All users should be reminded to try to refrain from personal insults and flaming. Attack the argument not the person. Thanks.
Oh, so war is a recent thing too! Fuck me, learn a new thing every day. Previous governments of every country throughout the world have been just as, if not more secretive and have killed more than recent governments, and been far more stupid. Do you know how many people died in the first world war? No one has an exact figure but it's somewhere between 30-50 million! And a whole bunch of fucktardery went on during that war and all the others after that. The second world war was shortened considerably due to secrecy and dodgy goings on. It's war, shit like this goes on. Stop acting like the US invented something new! The recent problems in the middle east involving the US are a fuck up. But guess what...... You voted for the guys into power! Unless the US is going to shut down it's borders and cease trading with the rest of the world and becom totally isolated from everything then you will always need secrecy and covert operations. Otherwise it won't see an ass kicking coming.
So the GDIAF comment that has been the staple diet on this forum for so long is now unacceptable? Just asking.
Up until Korea there was justification after that false flag & black ops remember the Gulf of Tonkin? I realize the US government is dirty and this is my country. Therefore I feel I have a right to speak out on senseless killing, dirty tricks, false flag and black ops. Had Kennedy live we would not have even entered into Vietnam 50,000+ of our soldiers died, I think that is worth discussing. Watch "The Fog of War" with Robert McNamara(Sec of Def) during the period it's on you tube. I can't just look the other way and say senseless killing is all just part of my countries way of life I have a conscience.
nah, it's our standard request when we feel like some abuse https://whyweprotest.net/community/...efore-summer-dawns.103979/page-6#post-2156246 <3 too *smootch*
First question; Robert McNamara, Kennedy's Secretary of Defense he was there with Kennedy. Second question: Robert McNamara served in both the Kennedy & Johnson administrations as the Secretary of Defense. Again if you watch, "The Fog of War" an interview with McNamara in the late 90's period he explains it quite well. This is not a conspiracy theory it's a fact it's 1hr 46 minutes but very good
I've seen the movie, it's about deception and self-deception. McNamara was known for deceiving the public and, in some peoples' minds a war criminal, so any assertion he made in hindsight is in no way a "fact".
He clearly states in the interview had Kennedy not been assassinated that he was going to pull All American troops out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. There are numerous subjects that are discussed as well, he was also about 90yrs old at the time of the interview. What would he have gained by lying also US Naval documents are shown and discussed during the interview. I don't believe everything I see either however in this case the documentary interview is right on point.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, justifiable? Where do you draw the line? Why is it so important now and not 10. 20. 30 years ago? What's different?
No Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were not justifiable, the importance now is that Julian lives in the age of the internet. Mr. Manning and Assange have made good use of our present day technology to make citizens across the world aware of the dirty tricks and deadly games our governments play everyday. If this technology had been available earlier many lives could have probably been saved and much to much destruction would have been avoided.
I guess you cannot trust the internet, books, magazines, newspapers or any type of media we should all crawl inside our homes and just fade away.
OK fuck Assange. Accept this: since WW2 the US/UK government/agencies/corporations have been the No.1 cause of most of the global misery and widespread humanitarian situation, you know, when thousands of men women & kids die and it gets covered up, fucked up shit like the Phalangists in Chatila, the Maoists in the mountains, babies killed for real. Yeah America and UK sponsored lots of that. Try clearing up landmines in Cambodia and singing "The Star Spangled Banner". Try playing football in Nigeria or Azerbajan without getting your football covered in BP oil. Let's see how this Assange game plays out. He's up on a rape charge at the same time the head of the World Money Fund gets busted in NYC with a BAP selling TLC? You gotta be fucking kidding me. I'm not a seer, some sucker that can read the future, but I have seen the path. David Miscavige ain't on it. Neither is Assange. Not Obama. Bill O Reilly will be shot on sight for his own good, the poor animal (not that anyone decent would pick up a gun to hurt a political opponent, that's just what the right wing authoritarian creeps do, but if O'Reilly could be classed as a sick animal then maybe there's some Nebraska farming law that would put the 1950's freak out of his misery. Same goes for L Ron Hubbard. Same shit, different channel.
Oh, and by the way, Ecuador has HUGE beef with US oil giant creepy mafia Chevron. http://m.democracynow.org/stories/9122
So mcnamara's opinion = fact? I didn't know he could read kennedy's mind. It's educated speculation on his part, but by no means fact. Carry on.
Liars don't need to gain anything by lying and old men are more concerned with legacy than young ones. McNamara was telling a story not stating facts, to think that he was unconcerned with how history will see him is grossly naive.
Fuck it's awesome to teach 20th century North American history to Americans. This is one of my favourite Chanology activities. How anyone born in the Land of the Free can really be surprised to read about scientology child slavery. Hollywood meets a lawyer-protected cult of eternal life. I would have respect for L Ron Hubbard if he wasn't such a mad, dead cunt.
I am sure Manning's lawyers will mention your opinion during the trial... This strategy proved to be very efficient a decade ago...
Third: McNamara has every reason to lie to shore up his badly tarnished legacy. Fourth: Kennedy was shot in the fucking head and died, and anything said about what he would have done is pure speculation. Fifth: Kennedy got us into Vietnam. Although I think Kennedy was a good president, it pisses me off when people are lionized just because they kicked the bucket.
Kennedy had a sea change of conscience during the Bay of Pigs. What he did as a result made him a great President, otherwise he would have been just one more silver-spooner who stole an election.
Perhaps not entirely. IIRC, part of the defence of the soldiers who undertook abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was that the US military/political leadership tacitly or explicitly smiled on that kind of thing. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Gh...oner_abuse#Allegedly_Rumsfeld-approved_abuses so: seeing prisoner abuse at AG as only part of a wider context of abusive/illegal treatment of prisoners, some of which was authorised at the highest levels. Examples: - 'extraordinary rendition' flights, taking prisoners to a friendly country outside the US, to be tortured outside US borders. - authorisation of torture techniques such as waterboarding - US refusal to recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court (the war crimes court) at the Hague - illegality of the Iraq war under international law. So, in this case of the gunner, if the attitude of the top brass (or even just of his superior officers) was effectively that "the only good arab is a dead arab", then the gunner himself wouldn't bear all the responsibility (even though, of course, an order to kill civilians would be an illegal order which he should not obey). To go back to another case in US military history which defintely was an unjustifiable massacre: in the case of My Lai, the soldiers were ordered to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre#Background and that kind of order does put each individual solder's decision to kill non-combatants in some kind of context. Essentially it - the gunner's possible culpability in the 'collateral murder' case - depends not only on whether the gunner had reasonable cause to assume that the people he was killing were combatants, but also on the orders and training he was given. E.g. was he trained in the rules of engagement? Did superior officers attempt to enforce the rules of engagement, or was it 'anything goes'? What were his prior orders on this occasion? Those are all things that we just don't know...
