Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: WikiLeaks: Bradley Manning's motives are no defence, judge rules [View all]BainsBane
(53,016 posts)116. by the way
It's particularly classy of you to attack survivors of child abuse as apologists for pedophilia.
15-20% of all women were victims of child molestation as children, as were another 5-15% of men. Additionally, 25% of women are victims of rape as adults.
In any random group of five to six people, someone will be a survivor. But it makes you feel important to accuse them of enabling more pedophilia. Yeah, you're a great champion for abuse victims.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
176 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The Pentagon Papers were a single high-level study leaked by a civilian to the NYT
Recursion
Jan 2013
#4
Manning opted for no jury. Further, most of the trial delay has been due to the defense, which is a
msanthrope
Jan 2013
#86
And what should happen if the US military begins operating against the civilian US government
jberryhill
Mar 2013
#155
Good luck with that. That person loves their logical fallacies, as well as moving the goalposts and
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#163
That is like claiming if I go outside with an uzi and indiscriminantly mow down 5000 people that I
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#140
Read some of the info in this thread. You don't know what you are talking about. /nt
Ash_F
Mar 2013
#144
I know a lot more than you. I've read the details and am former military. nt
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#145
You do not know what a straw man is. You should learn. Using logical fallacies like you do
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#149
Every time someone has responded to you with facts, you throw a logical fallacy at them
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#151
You have still not provided evidence of the Rush/Hannity talking points you espoused previously...
Ash_F
Mar 2013
#166
You just issued yet another logical fallacy by trying to suggest I espoused Rush /Hannity talking
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#170
If you've followed this at all, you'd know that Manning has serious emotional problems.
randome
Jan 2013
#70
Reporting it to the inspector general of the army would have gotten the ball rolling on that. I used
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#142
Indeed. Approving the use of a sexist term on the thread where you accuse others of rape apologia
msanthrope
Jan 2013
#119
Perhaps, but you are adequately warned in basic training about how strict things are.
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#141
I thought the basis of his argument was that he was following the military's code of honor...
freshwest
Jan 2013
#20
This man has been punished enough. Go after the management who didn't notice what was downloaded.
Sunlei
Jan 2013
#22
And the gigabytes of State Department cables, that he didn't even read before uploading?
Recursion
Jan 2013
#39
I'm sort of at a loss how he managed to do all of this stuff on his shift, I guess.
freshwest
Jan 2013
#79
As someone pointed out, some of this information ended up on Big Laden's laptop.
randome
Jan 2013
#84
YOu mean the video where Assange describes a guy carrying an RPG, after curfew, that was fired on?
msanthrope
Jan 2013
#30
I know it's unfair to quote Assange when talking about Assange--but it's rather relevatory when
msanthrope
Jan 2013
#32
You are wrong. By the standards of Nuremberg soldiers are required to disobey illegal orders.
redgreenandblue
Jan 2013
#36
And even if the video did show a crime, there's the cables that he leaked without reading
Recursion
Jan 2013
#41
If you are an illegal invader, then yes, enforcing a curfew is illegal.
redgreenandblue
Jan 2013
#43
Are you under the impression that a war not sanctioned by the Security Council is "illegal"?
Recursion
Jan 2013
#45
Unfortunately, it was the international community -i.e. the U.N.- that invaded Iraq.
randome
Jan 2013
#48
Congress authorized the war on terror, and reauthorized it 3 times. Therefore it is not illegal.
graham4anything
Jan 2013
#76
Since the US had no right to impose a curfew in Iraq or fire on people, RPG or not, yes ...
redgreenandblue
Jan 2013
#35
Um--this was an Iraqi-imposed curfew, enforced by Iraqis and the US military, jointly:
msanthrope
Jan 2013
#51
Child sex slave trafficking by US contractors, and the attempted cover up by US diplomats
Ash_F
Jan 2013
#60
It happened in Afghanistan(so yes war crime), and no contractors or diplomats have been charged.
Ash_F
Jan 2013
#62
Military works in conjunction with the State Department to be the law of the land
Ash_F
Jan 2013
#64
The Guardian? That is a direct link to the cable with the Diplos own words and self incrimination
Ash_F
Jan 2013
#94
and the information that was not related to war crimes that he 'exposed'
Bodhi BloodWave
Jan 2013
#87
a nice 'essay' but it did not answer the question of the info he released that had nothing to
Bodhi BloodWave
Jan 2013
#89
I think that if damages resulted to a person from the release of this info...
redgreenandblue
Jan 2013
#98
The judge is applying the law correctly. What matters in determining guilt or innocence is
24601
Jan 2013
#71
Because making fun of gay men by giving them female names is funny. Enjoy your stay.
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#143
Having studied the Third Reich my whole life, I would say that they dont have anything in common
stevenleser
Mar 2013
#171