Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years:

[Billo_Really]

It's not a hypothetical. And it's a perfect illustration of your mindset.

"Damn reality, full screech ahead!!"

You're saying an illustration about me and crop circles is not a hypothetical?

You can now add "stupid" to your growing list of faults.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why, so you can ignore them again?

You bore me, you incoherent, raging imbecile.

You're just playing word games, you skumbag human!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I've been curious about something. Some people claim Manning had a duty to bring to light what he saw as abuses by the military -- and he did indeed have that duty.

What these same people are unable to explain is why giving his information to a non-state intelligence-gathering and -disseminating organization was part of that duty, as opposed to going through well-established channels.

Anyone like to give that a shot?

Because then you end like Michael Hastings or Breitbart, or Breitbart's Coroner, and you give them plenty of time to orchestrate and plan and prepare the cleanup and coverup before they even kill you.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes. The EDITED video.

Assange told you what to think, and you obeyed.

I looked at the full, unedited video.. Really looks like they shot up a bunch of unarmed guys to me. In one case, they identify a cameraman as having a weapon.

But WL does not tell you the whole story -- on purpose.

It looks like some people do not want to listen.

they are already pre-brainwashed and that's it - the chips have fallen into the slots - nothing will ever dig them out from there

Who you gonna believe, me or you lying eyes.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you Wingnuts who spend your lives building elaborate conspiracy theories about Benghazi, the IRS or even where Obama was born will ignore obvious, video evidence.

If the Army was on the up and up about this incident, they wouldn't have hidden this tape.

 

[JoeB131]

But WL does not tell you the whole story -- on purpose.

There's no doubt about that. There's always more context, relevant context, to be known and understood. And yes, Wikileaks has an agenda, every bit as much as our government does. But when we reach a place where we so often have to explain actions that looks so heinous - isn't it worthwhile to re-examine the policies that produce these incidents in the first place?

But the actions don't look so heinous once you see what WL deliberately left out.

Of course, accuracy and truth is not their goal.

Actually, it's still pretty henious. These guys weren't firing at the helicopter, and the guys in the Apache mistook the cameraman's camera for a gun.

 

[daveman]

Yes. The EDITED video.

This proves you don't care about the truth. Because I've seen both videos more than once. I even told you in one of my responses, that I was going to watch "your" video for a second time. Then I specifically commented (with pictures) on the parts of "your" video that was different from the one released by Wikileaks. And yet, after all that, you still act like I haven't seen it.

You're a fuckin' liar and a disgusting piece of shit for a human being.

If you'd seen what Assange edited out, you'd have seen that he lied by omission.

But you like his lies, so you believe him.

Assange told you what to think, and you obeyed.

Back to talking like a 5 year old, I see.

Just putting it in terms you can understand.

 

[daveman]

Wow. You went to an awful lot of trouble just to fail.

This is not the only thread where we've discussed (well, I discussed -- you mindlessly screeched profanities) the edited WikiLeaks video.

Yes, all of your questions have been answered. That you don't like the answers is your problem.

You've never commented on the Apache soldiers joking around while murdering innocent Iraqis. Not once. Not in this thread. Not in any thread. You and I both know this.

You're nothing but a skumbag liar.

That point has been addressed, IN THIS THREAD. I really can't add anything to it.

To me, it's a non-issue. But if you want to believe it makes our troops evil, evil people, you're entitled to that hate-driven wrong view.

Now, go weep some more for the terrorists.

 

[daveman]

It's not a hypothetical. And it's a perfect illustration of your mindset.

"Damn reality, full screech ahead!!"

You're saying an illustration about me and crop circles is not a hypothetical?

You can now add "stupid" to your growing list of faults.

Again, it's not a hypothetical. It's an analogy.

Is English your second language?

 

[daveman]

Why, so you can ignore them again?

You bore me, you incoherent, raging imbecile.

You're just playing word games, you skumbag human!

You can insult me all you want. I'm not going to disregard reality to agree with you.

Deal with it.

 

[daveman]

There's no doubt about that. There's always more context, relevant context, to be known and understood. And yes, Wikileaks has an agenda, every bit as much as our government does. But when we reach a place where we so often have to explain actions that looks so heinous - isn't it worthwhile to re-examine the policies that produce these incidents in the first place?

But the actions don't look so heinous once you see what WL deliberately left out.

Of course, accuracy and truth is not their goal.

Actually, it's still pretty henious. These guys weren't firing at the helicopter, and the guys in the Apache mistook the cameraman's camera for a gun.

But they didn't mistake the guy's RPG for a camera.

That's one of the bits Assange edited out.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow. You went to an awful lot of trouble just to fail.

This is not the only thread where we've discussed (well, I discussed -- you mindlessly screeched profanities) the edited WikiLeaks video.

Yes, all of your questions have been answered. That you don't like the answers is your problem.

You've never commented on the Apache soldiers joking around while murdering innocent Iraqis. Not once. Not in this thread. Not in any thread. You and I both know this.

You're nothing but a skumbag liar.

That point has been addressed, IN THIS THREAD. I really can't add anything to it.

To me, it's a non-issue. But if you want to believe it makes our troops evil, evil people, you're entitled to that hate-driven wrong view.

Now, go weep some more for the terrorists.

Except they weren't terrorists. They were citizens in their own country enjoying their right to bear arms.

They are doing EXACTLY what you gun whacks say Americans should do. Walk around with guns to show how tough they are.

And again, you keep avoiding this- if the Army was on the up and up about this, why did they classify and hide the tape?

 

[JoeB131]

But the actions don't look so heinous once you see what WL deliberately left out.

Of course, accuracy and truth is not their goal.

Actually, it's still pretty henious. These guys weren't firing at the helicopter, and the guys in the Apache mistook the cameraman's camera for a gun.

But they didn't mistake the guy's RPG for a camera.

That's one of the bits Assange edited out.

So?

Point was, you had a bunch of guys standing in the street talking, a couple of them had weapons they weren't firing at anyone, and the helicopter just started firing on them.

And one more time, if the Army was on the up and up, why did they try to hide this video? And more importantly, who were they hiding it from?

 

[FA_Q2]

"...it has been discussed in this thread. don't be lazy - and READ"

I was looking for the 50-words-or-less Cliffs Notes version and didn't get it, and I'm too lazy tonight to be bothered, quite honestly, so, I guess I'll just hang onto the notion that Shoot Sequence No. 2 was questionable (I saw no weapons within the van, I saw no combatants in the van, I saw no arms being loaded into the van) until I can manage to get off my ass, some other time and finish digging that up. I've just had a fine Sunday-evening ham-dinner with the family and my eyes are bigger than my stomach and there's still home-made apple pie ahead within the hour, so, any serious backpeddling is gonna have to wait 'til later.

OK, here are Cliff notes ( thanks to the rants of Billy):

Daveman post #6:

I've heard that "journalists" embedded with the insurgents would take pictures of Coalition troops and then show them to the insurgents so they could better target them.

Collateral Murder - The WikiLeaks Deception | Telling the Whole Story

I just showed my husband this footage. He was there and had a role in reviewing the investigation on this case. His response below might clarify some things.

This footage shows the final engagement of the Reuters field reporters in New Baghdad. Missing is the overwatch video and earlier AH64 footage showing the development of the situation where the two reporters and armed men supported by a van and cars were shadowing a Coalition patrol. These reporters accompanied the armed men who were tracking a Coalition patrol about a city block away. The camera man would peek around corners to shoot a few digital frames of the patrol and then show the pictures to the armed men. If you have all the video footage, you will see this activity happened repeatedly. The operational suspicion was that this was enemy TTP (tactic, technic, or procedure) to help prepare for an attack; the digital photos would be used to quickly evaluate the target — to judge what it looked like, its shape, distance, terrain in between, where to aim, etc. This way, the RPG operator would select the right warhead, he’d preset the mechanical sights (elevation), and fix in his mind a visual picture of the target so he would limit his exposure time when stepping out in the street to fire. The recovered camera showed how the cameral man was aiding the enemy.

And this covers the initial sequence quite well. Unfortunately, it has NOTHING to do with the second firing at ALL. Nothing.

You don’t seem to understand that my and Kondor’s contention is with the firing on the VAN, a target that was NOT confirmed to be armed, was not firing and, most importantly, was recovering WOUNDED.

That makes it an illegal target. Again, the problem was NOT with the soldiers but the entire policy that gave the kill order to an unarmed target recovering wounded.

You do know that if I engage a target and disable them that I cannot legally terminate that target, right? That is specifically why they did NOT fire at the wounded individual on the second pass – he was no longer a combatant even if he was a terrorist helping and aiding the enemy because he had not rearmed.

A lot of what you guys have been stating centers on the fact that they were the bad guys. I don’t think that Kondor actually disputes that and I know for a fact that I do not. They were clearly legal targets. The problem occurs after they are taken out and the wounded are being evacuated. The fact that they were helping the enemy was irrelevant.

But WL does not tell you the whole story -- on purpose.

There's no doubt about that. There's always more context, relevant context, to be known and understood. And yes, Wikileaks has an agenda, every bit as much as our government does. But when we reach a place where we so often have to explain actions that looks so heinous - isn't it worthwhile to re-examine the policies that produce these incidents in the first place?

But the actions don't look so heinous once you see what WL deliberately left out.

Of course, accuracy and truth is not their goal.

They don’t look all that heinous WITH what they left out if you are willing to examine the evidence without the assumption of guilt. Honestly, they directly state that they think the targets are armed and that solves the entire first pass thing right there.

That does not make the pass at the truck correct though. I don’t see how that was justified and I think that is a clear violation of the laws of war. What should be done about it, I am far less sure. The instance is not blatant like Abu Ghraib was. Situation in the midst of battle are FAR different than when the bad guy is already detained.

 

[FA_Q2]

I looked at the entire 17-minutes-long video sequence within the past hour, as a memory-refresher of an original viewing months ago, and I did not see a reason to fire upon the van that came-up after Shoot-Sequence No. 1...

It seems as though our fellas got carried away, in undertaking Shoot-Sequence No. 2...

But, if true, then this could have been handled through the IG's office, rather than trusting to Whats-His-Face from WikiLeaks...

that is NOT a full video.

It has been cut.

Refresh my memory, in small words that my tired brain can understand today...

Does the FULL video tell us a different story?

I'm convinced that Shoot Sequence No. 1 may have been righteous...

I'm not convinced (based on the 'edited' version I've seen so far) that Shoot Sequence No. 2 was righteous...

As far as I can tell, that portion has not been addressed in this thread. They all keep falling back to the fact that they were legal targets. That is true, they were UNTIL they were eliminated. Then they because wounded and not legal targets unless they reengaged.

 

[Vox]

I was looking for the 50-words-or-less Cliffs Notes version and didn't get it, and I'm too lazy tonight to be bothered, quite honestly, so, I guess I'll just hang onto the notion that Shoot Sequence No. 2 was questionable (I saw no weapons within the van, I saw no combatants in the van, I saw no arms being loaded into the van) until I can manage to get off my ass, some other time and finish digging that up. I've just had a fine Sunday-evening ham-dinner with the family and my eyes are bigger than my stomach and there's still home-made apple pie ahead within the hour, so, any serious backpeddling is gonna have to wait 'til later.

OK, here are Cliff notes ( thanks to the rants of Billy):

Daveman post #6:

I've heard that "journalists" embedded with the insurgents would take pictures of Coalition troops and then show them to the insurgents so they could better target them.

Collateral Murder - The WikiLeaks Deception | Telling the Whole Story

I just showed my husband this footage. He was there and had a role in reviewing the investigation on this case. His response below might clarify some things.

This footage shows the final engagement of the Reuters field reporters in New Baghdad. Missing is the overwatch video and earlier AH64 footage showing the development of the situation where the two reporters and armed men supported by a van and cars were shadowing a Coalition patrol. These reporters accompanied the armed men who were tracking a Coalition patrol about a city block away. The camera man would peek around corners to shoot a few digital frames of the patrol and then show the pictures to the armed men. If you have all the video footage, you will see this activity happened repeatedly. The operational suspicion was that this was enemy TTP (tactic, technic, or procedure) to help prepare for an attack; the digital photos would be used to quickly evaluate the target — to judge what it looked like, its shape, distance, terrain in between, where to aim, etc. This way, the RPG operator would select the right warhead, he’d preset the mechanical sights (elevation), and fix in his mind a visual picture of the target so he would limit his exposure time when stepping out in the street to fire. The recovered camera showed how the cameral man was aiding the enemy.

And this covers the initial sequence quite well. Unfortunately, it has NOTHING to do with the second firing at ALL. Nothing.

You don’t seem to understand that my and Kondor’s contention is with the firing on the VAS, a target that was NOT confirmed to be armed, was not firing and, most importantly, was recovering WOUNDED.

That makes it an illegal target. Again, the problem was NOT with the soldiers but the entire policy that gave the kill order to an unarmed target recovering wounded.

SO WHAT?!? does it make the possibility of RPGs there impossible? if even THE JOURNALISTS were helping the insurgents? I was not there, the video is murky ( to say the least) and the people involved could have had absolutely reasonable suspicion the van WAS armed. And it probably WAS.
No "war crime" here.


You do know that if I engage a target and disable them that I cannot legally terminate that target, right? That is specifically why they did NOT fire at the wounded individual on the second pass – he was no longer a combatant even if he was a terrorist helping and aiding the enemy because he had not rearmed.

A lot of what you guys have been stating centers on the fact that they were the bad guys. I don’t think that Kondor actually disputes that and I know for a fact that I do not. They were clearly legal targets. The problem occurs after they are taken out and the wounded are being evacuated. The fact that they were helping the enemy was irrelevant.

There's no doubt about that. There's always more context, relevant context, to be known and understood. And yes, Wikileaks has an agenda, every bit as much as our government does. But when we reach a place where we so often have to explain actions that looks so heinous - isn't it worthwhile to re-examine the policies that produce these incidents in the first place?

But the actions don't look so heinous once you see what WL deliberately left out.

Of course, accuracy and truth is not their goal.

They don’t look all that heinous WITH what they left out if you are willing to examine the evidence without the assumption of guilt. Honestly, they directly state that they think the targets are armed and that solves the entire first pass thing right there.

That does not make the pass at the truck correct though. I don’t see how that was justified and I think that is a clear violation of the laws of war. What should be done about it, I am far less sure. The instance is not blatant like Abu Ghraib was. Situation in the midst of battle are FAR different than when the bad guy is already detained.

you just confirm my point which I made above. I am only more decided since I've gone through all of that 2 years ago - and decided then.
=============

I don't see anything heinous AT ALL.

Assange deliberately cut off the video. whatever is left is not clear at all.

I don't have time to search the web to get the other piece( in order to post it here) - I am not a military person and the others ( including you) have done this on this thread ALREADY.

I've researched the issue when it was on the news - in 2011. Assange LIED. There were no "war crimes" exposed.

That is done - for me.

 

[Vox]

that is NOT a full video.

It has been cut.

Refresh my memory, in small words that my tired brain can understand today...

Does the FULL video tell us a different story?

I'm convinced that Shoot Sequence No. 1 may have been righteous...

I'm not convinced (based on the 'edited' version I've seen so far) that Shoot Sequence No. 2 was righteous...

As far as I can tell, that portion has not been addressed in this thread. They all keep falling back to the fact that they were legal targets. That is true, they were UNTIL they were eliminated. Then they because wounded and not legal targets unless they reengaged.

everybody and everything is a legal target THERE. being wounded does not preclude you from still firing and killing. Being loaded into the van does not automatically make the van the red cross ambulance with nuns driving.

EVERYTHING.

Including journalists.

The "other side" proved to be engaged too many times.

established rules not applicable in such situations.

 

[Mr Natural]

What the heck was a PFC doing with access to information of a serious nature in the first place?

 

[Vox]

the military says that because the van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle, it was fair game under Army rules.

OK, I was right in my memory - a van without clear visible markings to suggest it is an ambulance IS a legal target even if somebody wounded is being loaded there.

There is no guarantee that inside the van there are no armed to the teeth insurgents who will open fire upon any possibility, especially under the disguise of the wounded bieng loaded in.



LARSEN: I want to move to the van video.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where's that van at?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right down there by the bodies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

LARSEN: And what you see is a van that's coming to help grab some of the wounded people on the ground. The Apache crew asks for permission to engage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, let us shoot.

KIMMITT: Again, that is an active battle field. That van could have other fighters inside of it with weapons. Those fighters could put our soldiers at risk, could kill those soldiers that they're fighting.
CNN.com - Transcripts

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires that the wounded be collected and cared for. Article 17 of the First Protocol states that the civilian population "shall be permitted, even on their own initiative, to collect and care for the wounded." That article also says, "No one shall be harmed . . . for such humanitarian acts." The firing on rescuers portrayed in the "Collateral Murder" video violates these provisions of Geneva.

You're welcome for the education on international rules we essentially auithored, but disregard.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Furthermore,

Section 27-10 of the Army Field Manual states that "maltreatment of dead bodies" is a war crime. When the Army jeep drove over the dead body, it violated this provision.

Again, you're welcome.