of story: Stay the fuck out of a war zone if you don't want to be confused with radicals.

    Perhaps the pilots should have landed and had a short conversation with them just to make sure......
  6. Anonymous Member

    If you believe the leakers are traitors, and the officers who failed to train their men to distinguish between friendly and non-friendly (and then tried to hide the fuckups that occurred under their command) are not traitors, I do not think you are going to find much agreement in this community.

    Transparency means: The Emperor's new clothes fail their first inspection. You'll have to invest in better gear.
    Without transparency, the charade keeps going until a little girl calls you on it.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Anonymous Member

    Way to respond to the same post twice

    I support Manning, you just need to be careful with dismissing everything said in the support of anyone in the military.
  8. Anonymous Member

    I don't think any of them are traitors. That's the point. I am totally for concealing that info (I have watched the vid, read the leaks).. there's nothing that was too damning. But giving pot shots to the enemy, and to people who hate us, who can use it for their own PR ends, it wrong.
  9. lulzgasm Member

    Apologies. My bad. I didn't mean it to come out sounding that way.
  10. Anonymous Member

    Another thing, how long would anonymous last against the COS if they knew EVERYTHING about EVERYONE of us?

    How long would we as a group have against their black PR?

    This is a free world vs radical cult psychological warfare, and we're losing because of people like you, just like in Vietnam.

    Regardless of WHY we were really there is of little importance, imo. At the end of the day we at least ATTEMPTED to stop Communist expansion. When we left, South Vietnamese were slaughtered and put in "thought reform camps" by the MILLIONS and to this DAY.
  11. Anonymous Member

    DOX or STFU trutherfag.
  12. Anonymous Member

    I guess Bin Laden's son is just full of bullshit too..
  13. lulzgasm Member

    Nothing too damning? Silencing the media about Dyncorp's involvement with a child pedophile ring? Keeping a lid on Pfizer's illegal experiments on Nigerians? Ordering US diplomats to illegaly spy on people? Are you fucking serious?!
    • Like Like x 1
  14. lulzgasm Member

    Well there's a classic neocon argument: "It was dem dar liburals in de mediuh what cause us to loose in 'Nam!"

    BTW: I lost a cousin in that war. I never got to meet him because he died before I was born. The media didn't cost us Vietnam. Leaks didn't cost us Vietnam. Piss-poor operation planning combined with the fact the people discovered that LBJ had lied us into the war from the start with the whole Gulf of Tonkin lie was what cost us that war. A war we never should've been in to begin with.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. agent156 Member

    A lie we only know about because Daniel Elsburg leaked the pentagon papers. They wanted to try him under the Espionage act also.

    And since this Guy brought up the NV communists. They were very moderate, and rejected most out side help until we burned their villages for a few years, then they got radical.

    Of course our rush to leave before the ARVN forces were ready screwed Vietnam AND the 2 Million people that died in Cambodia.
    • Like Like x 2
  16. whosit Member

    I'm sorry to ask this question again but I will.

    Why does Anonymous think he is innocent? Or why does Anonymous think he doesn't deserve this? The stupid fuck admitted to it.


    I'm not arguing whether or not the information provided was important. I'm not arguing whether or not wikileaks should have released the information. I'm pointing out the fact that he was a dumb ass that KNEW that there would be fallout for his actions. He wanted to be a martyr. He got what he asked for.

    He did take an oath:

    Arguably, the information he released helped foreign and domestic enemies. I guess the question would be whether or not his actions went against that oath. I hope he has a good lawyer.

    I await all the butthurt replies.
  17. lulzgasm Member

    Since the oath starts with this and thus establishes it as the primary and greater part:

    I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

    When obeyaing the rest of the oath puts you in direct conflict with the first part, guess which choice the founders expected you to make.
    • Like Like x 3
  18. whosit Member

    Cool. You can be his lawyer.

    Have fun with that.
  19. agent156 Member

    America has no official secrets act because of the first amendment. There is no proof the leaks have caused harm, and he provided them to everyone, so he is no more guilty of espionage than Elsberg.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. whosit Member

    That you can prove. Just because MSNBC didn't tell you it happened doesn't mean that it didn't
  21. lulzgasm Member

    Also an order that in effect keeps secret corrupt and illegal activity, not to mention possible war crimes, makes the order illegal. And under the military Code of justice, not only is it the right for a soldier to disobey illegal orders, it is his duty to.
    • Like Like x 3
  22. whosit Member

    Were there any "illegal" orders in the cables released? Honestly curious. Would love to see them.
  23. lulzgasm Member

    Not according to Brzezinski who even admits to creating the Mujahideen, using bin Laden as his handler, in his book, The Grand Chessboard.
  24. whosit Member

    ;i;xgsd, doesn't like to face facts.

  25. agent156 Member

    The order to keep them secret was illegal because the leaks contain evidence of illegal activity. That so obvious that I now know you are just looking to debate. I think we have better things to do.
    • Like Like x 2
  26. whosit Member

    Cool. Thanks. Please site the U.S. Federal code to back up your argument.
  27. agent156 Member

  28. whosit Member

  29. lulzgasm Member

    Wikileaks Cable Release:
    Operation Leakspin Release:

    Wikileaks Cable Release:
    Operation Leakspin Release:

    Mirror 1:
    Mirror 2:
    Mirror 3:

    Wikileaks Cable Release:
    Operation Leakspin Release:

    Mirror 1:
    Mirror 2:
    Mirror 3:

    And there's the Iraq War logs that show soldiers reporting the abuse and torture of civilians to their chain of command only for their chain of command to continue ignoring said abuse and torture.
    • Like Like x 4
  30. whosit Member

    Thank you for providing those NON-government entities. They should be prosecuted by the law as far as we can. Now if you can address my actual question.
  31. lulzgasm Member

    Look again.
  32. whosit Member

    Keep going.
  33. whosit Member

    BTW. Ask yourself. "What am I providing vs. whosit's original argument?" Then go fuck yourself.
  34. lulzgasm Member

    Since you are merely being a dick I shall decline to acquiesce to your request.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. whosit Member

  36. Anonymous Member

    Goody.. I get to chime in now =D

    I and most Americans would choose to prosecute.. know why? Because our government is in fact looking out for our best interest. Again, we are in a state of war with an enemy that operates in the shadows. Just because that doesn't fit your globalist we-have-no-borders ideology doesn't mean the rest of us feel that way.
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Anonymous Member

    Thanks for the backup. I'm used to dealing with the fringe left alone. lol
  38. whosit Member

    Wait a second, I like that post. Sorry lulzgasm. Even though you were catching on - *a whole lot of edits here* it doesn't mean you understand reality.
  39. Anonymous Member

    Who is your enemy? If you now say Taliban, Al Quaida or any of that shit you're completely retarded.
  40. whosit Member

    So, the Taliban & Al Quida aren't looking to put random Americans in a box?

    Next thing you know you'll think CAIR is a benevolent organization.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins