Manning found guilty in 20 of 21 charges

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

Yup.

sickening to think that thousands of innocent people have died just because Bush junior wanted to get Saddam out to appease his idiot Fathers ego.

The reasons for the war were bad and misguided enough as it is without people filling in the blanks themselves with silly reasons

Christ the Redeemer

Ulsteryank wrote: »

I know. Funny too how in 1988 the IRA did the same at a marathon in Lisburn killing 6 and injuring 11 including a 2 year old and an 80 year with no doubt a good portion of funding coming from Boston....while speaking of Iraq, there were 55 killed in explosions there the day after the Boston bombings, and I didn't even see a headline on that here because every channel in the pub was about Boston.

It was actually the same day. I remember because it was posted to reddit and then the top rated comment was the OP apologising saying "I don't mean to disrespect those dead in Boston by posting this" - ****ing disgrace.

Jonny7

Ulsteryank wrote: »

I know. Funny too how in 1988 the IRA did the same at a marathon in Lisburn killing 6 and injuring 11 including a 2 year old and an 80 year with no doubt a good portion of funding coming from Boston....while speaking of Iraq, there were 55 killed in explosions there the day after the Boston bombings, and I didn't even see a headline on that here because every channel in the pub was about Boston.

It gets reported, but it's just not newsworthy

Last month was the worst in a year or two, over 1,000 killed

Ulsteryank

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

No one is born a terrorist. But they are born every time the Americans land their bombs on towns.

The whole thing stinks, like their "war on drugs" - completely ignore the root cause of the problem and profit hugely off the game of whack a mole that is their response.

I understand what you're saying, but have to disagree on the terrorist bit.

Christ the Redeemer

Ulsteryank wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, but have to disagree on the terrorist bit.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. That terrorists aren't born terrorist? or that they are created every time a bomb drops?

Jonny7

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. That terrorists aren't born terrorist? or that they are created every time a bomb drops?

It's a fair bit more complex than that.

Many groups formed and/or came to Iraq with a multitude of aims, goals and motives

Typically it can be traced back to previous events or conflicts, but it can also be for ideological reasons, religious, financial, coerced, brainwashing and so on.

Some who were originally fighting US forces, actually allied with them to fight other groups.

No one dropped bombs on Timothy McVeigh.

MonaPizza

Jonny7 wrote: »

Pakistan - this could be described as limited war, as part of a larger war between militants, Taliban and Pashtun militias on one side and Pakistan, US on the other. The drone strikes are done with the tacit approval of Pakistan

Yemen - these are strikes (drone and missile) on training camps, etc with the approval of the Yemeni government. So not really a war.




An act of terrorism because they would be purposefully targeting innocent civilians for political statementor reason

The US military doesn't purposefully target innocent civilians.

Obviously in some alternative universe if the US military had the same intentions as Al Qaeda - they could wipe out most of the population of country x, y or z overnight


They grey area arises from the cause and effect of all this.

for example

If forces are going to assault a village and in the process likely kill or maim half the inhabitants - then it's an easy decision to take action to stop those forces.

However if in the process of attacking those forces to prevent them from reaching the village, 10 civilians may be killed, then there is a dilema.

The above is just an example, but those criticising the drone war often fail to see or even acknowledge that this is happening in NW Pakistan and Waziristan. If there is an option to use an accurate predator drone missile to take out militants - then logically that will be less devastating that giving intel to the Pakistan army which might use a much more blunt object.

There are reasons and causes of this conflict that can be tied to the Bush admin, and even going back further than that, unfortunately the US government does not have a time machine to reverse all those bad decisions .. yet.

Of course the US military purposefully targets civilians. How naive can you be. In a war of occupation the only way to have any chance of success is to butcher and terrorise the civilian to the point of utter trauma so that you can achieve your goals of strategic hegemony and/or resource control. Two A-bombs were dropped on Japanese civilians in 1945. If you buy into the lie that it was done to "save American lives" then this discussion is over and you're just trolling. It was done to send a message to Russia and other that the US is basically a headcase who is not to be fcuked with.
The bombing of Dresden was another example. You think that was an accident? You think allied bombers were targeting some factory on the outskirts of town and suddenly the whole city caught fire immolating tens of thousands of innocent people in phosphourous incendiaries?
Humvee gunners were ordered to shoot a withering barage of 360 degree fire from their turrets if they so much as hear a balloon pop. This is directly targeting civilians. It is not being done in the hope of getting the guy who planted the bomb it is to send a message that "your actions or attempted actions will cause us to kill scores of women and children each time you try".

This fantasy of US forces being such nice guys and playing fair is nauseating. Anything goes. If truth and fairplay and honesty were really important then Manning would have been given a medal and the guys who mowed down those people from their gunship would be in shackles in Leavenworth.

The direct targeting and collective punishment of the people of Fallujah was another example. Not that the military really gave a sh!t about those Blackwater assholes driving around like they owned the place, taking potshots at old men and people's cars just for fun. But their killing provided a good excuse to justify a bit more civilian killing so they jumped at the opportunity.

Jonny7

MonaPizza wrote: »

Of course the US military purposefully targets civilians. How naive can you be. In a war of occupation the only way to have any chance of success is to butcher and terrorise the civilian to the point of utter trauma

Of course

Christ the Redeemer

Jonny7 wrote: »

No one dropped bombs on Timothy McVeigh.

No, his bombing was in response to the Waco siege.

MonaPizza

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

Americans by and large don't give a ****. They will obviously have a few that do and human rights organisations ect.

As long as they get their cheap petrol and obscenely large breakfasts, TV, internet and can puff out their chests about 'Murica being the greatest nation on earth, they will happily ignore the suffering caused by their out of control "defence" industry.

It's a sad thing. I really did once think that the democrats were the sane opposition to a warmongering Republican party. Fool me once.

2 cheeks of the same arse.

Jonny7

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

No, his bombing was in response to the Waco siege.

He killed 186 people mainly because he was a misguided paranoid nutjob.

Anders Breivik killed 76 people for largely the same reason.

Christ the Redeemer

Jonny7 wrote: »

He killed 186 people mainly because he was a misguided paranoid nutjob.

Anders Breivik killed 76 people for largely the same reason.

Typical western attitude. White man blows **** up he must be crazy. Arab blows **** up it's because he's radicalised and a product of their religion.

I never see anything in the press asking just how sane are these "jihads" - but reams dedicated to looking into Breviks mental health status.

Jonny7

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

Typical western attitude. White man blows **** up he must be crazy. Arab blows **** up it's because he's radicalised and a product of their religion.

Missing my point.

You said

No one is born a terrorist. But they are born every time the Americans land their bombs on towns.

I was responding it's a little more complex than that, there can be a multitude of reasons. For example Breivik.

Clandestine

Jonny7 wrote: »

He killed 186 people mainly because he was a misguided paranoid nutjob.

Anders Breivik killed 76 people for largely the same reason.

No, Timothy Mcveigh bombed the building as revenge for the ATF's handling of the the Waco Siege and the Ruby Ridge incident

Breivik killed 76 people to fight in his own way. and to generate hate against Cultrual Marxism, Islam and other ideologies, and to express his support of Far-right Zionism and Christian fundamentalism.

Jonny7

Clandestine wrote: »

No, Timothy Mcveigh bombed the building as revenge for the ATF's handling of the the Waco Siege and the Ruby Ridge incident.

Those were reasons, in his twisted mind. There were many more reasons.

If they were valid reasons that admonished him, we'd have an epidemic.

Breivik killed 76 people to fight in his own way. and to generate hate against Cultrual Marxism, Islam and other ideologies, and to express his support of Far-right Zionism and Christian fundamentalism.

I would argue his deep psychological trauma as a child, his mother constantly telling him she wished him dead had a lot more to do with his actions than purely for the above

Christ the Redeemer

White people can't be just ****ing evil like those brownies. I get ya.

Jonny7

There's no difference in colour or race, it happens all around the world. Assuming you're from Ireland, we're very familiar with terrorism.

Karl Stein

Jonny7 wrote: »

There's no difference in colour or race, it happens all around the world. Assuming you're from Ireland, we're very familiar with terrorism.

Especially British state terrorism. The recent backlash (known as 'the troubles') to British underpinned state terrorism in the north was de-escalated by listening to legitimate grievances not by sending in Apache helicopters and drone strikes to murder the natives.

Christ the Redeemer

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Especially British state terrorism. The recent backlash (known as 'the troubles') to British underpinned state terrorism in the north was de-escalated by listening to legitimate grievances not by sending in Apache helicopters and drone strikes to murder the natives.

Not as profitable.

Jonny7

Unfortunately we have seen what happens when the state uses heavy weaponry on even it's own civilians. Violence begets violence.

20Cent

35 years land of the free me hole.

Seeking a presidential pardon.