Americans should stand up for Bradley Manning! Shame on your army!

+ the world already hates them...way to improve your image.

Reply 3

Made in the USA

11

Original post by the_13th

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8169292/WikiLeaks-family-unable-to-see-suspect-Bradley-Manning.html

The soldier responsible for leaking the video called "Collateral Murder" may get up to 52 years in prison.

For what? For exposing the truth of savage behaviour of American soldiers in Iraq?

People deserve to know what their billions of dollars from tax revenues are spent on. And they surely do have the right to know about the crimes that people commit. War is not a justification for killing civilians.

Bradley Manning did break a law for leaking the video. But did the soldiers, who killed several people not break it as well? If so, arrest all of those soldiers and put them to prison as well!

Otherwise release Bradley Manning!

Shame on American army and American government!

I support the punishment he is going to be subjected to

It's actually the first time in a while I haven't been ashamed of this government

Reply 4

Beska

21

Let me sum up the article for you.

"How ridiculous! He broke a law and then was put in prison! What is with this injustice?!"

Reply 5

CatatonicStupor

15

I hate to quote Robert Gates' own words on this situation, but: "It's obviously a hard thing to see. It's painful to see, especially when you learn after the fact what was going on. But you -- you talked about the fog of war. These people were operating in split-second situations."

It's the same idea when it comes to all those stories of police gunning down innocent people, because they thought they saw a gun. If you've got a split second, in a warzone, and you see something you think is something else...well, it's the whole Rumsfeldian principle of Known Knowns and Unknown Knowns -- in this case, it was a Known Unknown, something they knew they didn't know. You can't say how you would have acted in the same situation, so you can't pass judgement on them, regardless of the civilian casualties. War makes people do things that, normally, they wouldn't do...

So, when it comes to Manning disclosing it to the world at large, he is in the wrong for breaking the American Law by, as it says in the article, "delivering national defence information to an unauthorised source" -- compared to that, a slip-up on the part of the soldiers in the Apaches is just a slap-on-the-wrist offence ("You've messed up, boys, now don't do it again..." sort of thing.)

Reply 6

AndroidLight

Original post by CatatonicStupor

I hate to quote Robert Gates' own words on this situation, but: "It's obviously a hard thing to see. It's painful to see, especially when you learn after the fact what was going on. But you -- you talked about the fog of war. These people were operating in split-second situations."

It's the same idea when it comes to all those stories of police gunning down innocent people, because they thought they saw a gun. If you've got a split second, in a warzone, and you see something you think is something else...well, it's the whole Rumsfeldian principle of Known Knowns and Unknown Knowns -- in this case, it was a Known Unknown, something they knew they didn't know. You can't say how you would have acted in the same situation, so you can't pass judgement on them, regardless of the civilian casualties. War makes people do things that, normally, they wouldn't do...

So, when it comes to Manning disclosing it to the world at large, he is in the wrong for breaking the American Law by, as it says in the article, "delivering national defence information to an unauthorised source" -- compared to that, a slip-up on the part of the soldiers in the Apaches is just a slap-on-the-wrist offence ("You've messed up, boys, now don't do it again..." sort of thing.)

That's laughable, bordering on ridiculous. Did you watch the video? Gunning down civilians from an apache helicopter? And then gunning down those that came to help the dead? Like some COD game.

If American law states massacres should be covered up then that law is not a law to follow. Bradley Manning did what many a man would not have the balls to do. The soldiers shot for their own benefit. Bradley got no benefit from this, he knew the risks and he still did what he did. That's why we should stand up for people like him.

Reply 7

CatatonicStupor

15

Original post by AndroidLight

That's laughable, bordering on ridiculous. Did you watch the video? Gunning down civilians from an apache helicopter? And then gunning down those that came to help the dead? Like some COD game.

If American law states massacres should be covered up then that law is not a law to follow. Bradley Manning did what many a man would not have the balls to do. The soldiers shot for their own benefit. Bradley got no benefit from this, he knew the risks and he still did what he did. That's why we should stand up for people like him.

Shot for their own benefit?

Yes, I've seen the video, and even I'd admit that from that distance it does appear that they are carrying weapons. In hindsight, we now know it to be a camera, but in looking at it on the video I'd have said they were potentially carrying weapons. It's a warzone -- you expect people to think "Oh, he's just carrying a camera"? I'd be paranoid about everyone, considering I was the enemy...

I mean, look at the part where they say "He's got an RPG" -- I know Saaed was probably trying 'cover journalism' or whatever, but from that angle, I can see why they think it's an RPG. Sure, they could have fired some warning shots, but why risk it? Why risk the chance that it might be an insurgent with an RPG who is more likely to pull the trigger and blow you out of the sky than jump with fear??

I'm not condoning their actions by any stretch of the imagination, I just think you need to put things into perspective. Yes, it was callous; yes, it was inhumane, but they're in a warzone where insurgents are trying to kill them. You don't have time to think things over; you don't have time to weigh up the right and wrong; and you probably don't have time to do things in a way that doesn't make you seem like a heartless killing machine.

Yes, they're in the wrong, but you can easily call 'self-defence in error'. In hindsight -- wrong; at the time -- they were just trying to save their asses from a potential death...

Reply 8

Cll_ws

19

Not really sure what I think about it all tbh. I just saw the video.

I know they have to be, but it amazes me how soldiers can be in the frame of mind where they kill a whole load of people and don't let it bother them and even joke in amongst the shooting. I can't imagine how i'd go about getting into that frame of mind if for some reason I was a soldier, I was literally cringing watching that video waiting for them to shoot as the aim was hovering over the group of people.

I'm not having a go at soldiers or anything like that, just saying I could never do that. But that's not really of any relevance to this thread.

But on this whole thing i'm not sure, I guess it was wrong to leak the video.
But on the other hand, not sure what the soldiers were doing, they didn't exactly look under any threat, in the time they spent hovering around couldn't they of just checked whether the people had weapons?
From what I saw in the video what they were carrying looked a little too camera shaped to be a gun.
Not sure its very professional to call them bastards and laugh after shooting them either, it actually was like a game of COD.

Reply 9

I supported the leaks at first. But the moron leaked a list of the most sensitive government facilities world wide and now its become common information, The other stuff in no way could lead to the deaths of soldiers and such but it now seems that some of those documents really are dangerous and could cause harm.

Reply 10

adam0311

12

Original post by Aj12

I supported the leaks at first. But the moron leaked a list of the most sensitive government facilities world wide and now its become common information, The other stuff in no way could lead to the deaths of soldiers and such but it now seems that some of those documents really are dangerous and could cause harm.

Agree 100%

He put soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen's life in harms way. Not only that, but also the published list of Iraqi and Afghani informants. These people of families and only wanted what was best for their country. By wikileaks publishing those lists, basically secures death for the informants because now every terrorist organization will make it their mission to kill them. I would consider this vicarious murder.

I care less whether they publish some insignificant data (99% of released leaks), .5% is embarrassing stuff (leaders with their "nurses"), and then the .5% that puts people in harms way and secures death for others.

OP, take your left wing antics somewhere else. Let me pose a question to you....you know the US went to war unjustifiably and swiftly. What more do you want to know? Is it worth putting people in harms way to expose what you don't already know? Is it worth knowing that al queda/taliban is going to kill every exposed informant listed? Did you really learn anything from the exposed leaks? I sure as hell didn't. All it did was confirm what I already know...middle eastern countries are scared of Iran, Putin is lazy, and diplomats have affairs. Not of that is worth it. Even if only one informant is killed.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 11

Original post by CatatonicStupor

Yes, they're in the wrong, but you can easily call 'self-defence in error'. In hindsight -- wrong; at the time -- they were just trying to save their asses from a potential death...

Lol.

Guilty until proven innocent. RPG until proven its a camera. Mind you, they did not even appear to use the supposed rpg and attempt to shoot the helicopter. Not to mention those that came at the end and just wanted to help the wounded. They sure posed a real threat.

Reply 12

Original post by danny111

Lol.

Guilty until proven innocent. RPG until proven its a camera. Mind you, they did not even appear to use the supposed rpg and attempt to shoot the helicopter. Not to mention those that came at the end and just wanted to help the wounded. They sure posed a real threat.

None of us our soldiers, nor have many people on this forum served in conflict zones. If you have not served in a conflict zone then you cannot possibly imagine what those soldiers were thinking nor can you comment on the right or wrong of their actions

Reply 13

Original post by Aj12

None of us our soldiers, nor have many people on this forum served in conflict zones. If you have not served in a conflict zone then you cannot possibly imagine what those soldiers were thinking nor can you comment on the right or wrong of their actions

What is your point?

I simply said that what the guy I quoted said, boils down to the fact that they go by the principle guilty until proven innocent.

Stop making stupid posts, pretty much every single post I read from you is ridiculous.

ps it's are not our.

Reply 14

CatatonicStupor

15

Original post by danny111

Lol.

Guilty until proven innocent. RPG until proven its a camera. Mind you, they did not even appear to use the supposed rpg and attempt to shoot the helicopter. Not to mention those that came at the end and just wanted to help the wounded. They sure posed a real threat.

But what do you expect them to do? Land the helicopter, get out, ask to inspect the suspicious item? Yes, continuing was a bit of an overreaction, but as I've reiterated time and time again -- it's a warzone where they're the enemy; they're not on friendly ground, taking chances could end their lives. Also, these are American soldiers, from the land where everyone a darker than a 'healthy tan' is considered a terrorist.

I do, however, realise that it's all a sad look at how easy it is for an American to go all gung-ho in a situation like this -- essentially, it makes me think of this, and how easily people after 9/11 could be manipulated to think that the Americans were in the right. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" :rolleyes:

Reply 15

Original post by danny111

What is your point?

I simply said that what the guy I quoted said, boils down to the fact that they go by the principle guilty until proven innocent.

Stop making stupid posts, pretty much every single post I read from you is ridiculous.

ps it's are not our.

Your trying to comment on a matter that you clearly have no clue about was my point.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 16

Original post by Aj12

Your trying to comment on a matter that you clearly have no clue about was my point.

I figured that, but what was the point in telling me that. Whether or not I know anything about it, does not change the fact that they treat people as guilty until proven innocent.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 17

Original post by danny111

I figured that, but what was the point in telling me that. Whether or not I know anything about it, does not change the fact that they treat people as guilty until proven innocent.

ITS A WARZONE

If soliders gave every person the benefit of the doubt plenty more of them would be dead.

What do you want them to do fly over and wait till they are shot at?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 18

Original post by Aj12

If soliders gave every person the benefit of the doubt plenty more of them would be dead. good. then maybe the americans would learn a lesson and stop invading countries. and funny how you dont even consider the implications of your words. why do you value the life of US soldiers more than that of iraqi citizens. if you create a 2x2 matrix of shoot/not shoot on the rows and insurgents/not insurgents you are saying the shoot/not insurgent payoff is higher than the not shoot/insurgent one.

says a lot about your morals.

also how you can justify them shooting those trying to take care of the wounded is beyond me. omg they are insurgents, they will treat them in hospital they will come back to kill us. omg. next you are saying they should kill POWs, i mean they could escape and come back to kill you, right?

Reply 19