and still, so american troops are human, AINT TALIBAN HUMAN TOO?
Tell me if i am wrong.
"America declares war on Iraq of non existing purpose. Invades the country beats regular troops. Tries to install puppet government and keeps troops in the land to stay in control. Resistance comes from guerilla troops trying to install their own government. Because of the huge indifference of civilians and guerilla troops there are huge losses and catstrophies in the iraqi population. Those kills counted in a war that cant be told to be legal or illegal (because there is "no law" and "no one" really enforces it), shouldnt be shown to any public because it may endanger murderers from a different nation and question there actions?"
is that right, ARE U SERIOUS, Are only americans HUMANS to you or what? Should i care in anyway of people thinking like that. Thats the same story SS-Officiers told themself when they killed millions of people in the KZs. "Those aint human, they are rats ...". Is that the way u see this world? As a toyplace for a superior race?
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
Watch this for more information...
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
Care to tell me how put anyone in danger for example?
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
If the government didnt want anyone to know about the co-ordinates shit, they should have told their own people about the civilians they killed abroad and worldwide.
On September 27 2012 14:23 Probe1 wrote: [quote] Source.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
If the government didnt want anyone to know about the co-ordinates shit, they should have told their own people about the civilians they killed abroad and worldwide.
Name a war that didn't have civilians killed. Name a country that was in a war that never committed any war crimes.
On September 28 2012 02:21 Voltaire wrote: [quote]
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
If the government didnt want anyone to know about the co-ordinates shit, they should have told their own people about the civilians they killed abroad and worldwide.
Name a war that didn't have civilians killed. Name a country that was in a war that never committed any war crimes.
Good reason to commit war crimes and kill civilians. ^^ Not to say you're wrong but in todays day and age commiting war crimes is pretty easy to avoid, America seems to be the main country aiming to not try and commit them. On the killing civilians? That is obviously a loss that will occur but it doesn't take much to realize the "eagle eye" gross miscalculations causing deaths that just shouldn't happen (watch movie if you don't understand what I mean, it's in the first 10-20 minutes)
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
If the government didnt want anyone to know about the co-ordinates shit, they should have told their own people about the civilians they killed abroad and worldwide.
Name a war that didn't have civilians killed. Name a country that was in a war that never committed any war crimes.
Good reason to commit war crimes and kill civilians. ^^ Not to say you're wrong but in todays day and age commiting war crimes is pretty easy to avoid, America seems to be the main country aiming to not try and commit them. On the killing civilians? That is obviously a loss that will occur but it doesn't take much to realize the "eagle eye" gross miscalculations causing deaths that just shouldn't happen (watch movie if you don't understand what I mean, it's in the first 10-20 minutes)
I'm not saying the war crimes and killing of civilians are right, but it happens, and when we get put on blast by wikileaks it damages the U.S. military as a whole, including every person who doesn't commit war crimes. The soldiers and Marines who follow procedure have to pay the price for the small few who commit atrocities and it disgusts me that people actually think Bradley Manning is a hero.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
If the government didnt want anyone to know about the co-ordinates shit, they should have told their own people about the civilians they killed abroad and worldwide.
Name a war that didn't have civilians killed. Name a country that was in a war that never committed any war crimes.
Good reason to commit war crimes and kill civilians. ^^ Not to say you're wrong but in todays day and age commiting war crimes is pretty easy to avoid, America seems to be the main country aiming to not try and commit them. On the killing civilians? That is obviously a loss that will occur but it doesn't take much to realize the "eagle eye" gross miscalculations causing deaths that just shouldn't happen (watch movie if you don't understand what I mean, it's in the first 10-20 minutes)
I'm not saying the war crimes and killing of civilians are right, but it happens, and when we get put on blast by wikileaks it damages the U.S. military as a whole, including every person who doesn't commit war crimes. The soldiers and Marines who follow procedure have to pay the price for the small few who commit atrocities and it disgusts me that people actually think Bradley Manning is a hero.
So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean".
How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass.
This video by RT shows a great perspective of what is happening to Wikileaks/Julian Assange. Please don't focus on that it is coming from RT. Yes we know they are funded by Russian state, they are pursuing their political agenda via this video, this youtube video title is kinda sensationalist etc etc. Focus on the MESSAGE, and ask yourself if you agree and why or why not.
On September 29 2012 02:32 DeepElemBlues wrote: [quote]
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
If the government didnt want anyone to know about the co-ordinates shit, they should have told their own people about the civilians they killed abroad and worldwide.
Name a war that didn't have civilians killed. Name a country that was in a war that never committed any war crimes.
Good reason to commit war crimes and kill civilians. ^^ Not to say you're wrong but in todays day and age commiting war crimes is pretty easy to avoid, America seems to be the main country aiming to not try and commit them. On the killing civilians? That is obviously a loss that will occur but it doesn't take much to realize the "eagle eye" gross miscalculations causing deaths that just shouldn't happen (watch movie if you don't understand what I mean, it's in the first 10-20 minutes)
I'm not saying the war crimes and killing of civilians are right, but it happens, and when we get put on blast by wikileaks it damages the U.S. military as a whole, including every person who doesn't commit war crimes. The soldiers and Marines who follow procedure have to pay the price for the small few who commit atrocities and it disgusts me that people actually think Bradley Manning is a hero.
So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean".
How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass.
I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk.
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
I would certainly not agree with that.
We are living in super male-dominated societies.
Please explain why you think we live in "super male-dominated societies" (and by "we" I'm assuming you're referring to first-world nations).
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: And if someone has a "sexual power", it's certainly men.
Men on average have very little sexual power. There's a reason why men are generally required to expend most of the effort and financial investment in dating. Nothing says that someone has the upper hand quite like the expectation that others are supposed to spend money on them and do most of the work. Perhaps the a minority of men at the top do have sexual power over the average woman, but the rest do not.
Sweden is statistically the most 'equal' country in the world, and we have more CEOs with the name "Göran" than female CEOs (or at least we did 2005 or so when I was in school).
This is called the apex fallacy. The vast majority of people are not CEOs; the fact that most CEOs are male does not imply male-domination any more than the female prime minister of Australia implies female-domination of Australia.
You're ignoring things like the glass cellar (the overwhelming majority of employees in dangerous and menial jobs are male), the fact that the vast majority of homeless and victims of violence are male, and the fact that men and women make different choices which decreases the likelihood of female CEOs.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Men in every country earn more than women.
This is based in repteadly debunked wage gap myths propogated by feminists. The reality is that in every first-world nation, women recieve equal or greater pay for equal work. There is only a gap when people who fail statistics compare the raw wages without adjusting for key factors such as hours worked, occupation, and seniority.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Our politicians and rulers are mainly men. The list goes on. In what way is our society dominated by women?
Apex fallacy again. I wouldn't argue that our society is dominated by women, but it's equally foolish to argue that society is dominated by men. If what you're asking for is a list of advantages that women do have, then you can use Google to find female privilege checklists such as this one.
The CEO claim does not fall under the apex fallacy, as I said that an overwhelming majority of CEOs are men. Not that all men are CEOs. The fact that CEOs are men and politicians are men means that men basically rule the world, albeit a select group of a couple of million individuals.
You fundamentally misunderstand what the apex fallacy means. The fallacious reasoning is as follows:
Premise A: Most CEOs are men. Premise B: CEOs dominate society. Fallacious Conclusion: Therefore, men dominate society.
This is utterly false, because the apex of society is not represenative of society as a whole. If most valedictorians are white, while most above-average students are Asian and most failing students are white, would it be fair to say that schools are white dominated? Similarly, would the glass cellar (90% of workplace deaths being male, vast majority of victims of violence are male, vast majority of homeless are male) prove that society is female-dominated?
Averages are what matter, not the apex or the bottom. The fact that most men share some superficial simlarities with the critters at the top do not mean that they dominate society.
On October 01 2012 07:09 Euronyme wrote: The links are indeed interesting, but I've read opposite numbers as well (after adjustment of field of work, education and experience) that points the other way.
It is highly likely that your numbers are propaganda and/or full of statistics fail. My citations include legitimate sources such as the US Department of Labor (and you can bet that if a relatively regressive first-world nation like the US has no wage gap then the same goes for more egalitarian nations like Sweden). If you insist, feel free to post your numbers so I can tear them apart.
On September 29 2012 13:43 Silidons wrote: [quote] You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
If the government didnt want anyone to know about the co-ordinates shit, they should have told their own people about the civilians they killed abroad and worldwide.
Name a war that didn't have civilians killed. Name a country that was in a war that never committed any war crimes.
Good reason to commit war crimes and kill civilians. ^^ Not to say you're wrong but in todays day and age commiting war crimes is pretty easy to avoid, America seems to be the main country aiming to not try and commit them. On the killing civilians? That is obviously a loss that will occur but it doesn't take much to realize the "eagle eye" gross miscalculations causing deaths that just shouldn't happen (watch movie if you don't understand what I mean, it's in the first 10-20 minutes)
I'm not saying the war crimes and killing of civilians are right, but it happens, and when we get put on blast by wikileaks it damages the U.S. military as a whole, including every person who doesn't commit war crimes. The soldiers and Marines who follow procedure have to pay the price for the small few who commit atrocities and it disgusts me that people actually think Bradley Manning is a hero.
So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean".
How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass.
I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk.
Explain what was put at risk other then public opinion? Perhaps I'm ignorant on the matter but I have yet to hear any ramifications except for perhaps the fact America is shitting over their morals and principles... "Let's go instill freedom and democracy and take away torture/war crimes/humanitarian crimes by repeating the same offenses on numerous occasions!" It's illogical and backwards. Public need to know so they can realize the war is ridiculous to begin with, journalists are suppose to be journalists, find shit out so we can know how fucked it really is.
On September 29 2012 13:43 Silidons wrote: [quote] You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
If the government didnt want anyone to know about the co-ordinates shit, they should have told their own people about the civilians they killed abroad and worldwide.
Name a war that didn't have civilians killed. Name a country that was in a war that never committed any war crimes.
Good reason to commit war crimes and kill civilians. ^^ Not to say you're wrong but in todays day and age commiting war crimes is pretty easy to avoid, America seems to be the main country aiming to not try and commit them. On the killing civilians? That is obviously a loss that will occur but it doesn't take much to realize the "eagle eye" gross miscalculations causing deaths that just shouldn't happen (watch movie if you don't understand what I mean, it's in the first 10-20 minutes)
I'm not saying the war crimes and killing of civilians are right, but it happens, and when we get put on blast by wikileaks it damages the U.S. military as a whole, including every person who doesn't commit war crimes. The soldiers and Marines who follow procedure have to pay the price for the small few who commit atrocities and it disgusts me that people actually think Bradley Manning is a hero.
So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean".
How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass.
I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk.
i still cant believe, that u dont get the impression, that not only the action itself is completly false, BUT THE WAR? Just not this war but maybe EVERY WAR?
And u still try to get us to that point, that us soldiers fucking up should be hidden because it may endangers them completley, but taliban fucking up should be burned into our souls, endanger every people in this country.
The country u r serving is wrong on so many levels, u just wont admit it.
It makes sense for an american, especially one in the military, to not support the leaks. He did release secret military information from the american army after all. However as an outsider I think its all the better if the bad stuff comes to the surface and more people realize that starting wars is a bad idea, because that could be you and your kids running away from an attack helicopter gunning you down for fun. Of course bad stuff happens in wars, thats why you should not start or support them.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
If the government didnt want anyone to know about the co-ordinates shit, they should have told their own people about the civilians they killed abroad and worldwide.
Name a war that didn't have civilians killed. Name a country that was in a war that never committed any war crimes.
Good reason to commit war crimes and kill civilians. ^^ Not to say you're wrong but in todays day and age commiting war crimes is pretty easy to avoid, America seems to be the main country aiming to not try and commit them. On the killing civilians? That is obviously a loss that will occur but it doesn't take much to realize the "eagle eye" gross miscalculations causing deaths that just shouldn't happen (watch movie if you don't understand what I mean, it's in the first 10-20 minutes)
I'm not saying the war crimes and killing of civilians are right, but it happens, and when we get put on blast by wikileaks it damages the U.S. military as a whole, including every person who doesn't commit war crimes. The soldiers and Marines who follow procedure have to pay the price for the small few who commit atrocities and it disgusts me that people actually think Bradley Manning is a hero.
So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean".
How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass.
I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk.
i still cant believe, that u dont get the impression, that not only the action itself is completly false, BUT THE WAR? Just not this war but maybe EVERY WAR?
And u still try to get us to that point, that us soldiers fucking up should be hidden because it may endangers them completley, but taliban fucking up should be burned into our souls, endanger every people in this country.
The country u r serving is wrong on so many levels, u just wont admit it.
Agreed. Kmillz, try to be a little more impartial. Looking at it from a wider perspective, the US should be the ones facing the consequences for what they've done in the past - just like countries like Iraq have. If you have some deluded perception that the US 'should be protected' then I really feel sorry for you - you should catch up some more on international history.
Back onto the Assange case, it's sad and comical to this day to me.
On September 29 2012 13:43 Silidons wrote: [quote] You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
If the government didnt want anyone to know about the co-ordinates shit, they should have told their own people about the civilians they killed abroad and worldwide.
Name a war that didn't have civilians killed. Name a country that was in a war that never committed any war crimes.
Good reason to commit war crimes and kill civilians. ^^ Not to say you're wrong but in todays day and age commiting war crimes is pretty easy to avoid, America seems to be the main country aiming to not try and commit them. On the killing civilians? That is obviously a loss that will occur but it doesn't take much to realize the "eagle eye" gross miscalculations causing deaths that just shouldn't happen (watch movie if you don't understand what I mean, it's in the first 10-20 minutes)
I'm not saying the war crimes and killing of civilians are right, but it happens, and when we get put on blast by wikileaks it damages the U.S. military as a whole, including every person who doesn't commit war crimes. The soldiers and Marines who follow procedure have to pay the price for the small few who commit atrocities and it disgusts me that people actually think Bradley Manning is a hero.
So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean".
How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass.
I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk.
Public accountability man, if you can't handle what an organization you are part of does then don't be a part of it. Hiding shit is never good.
Second of all, on something else you said. Freedom of press and some other legal precedent means a reporter who leaks classified documents cannot get in trouble for it. Only the person who was privileged can get in trouble for leaking the info, the reporter doesn't get in trouble for publishing or writing any of it. I think that was established sometime around when deepthroat was leaking all the watergate stuff.
He said the incident that had affected him the most was when 15 detainees had been arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. He was asked by the army to find out who the "bad guys" were, and discovered that the detainees had followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. He reported this to his commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; he said the officer told him to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said it made him realize, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ..." He explained that "i cant separate myself from others ... i feel connected to everybody ... like they were distant family," and cited Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Elie Wiesel. He said he hoped the material would lead to "hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. if not ... than [sic] we're doomed as a species." He said he had downloaded the material onto music CD-RWs, erased the music and replaced it with a compressed split file. Part of the reason no-one noticed, he said, was that staff were working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, and "people stopped caring after 3 weeks."
I'd have to agree with him 100%. Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
I would certainly not agree with that.
We are living in super male-dominated societies.
Please explain why you think we live in "super male-dominated societies" (and by "we" I'm assuming you're referring to first-world nations).
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: And if someone has a "sexual power", it's certainly men.
Men on average have very little sexual power. There's a reason why men are generally required to expend most of the effort and financial investment in dating. Nothing says that someone has the upper hand quite like the expectation that others are supposed to spend money on them and do most of the work. Perhaps the a minority of men at the top do have sexual power over the average woman, but the rest do not.
Sweden is statistically the most 'equal' country in the world, and we have more CEOs with the name "Göran" than female CEOs (or at least we did 2005 or so when I was in school).
This is called the apex fallacy. The vast majority of people are not CEOs; the fact that most CEOs are male does not imply male-domination any more than the female prime minister of Australia implies female-domination of Australia.
You're ignoring things like the glass cellar (the overwhelming majority of employees in dangerous and menial jobs are male), the fact that the vast majority of homeless and victims of violence are male, and the fact that men and women make different choices which decreases the likelihood of female CEOs.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Men in every country earn more than women.
This is based in repteadly debunked wage gap myths propogated by feminists. The reality is that in every first-world nation, women recieve equal or greater pay for equal work. There is only a gap when people who fail statistics compare the raw wages without adjusting for key factors such as hours worked, occupation, and seniority.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Our politicians and rulers are mainly men. The list goes on. In what way is our society dominated by women?
Apex fallacy again. I wouldn't argue that our society is dominated by women, but it's equally foolish to argue that society is dominated by men. If what you're asking for is a list of advantages that women do have, then you can use Google to find female privilege checklists such as this one.
The CEO claim does not fall under the apex fallacy, as I said that an overwhelming majority of CEOs are men. Not that all men are CEOs. The fact that CEOs are men and politicians are men means that men basically rule the world, albeit a select group of a couple of million individuals.
You fundamentally misunderstand what the apex fallacy means. The fallacious reasoning is as follows:
Premise A: Most CEOs are men. Premise B: CEOs dominate society. Fallacious Conclusion: Therefore, men dominate society.
This is utterly false, because the apex of society is not represenative of society as a whole. If most valedictorians are white, while most above-average students are Asian and most failing students are white, would it be fair to say that schools are white dominated? Similarly, would the glass cellar (90% of workplace deaths being male, vast majority of victims of violence are male, vast majority of homeless are male) prove that society is female-dominated?
Averages are what matter, not the apex or the bottom. The fact that most men share some superficial simlarities with the critters at the top do not mean that they dominate society.
On October 01 2012 07:09 Euronyme wrote: The links are indeed interesting, but I've read opposite numbers as well (after adjustment of field of work, education and experience) that points the other way.
It is highly likely that your numbers are propaganda and/or full of statistics fail. My citations include legitimate sources such as the US Department of Labor (and you can bet that if a relatively regressive first-world nation like the US has no wage gap then the same goes for more egalitarian nations like Sweden). If you insist, feel free to post your numbers so I can tear them apart.
OK fair enough. I do think it matters though, but perhaps less so in a gender discussion, as men aren't necessarily biased towards other men. There's no strong group mentality. Bringing up violence statistics would also show that men are the ones behind probably close to 100% of violent crimes, so I'm not sure whether this would be positive or not. I'm also not too sure about the victims of violent crimes either. There are a good number of rapes and home related crimes where women are beaten by their husbands, but I'll give it the benefit of a doubt. The thing is that as men are behind nearly all executive decisions in society, I have a hard time seeing it as dominated by women. I'll have to find reliable statistics once I come back from work, but what I've found so far is showing about a 4% difference after adjusting to work hours / occupation etc.
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
I would certainly not agree with that.
We are living in super male-dominated societies.
Please explain why you think we live in "super male-dominated societies" (and by "we" I'm assuming you're referring to first-world nations).
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: And if someone has a "sexual power", it's certainly men.
Men on average have very little sexual power. There's a reason why men are generally required to expend most of the effort and financial investment in dating. Nothing says that someone has the upper hand quite like the expectation that others are supposed to spend money on them and do most of the work. Perhaps the a minority of men at the top do have sexual power over the average woman, but the rest do not.
Sweden is statistically the most 'equal' country in the world, and we have more CEOs with the name "Göran" than female CEOs (or at least we did 2005 or so when I was in school).
This is called the apex fallacy. The vast majority of people are not CEOs; the fact that most CEOs are male does not imply male-domination any more than the female prime minister of Australia implies female-domination of Australia.
You're ignoring things like the glass cellar (the overwhelming majority of employees in dangerous and menial jobs are male), the fact that the vast majority of homeless and victims of violence are male, and the fact that men and women make different choices which decreases the likelihood of female CEOs.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Men in every country earn more than women.
This is based in repteadly debunked wage gap myths propogated by feminists. The reality is that in every first-world nation, women recieve equal or greater pay for equal work. There is only a gap when people who fail statistics compare the raw wages without adjusting for key factors such as hours worked, occupation, and seniority.
On September 29 2012 00:38 Euronyme wrote: Our politicians and rulers are mainly men. The list goes on. In what way is our society dominated by women?
Apex fallacy again. I wouldn't argue that our society is dominated by women, but it's equally foolish to argue that society is dominated by men. If what you're asking for is a list of advantages that women do have, then you can use Google to find female privilege checklists such as this one.
The CEO claim does not fall under the apex fallacy, as I said that an overwhelming majority of CEOs are men. Not that all men are CEOs. The fact that CEOs are men and politicians are men means that men basically rule the world, albeit a select group of a couple of million individuals.
You fundamentally misunderstand what the apex fallacy means. The fallacious reasoning is as follows:
Premise A: Most CEOs are men. Premise B: CEOs dominate society. Fallacious Conclusion: Therefore, men dominate society.
This is utterly false, because the apex of society is not represenative of society as a whole. If most valedictorians are white, while most above-average students are Asian and most failing students are white, would it be fair to say that schools are white dominated? Similarly, would the glass cellar (90% of workplace deaths being male, vast majority of victims of violence are male, vast majority of homeless are male) prove that society is female-dominated?
Averages are what matter, not the apex or the bottom. The fact that most men share some superficial simlarities with the critters at the top do not mean that they dominate society.
On October 01 2012 07:09 Euronyme wrote: The links are indeed interesting, but I've read opposite numbers as well (after adjustment of field of work, education and experience) that points the other way.
It is highly likely that your numbers are propaganda and/or full of statistics fail. My citations include legitimate sources such as the US Department of Labor (and you can bet that if a relatively regressive first-world nation like the US has no wage gap then the same goes for more egalitarian nations like Sweden). If you insist, feel free to post your numbers so I can tear them apart.
OK fair enough. I do think it matters though, but perhaps less so in a gender discussion, as men aren't necessarily biased towards other men. There's no strong group mentality.
Agreed on the group mentality thing. In fact, research shows that women demonstrate an in-group bias, while men do not (everyone is biased in favor of women). Feminist notions of patriarchy (male domination) are based on the expectation that men utilize their positions of power in order to help each other while oppressing women, but reality suggests this is not the case. One could argue that it is actually a form of projection; feminists believe that men use positions of power to oppress women because this is what feminists would do if they were in power.
On October 01 2012 14:21 Euronyme wrote: Bringing up violence statistics would also show that men are the ones behind probably close to 100% of violent crimes, so I'm not sure whether this would be positive or not. I'm also not too sure about the victims of violent crimes either.
The gender of the criminals is a non-sequitur. If I told you that most violent crimes in America are committed by blacks, does that mean it's okay that blacks are disproportionately the victims of violence? Would it change the fact that blacks are socioeconomically disadvantaged? This doesn't even take into account the fact that the statistics are skewed by the fact that women are more likely to be acquitted.
On October 01 2012 14:21 Euronyme wrote: There are a good number of rapes and home related crimes where women are beaten by their husbands, but I'll give it the benefit of a doubt.
On October 01 2012 14:21 Euronyme wrote: The thing is that as men are behind nearly all executive decisions in society, I have a hard time seeing it as dominated by women.
False dichotomy. Have you considered the possibility that society is neither male-dominated nor female-dominated? That both men and women experience sexism and sexual discrimination in different ways?
This puts our troops in more danger than they already were in, I think Bradley Manning got what he deserved and I hope Julian Assange is brought to justice too. Julian may not have released the top secret documents himself, but he is an accessory to the crime by providing a way to make it public.
They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
If the government didnt want anyone to know about the co-ordinates shit, they should have told their own people about the civilians they killed abroad and worldwide.
Name a war that didn't have civilians killed. Name a country that was in a war that never committed any war crimes.
Good reason to commit war crimes and kill civilians. ^^ Not to say you're wrong but in todays day and age commiting war crimes is pretty easy to avoid, America seems to be the main country aiming to not try and commit them. On the killing civilians? That is obviously a loss that will occur but it doesn't take much to realize the "eagle eye" gross miscalculations causing deaths that just shouldn't happen (watch movie if you don't understand what I mean, it's in the first 10-20 minutes)
I'm not saying the war crimes and killing of civilians are right, but it happens, and when we get put on blast by wikileaks it damages the U.S. military as a whole, including every person who doesn't commit war crimes. The soldiers and Marines who follow procedure have to pay the price for the small few who commit atrocities and it disgusts me that people actually think Bradley Manning is a hero.
So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean".
How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass.
I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk.
Public accountability man, if you can't handle what an organization you are part of does then don't be a part of it. Hiding shit is never good.
Second of all, on something else you said. Freedom of press and some other legal precedent means a reporter who leaks classified documents cannot get in trouble for it. Only the person who was privileged can get in trouble for leaking the info, the reporter doesn't get in trouble for publishing or writing any of it. I think that was established sometime around when deepthroat was leaking all the watergate stuff.
He said the incident that had affected him the most was when 15 detainees had been arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. He was asked by the army to find out who the "bad guys" were, and discovered that the detainees had followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. He reported this to his commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; he said the officer told him to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said it made him realize, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ..." He explained that "i cant separate myself from others ... i feel connected to everybody ... like they were distant family," and cited Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Elie Wiesel. He said he hoped the material would lead to "hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. if not ... than [sic] we're doomed as a species." He said he had downloaded the material onto music CD-RWs, erased the music and replaced it with a compressed split file. Part of the reason no-one noticed, he said, was that staff were working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, and "people stopped caring after 3 weeks."
I'd have to agree with him 100%. Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
I joined the USMC in 2008, long before any of these atrocities took place. I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan and I never had anything to do with anything that resulted in the death of anybody, but I do know many fellow Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been to combat. I have good friends with Combat Action Ribbons (CAR) and Purple Hearts, and I am confident they would agree that these leaks are WRONG. They jeapordize everything we work hard for and protect to keep safe. I worked in the signals intelligence field, same as Bradley Manning. I was an Arabic Cryptologic Linguist and I would NEVER compromise the Top Secret data I have been entrusted with no matter what happened to me so so fuck off if you think I am holding back anything from the press. I withhold information that would be invaluable not only to international press but our exact ENEMY who is trying to destroy us. If I am wrong for being silent, so be it, but I do it with the firm belief that it protects my brothers and sisters in arms.
On October 01 2012 03:33 Silidons wrote: [quote] They have not ever endangered our troops that is a complete lie. They withheld all documents that they believed might have influenced future events and released the ones that didn't. Manning got what he deserved? He hasn't even had a trial yet, which only proves you know nothing about it.
How is the enemy being able to find exact locations from GPS coordinates of our troops NOT putting anyone in danger?
I know he hasn't been put on trial, he is still aiding the enemy, the evidence is very clear.
If the government didnt want anyone to know about the co-ordinates shit, they should have told their own people about the civilians they killed abroad and worldwide.
Name a war that didn't have civilians killed. Name a country that was in a war that never committed any war crimes.
Good reason to commit war crimes and kill civilians. ^^ Not to say you're wrong but in todays day and age commiting war crimes is pretty easy to avoid, America seems to be the main country aiming to not try and commit them. On the killing civilians? That is obviously a loss that will occur but it doesn't take much to realize the "eagle eye" gross miscalculations causing deaths that just shouldn't happen (watch movie if you don't understand what I mean, it's in the first 10-20 minutes)
I'm not saying the war crimes and killing of civilians are right, but it happens, and when we get put on blast by wikileaks it damages the U.S. military as a whole, including every person who doesn't commit war crimes. The soldiers and Marines who follow procedure have to pay the price for the small few who commit atrocities and it disgusts me that people actually think Bradley Manning is a hero.
So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean".
How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass.
I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk.
Public accountability man, if you can't handle what an organization you are part of does then don't be a part of it. Hiding shit is never good.
Second of all, on something else you said. Freedom of press and some other legal precedent means a reporter who leaks classified documents cannot get in trouble for it. Only the person who was privileged can get in trouble for leaking the info, the reporter doesn't get in trouble for publishing or writing any of it. I think that was established sometime around when deepthroat was leaking all the watergate stuff.
He said the incident that had affected him the most was when 15 detainees had been arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. He was asked by the army to find out who the "bad guys" were, and discovered that the detainees had followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. He reported this to his commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; he said the officer told him to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said it made him realize, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ..." He explained that "i cant separate myself from others ... i feel connected to everybody ... like they were distant family," and cited Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Elie Wiesel. He said he hoped the material would lead to "hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. if not ... than [sic] we're doomed as a species." He said he had downloaded the material onto music CD-RWs, erased the music and replaced it with a compressed split file. Part of the reason no-one noticed, he said, was that staff were working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, and "people stopped caring after 3 weeks."
I'd have to agree with him 100%. Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
I joined the USMC in 2008, long before any of these atrocities took place. I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan and I never had anything to do with anything that resulted in the death of anybody, but I do know many fellow Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been to combat. I have good friends with Combat Action Ribbons (CAR) and Purple Hearts, and I am confident they would agree that these leaks are WRONG. They jeapordize everything we work hard for and protect to keep safe. I worked in the signals intelligence field, same as Bradley Manning. I was an Arabic Cryptologic Linguist and I would NEVER compromise the Top Secret data I have been entrusted with no matter what happened to me so so fuck off if you think I am holding back anything from the press. I withhold information that would be invaluable not only to international press but our exact ENEMY who is trying to destroy us. If I am wrong for being silent, so be it, but I do it with the firm belief that it protects my brothers and sisters in arms.
Your "brothers & sisters" in arms deserve to know first and then the rest of us so they can march back to their homes. Serving a nation that willingly tortures is barbaric to begin with. The fact you think anything like this is "better" secret is crazy to me, and as I said before name a single attack/event since 2010 that was the direct cause of this? All of the sensitive data was redacted that would lead to any backlash.
I think you're missing the point of the quote "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If your behind the Middle Eastern conquest and you're allowing such things, you allow the atrocities to reoccur, it is your (and whoever else is in your shoes) fault for not standing up. That's such a warped mentality.
EPT
