Torture people and commit war crimes, no problem. Tell the world these crimes have been committed and you are toast. That is the way of governments all over the world.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bradley Manning
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
- Status
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Nice argument. Akin to the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Your problem is that you have no one saying with definitiveness, "The US committed war crimes and tortured people." You have a lot of opinions that happened, you have a lot of self-appointed prosecutors who would love to try such a case, but the bottom line is, no torture, no war crimes were committed -- except by Manning, who is the stupidest spy in history, having given up all this top secret information for no personal gain whatsoever, except to become the darling of the liberal-socialist LGBT community. He should have been sent to the firing squad.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Apparently it's now Chelsea Manning
http://t.today.com/news/bradley-manning-i-want-live-woman-6C10974915
http://t.today.com/news/bradley-manning-i-want-live-woman-6C10974915
A Patriot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFFkcCh-pCc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFFkcCh-pCc
More like a pervert.
You have got to be kidding!!!
This man (and I use the term loosely) took a solem oath - and he intenationaly broke that oath.
As a PFC I was authorized to have access to classified material. I honored my oath.
A true man will live up to his obligations.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Wow! What a rush! It's been awhile since we've seen this type of heart felt hard core conservative speech around here.
I couldn't agree more TND Manning should be standing in front of a firing squad with copy of the constitution placed over his heart for a target. Yeah! We don't no steenking bill of rights. Civil rights only coddle criminals.
I can't imagine how Manning could have mistaken the killing of civilians and reporters for a war crime. And those Abu Ghraib pictures and the investigating general's findings don't mean squat. Yeah because there was no torture, see?
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
Members of the military signed an oath upon commission or enlistment. They do not have the same rights as civilians. This guy (or he she) broke his oath, and as far as I am concerned, got off light. If he wanted to leak this information, he could have done so after he got out of the Army and done so anonymously.
It doesn't sound like he had noble motives, considering he seemed to think his confusion about whether he is a boy or a girl played into him leaking sensitive documents. I'm not sure what one has to do with the other, as I had no clue a side effect of gender identity problems was Wikileaking. http://www.today.com/news/bradley-manning-i-want-live-woman-6C10974915
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
It's not just a "heart felt hard core conservative speech" -- it's the truth. Deal with it.
Your sarcasm aside, he had a trial, he was found guilty of treason, and his punishment could have easily been death. He's too much of an idiot, however, to know what he's done so I suppose we can give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his mental capacity.
Not proven, no facts in evidence, and pure speculation on the part of Manning, his fawning LGBT community fans, and liberals who will believe anything that makes the US look bad, even when it isn't true.
poncho;2023133And those Abu Ghraib pictures and the investigating general's findings don't mean squat. Yeah because there was no torture said:
poncho
Well-Known Member
The truth according to who? You? From what I have seen in your posts so far you are always long on opinion and short on facts. Any info that goes against your opinion is automatically denied and ridiculed as either being crazy or from a liberal. You don't look for the truth Bill you look for ways to confirm your opinions.
Yeah he was tried by people like you who think hiding evidence of crimes is honoring your oath.
Probably because their wasn't a real investigation into the alleged crimes. Washington doesn't need my help to make it look bad. It's doing fine on it's own.
You're quite the comedian yourself Bill. Our military people would have a lot less to worry about from suicide bombers if Washington didn't send them off on so many ill advised unconstitutional (which being interpreted means ILLEGAL) regime change/nation building experiments. I remember a time when conservatives were against such things Bill.
Congress hasn't declared war on anyone Bill. Legally (constitutionally) speaking, until congress issues a formal declaration of war any military action overt or covert Washington takes against another country is a war crime. And that Bill my very good friend is the truth. Deal with that.
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
I could ask the same of you. You have no proof of war crimes, torture, or any other violation of the USMCC. You are left with nothing but the rants of liberals/socialists who wish what you say was true. It is not. End of discussion. It's a waste of time.
You don't like my posts? Ignore me. Please.
Many, many war crimes were committed at the Abu Ghraib prison.
My Lai Massacre was a war crime.
Agent Orange was a war crime.
There were others in various wars including Iraq. Don't have time to write more at the moment.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Judging by the pic you posted, you are ignorant of what actually constitutes a war crime.
My Lai was a response to a tense situation involving enemy combatants. Testimony was given by other members of the platoon under Lt. Calley's command that one man tried to prevent our soldiers' entrance into one particular hut, which turned out to be the one with the grenades, AK-47s and rice hidden for use by the VC. When they pushed him out of the way, he pulled a weapon and opened fire. You've been told lies if you believe the people of My Lai were "innocent." Why do you think the lieutenant had to face a jury of non-combat experienced officers? The answer should be obvious. But probably not to you.
That's just plain ignorant, unworthy of a response.
Good. It wou9ld be a waste of time, effort and unnecessary irritation of billions of electrons.
FYI, war crimes are what the Germans did to the Jews, the Serbs did to the Croats, and Saddam did to his own people. Get informed or get out of the discussion.
He did live up to those obligations. Part of his oath was to protect the constitution and what it stands for and by exposing unconstitutional goings on by our government he was living up to that oath.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you are refering to his sexual orientation, More like a sinner.
I would say that the reaction of the government going after Brady and the war crimes he exposed is an admission of guilt. If they were not the documents would not have been classified and the reaction would not have been so pronounced.
A person does not have to be innocent for a war crime to be committed against them. Do you mean the children were not innocent.
Also there are reports of US troops killing people who had already surrendered to them.
But all this discussion misses the main point of the OP ... that governments always try to hide their crimes ... and if someone exposes them that person is punished. The crimes remain crimes and those who committed them are shielded.
After all the Bush administration asked the Justice Department to declare he and his top officials exempt from being prosecuted as war criminals. If now war crimes had been committed, why ask for the exemption?
poncho
Well-Known Member
There's all kinds of evidence of torture Bill. You just choose to ignore it or call it something else. I can call an apple an orange but the apple is still an apple.
Fact. All the "wars" Washington has gotten us involved in since WWII have been unconstitutional, what's that mean again? It means they have all been illegal. Use whatever justification you want it' still doesn't make any of those military actions legal. The constitution is what we're supposed to be protecting and defending Bill, not a lawless government.
If something is illegal that usually means engaging in it is a crime.
Our politician swore to uphold the constitution not just give it lip service while violating it. Washington does not follow the constitution (the law) therefore we have a lawless illegitimate government. One in which you seem very adamant about protecting.
No I like your posts Bill keep em coming if it weren't for people like you the Tea Party wouldn't be adding to it's growing ranks.
Last edited by a moderator:
no, Judith.
he did not.
he took an oath, he was given the level of government clearance he had because he took that oath, not simply because he wears a uniform.
what he may have seen may have bothered him, and there is nothing between him and his conscience but tht oath, so he should have resigned first, then do what he needs to do.
What he did was to take advantage of his position.
He knew he could not leak out anything once he quits his position, or his job.
So, in plain and simple language, the only difference between him and a foreign or domestic spy, is the latter has a handler, Manning does not, but in all things, he is a spy.
If he cannot honor his oath, then, like Hubbard wrote:
- Status