US spy case: Snowden seeks Switzerland asylum move
- Thread starter royalscot
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Bradley Manning exposed criminal racketeering and willful statistical manipulation by actors of the US government.
Now that (s)he's rotting in jail, I ask you, what big fish were punished as a result?
Now that (s)he's rotting in jail, I ask you, what big fish were punished as a result?
V
Bradley Manning is in the disciplinary barracks at Ft. Leavenworth, which is just over the state line from Kansas City International Airport, about 40 miles from me. One of my professors in the doctoral program in which I'm enrolled is the lead probation and parole officer at the barracks.
He knows Manning. He characterizes Manning as a con artist, a liar, and a manipulator who will say/do anything to get privileges, attention, and accolades. Nothing he says can be trusted, and the selective release of information he achieved put the U.S. intelligence apparatus in the worst possible light without exposing any mitigating information that would explain the negatives he exposed.
And Manning's sex change is likely a ruse as well, though I hear we, the taxpayers, are financing the beginning of his hormonal treatments. That's just purely disgusting, in my estimation, and totally discounts anything he might have to say. And he isn't nor will he ever be a "she." He can't change his DNA.
He knows Manning. He characterizes Manning as a con artist, a liar, and a manipulator who will say/do anything to get privileges, attention, and accolades. Nothing he says can be trusted, and the selective release of information he achieved put the U.S. intelligence apparatus in the worst possible light without exposing any mitigating information that would explain the negatives he exposed.
And Manning's sex change is likely a ruse as well, though I hear we, the taxpayers, are financing the beginning of his hormonal treatments. That's just purely disgusting, in my estimation, and totally discounts anything he might have to say. And he isn't nor will he ever be a "she." He can't change his DNA.
(1) You know a guy who has a thing against Manning
(2) Manning single-handedly falsified several hundred thousand documents to make the US Cyberwaffe look bad
(3) Gay people make stuff up, so it's okay when the Pentagon kills people and lies about it
So anyway, as far as the question you didn't answer, no big fish in the Manning case?
And if all his documents are made up, why is he in jail? He's just a fiction writer! Like Tom Clancy!
V
I know a guy who knows Manning. He keeps bugging him for parole, even though he isn't eligible yet.
I didn't say anything was falsified. I said it was selective released.
A person who wants a gender change isn't "gay" -- he/she suffers allegedly suffers from what some call "gender dysphoria," a diagnosis that used to be called -- more accurately, I believe -- "gender identity disorder." The politically correct on the APA's diagnostic board prefer to avoid making anyone feel bad rather than calling the confusion someone has as to what gender he/she is a "disorder."
Not really. He released videos that had previously been released to U.S. and European media, including one which Wikileaks claimed showed an Apache helicopter firing on journalists from Reuters -- a video clearly edited by someone to make a false claim, as the U.S. military had released the entire video three years before.
He released what Wikileaks called "war logs" which they intended to inflame the public, but which actually show nothing more than what we already know, particularly those of us who have been to war: It sucks.
His supposed "Guantanamo revelations" had almost entirely been previously released by U.S. officials.
The state department cables he exposed caused headaches around the world for the U.S. by revealing what in-house career diplomats thought of various world leaders, but no real damage was done. So no, there are no "big fish" in the Manning case because he didn't really have access to anything all that big. Nonetheless, illegally breaking into U.S. Defense Department and intelligence community servers is punishable by a lot of time in prison -- which he got.
Again, I didn't say they were made up. Jumping to conclusions based on misread or misunderstood posts has been raised to an art form around here -- or perhaps to the level of an Olympic sport.
I didn't say anything was falsified. I said it was selective released.
A person who wants a gender change isn't "gay" -- he/she suffers allegedly suffers from what some call "gender dysphoria," a diagnosis that used to be called -- more accurately, I believe -- "gender identity disorder." The politically correct on the APA's diagnostic board prefer to avoid making anyone feel bad rather than calling the confusion someone has as to what gender he/she is a "disorder."
Not really. He released videos that had previously been released to U.S. and European media, including one which Wikileaks claimed showed an Apache helicopter firing on journalists from Reuters -- a video clearly edited by someone to make a false claim, as the U.S. military had released the entire video three years before.
He released what Wikileaks called "war logs" which they intended to inflame the public, but which actually show nothing more than what we already know, particularly those of us who have been to war: It sucks.
His supposed "Guantanamo revelations" had almost entirely been previously released by U.S. officials.
The state department cables he exposed caused headaches around the world for the U.S. by revealing what in-house career diplomats thought of various world leaders, but no real damage was done. So no, there are no "big fish" in the Manning case because he didn't really have access to anything all that big. Nonetheless, illegally breaking into U.S. Defense Department and intelligence community servers is punishable by a lot of time in prison -- which he got.
Again, I didn't say they were made up. Jumping to conclusions based on misread or misunderstood posts has been raised to an art form around here -- or perhaps to the level of an Olympic sport.
You initially dismissed the leaks (and my question) by saying that "nothing he says can be trusted", as though his disastrous personal life and attitude has anything to do with the information he released.
Ah, words, words, but you once again completely ignored the things I made note of-- particularly that the diplomatic cable show US diplomats acting as paid salesmen for US defense contractors and large companies, and threatening countries who did not buy from corporate allies.
Nor did you address the fact that the Pentagon deliberately lied about the number of people killed in the Iraq war. Certainly I do not need to remind you that domestic propaganda was illegal at the time, which lying about a body count certainly is, or that, with Pentagon knowledge, people on the US government payroll hired child prostitutes in Afghanistan. Can't they at least find a scapegoat to fire over any of this?
Well, we can't find out who they even are until Edward Snowden is in jail, I can tell you that much! 
James Clapper already committed perjury, but there won't be a trial or jail time for lying during a federal investigation unless you're someone like Martha Stewart. Little fish I guess...
James Clapper already committed perjury, but there won't be a trial or jail time for lying during a federal investigation unless you're someone like Martha Stewart. Little fish I guess...
Well, we can't find out who they even are until Edward Snowden is in jail, I can tell you that much!
If the term weren't abused so thoroughly, I'd almost be tempted to label such reasoning as Orwellian. "If it's classified, exposing it is treason by default! Nevermind, of course, the absurdly broad discretion with which US intelligence agencies, namely the NSA, can classify information. Traitor! Terrorism! National security!"
V
If you can find one iota of evidence in that post where I dismissed your question based on Manning's character, then I'm guilty of obfuscation, but I did no such thing. I simply related to you my professor's assessment of Manning, nothing more. That was not the answer to anything, particularly your question. It was a statement as to the nature of the beast we're dealing with in this matter.
No, no. Answers, answers. That's what you wanted. I gave them to you.
I just double-checked throughout the whole thread, and this is the first mention you've made of any of these allegations. Also, all your links go to Wikipedia, which I refuse to accept as a valid resource, given it has been repeatedly proven to allow exaggeration, slanted articles, and can be edited by any idiot with a computer. Further, the "sources" linked by Wikipedia go directly to WikiLeaks, which has been shown to be little else than an ego trip for founder Julian Assange, who at best is a fraud, and at worst and international info-terrorist who is trying to start a global cold war, and all that perhaps only to try to bury his pedophilic tendencies under a mountainous pile of nonsense.
So, that is the answer to your question. There is no proof to any of what Assange has claimed, other than the selectively posted cables and documents that put all the players in their worst possible light -- admittedly, an easy thing to do, in most cases, but nonetheless done here for solely nihilistic reasons, the same kind of reasoning that makes him a pedophile in the first place.
We won't "find that out" because if that was, in fact, his motivation, he would have gone to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN or Fox News. He didn't. He ran from the country. That's a dead giveaway as to his motives.
No, no. Answers, answers. That's what you wanted. I gave them to you.
I just double-checked throughout the whole thread, and this is the first mention you've made of any of these allegations. Also, all your links go to Wikipedia, which I refuse to accept as a valid resource, given it has been repeatedly proven to allow exaggeration, slanted articles, and can be edited by any idiot with a computer. Further, the "sources" linked by Wikipedia go directly to WikiLeaks, which has been shown to be little else than an ego trip for founder Julian Assange, who at best is a fraud, and at worst and international info-terrorist who is trying to start a global cold war, and all that perhaps only to try to bury his pedophilic tendencies under a mountainous pile of nonsense.
So, that is the answer to your question. There is no proof to any of what Assange has claimed, other than the selectively posted cables and documents that put all the players in their worst possible light -- admittedly, an easy thing to do, in most cases, but nonetheless done here for solely nihilistic reasons, the same kind of reasoning that makes him a pedophile in the first place.
We won't "find that out" because if that was, in fact, his motivation, he would have gone to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN or Fox News. He didn't. He ran from the country. That's a dead giveaway as to his motives.
Last edited:
Yes. "Terrorist" used to mean someone plotting or attacking US civilians, now it has been expanded to mean military-age males geographically near combatants.
When I say "used to", I mean in between 9/11, and the time when it meant "Native Americans" and "Martin Luther King Jr."
When I say "used to", I mean in between 9/11, and the time when it meant "Native Americans" and "Martin Luther King Jr."
I like how this discussion went from facts, to a character assassination of Snowden, then Manning, (The entire website Wikipedia, briefly) then Assange. Can we at least get a feasible explanation of why there should not be repercussions for lying about a body count during a war? Can't one single person get a day of unpaid leave? Maybe a special "time-out" chair for contractors who molest children?
Though I don't think much of Assange as an individual, I cannot find a single reference to him being accused of pedophilia. Does your professor friend have a history with him also?
Um, he did contact the Washington Post first, according to them. They weren't interested-- I wonder why?
V
Well, you're the one leading this parade. I was wondering why we were wandering over all creation chasing after pseudo-truth tellers myself, but hey ... I'll just try to keep up. Why? Are you getting tired chasing your own shadows?
If they had actually lied, then there would have to be accountability. But as I said, there is nothing upon which that idiotic allegation can be based, other than "Iraq Body Count" claims that are totally unsubstantiated.
When you can explain what this gobbledy-gook means, I'll try to post an answer for you.
I admit to misstating the allegations against him. He is an accused rapist, not a pedophile, and again, if he has nothing to hide, why is he hiding?
Gee, perhaps reading your own linked story would have provided you the answer:
Like every such person before him, be they treasonous spies or misguided "whistleblowers," he saw things that outraged his sense of decency, which itself was grossly out of balance with reality, and caricatured himself as a noble white knight, suffering the slings and arrows of his self-righteousness, but in the end, found himself unwilling to face the consequences of his actions. That story in the Post makes him look like a flaming nutball. Perhaps he is.
If they had actually lied, then there would have to be accountability. But as I said, there is nothing upon which that idiotic allegation can be based, other than "Iraq Body Count" claims that are totally unsubstantiated.
When you can explain what this gobbledy-gook means, I'll try to post an answer for you.
I admit to misstating the allegations against him. He is an accused rapist, not a pedophile, and again, if he has nothing to hide, why is he hiding?
Gee, perhaps reading your own linked story would have provided you the answer:
Like every such person before him, be they treasonous spies or misguided "whistleblowers," he saw things that outraged his sense of decency, which itself was grossly out of balance with reality, and caricatured himself as a noble white knight, suffering the slings and arrows of his self-righteousness, but in the end, found himself unwilling to face the consequences of his actions. That story in the Post makes him look like a flaming nutball. Perhaps he is.
A
The "willful statistical manipulation" of data and statistics is a very serious issue for the simple reason that in large bodies, such as the United States of America, the quality of decision-making is tied to the integrity of it's data and statistical analysis of that data.
In my opinion, when that becomes corrupted it presents as big of a problem for a nation (and all bodies tied to that nation [domestic, foreign, private, public, etc...) as criminal racketeering inside a government can.
In my opinion, when that becomes corrupted it presents as big of a problem for a nation (and all bodies tied to that nation [domestic, foreign, private, public, etc...) as criminal racketeering inside a government can.
A
Oh, lol. Well, in his defense Manning is a piece of work. He's presently supporting ISIS which is a little bizarre given that they would execute him for being a homosexual faster than water spreads when a pipe busts.
Bradley Manning says 'Let ISIS Succeed.' I say 'Shut That Cell Door!' - Breitbart
I think he's still got his wiener though so that's something.
Bradley Manning says 'Let ISIS Succeed.' I say 'Shut That Cell Door!' - Breitbart
I think he's still got his wiener though so that's something.