Can you really watch this video and say that you don't think those sponsoring these bullets deserve access to this information?
Easily. Don't carry weapons in a war zone. Those look like weapons to me as well.
Manning was caught twice mishandling classified data. Because of his homosexuality, he was neither punished nor was his security clearance taken away.
It was not until Wikileaks released the cable intercepts that revealed other countries mocked oblahblah as a buffoon that the oblahblah admin took any measures against Wikileaks or the biggest leaker, Manning
It was OK for Wikileaks to target Bush, because of politics...but don't embarrass a thin-skinned narcissist with the power to put you six feet under!
How many native intelligence sources were murdered because Manning leaked? You know, the guys trying to protect their countries from islamist takeover...the same islamists torturing homosexuals, killing homosexuals, and throwing homosexuals off roofs.
The whole Manning case is a great example of successful #informationwar; here is a guy that should have been bounced from a sensitive position long before he did. Just like Reality Winner, here was someone that had no business in the intelligence game. Because of Wikileaks propaganda power, Manning is now supposedly a hero.
Remember, it was this video that was supposedly clear evidence of war crimes...no one put the oblahblah as laughingstock angle into coverage at all.
I just realized I used he to describe Manning...just chalk it up to his status at the time of leaks...not a jab
Can you reference this?
Maybe this is why we need transparency? I don't know, do you? How many died? How were they killed?
You may have a few people on Facebook that consider it so, but this is not consensus by any means.
That's not what got most of my attention, it was the fact that I didn't mention homosexuality once
Not asking whether it's smart to carry weapons in a militarized zone or whether the actions in the video are justified. This is the question:
I'll get the references for you later, too much on the fire for now.; feel free to remind me coz I'm getting scatterbrained. I remember all this from 10 years ago more clearly than I remember the tasks I set myself yesterday.
The homosexuality track was to point out the results of Manning's actions, not a dig at homosexuals. There is a "gay mafia" in the military command that protects homosexuals under a blanket "harrassment of gays" policy, regardless of the offense commited.
Check Manning's wiki for the previous security violations, I think I got them there (check the Talk page to see if they've been edited out if you don't see them). I'm pretty sure that's where I looked them up the last time.
I can see how there would be a lot of gays and trans people in the military, specially American military, because these people generally get some respect from the public. Many effeminate males looking to bring out some masculinity to fit in, many masculine females looking to hide their masculinity in order to fit in. Everyone looking to feel loved and useful regardless of their gender, gender identity and/or sexual orientation...
I can also see how a few gay people may have gotten special treatment at some point. I can see how many could have ended up in very high positions because these people couldn't even dream about having a family until recently and still today. So there are many homosexuals and transsexuals who do very well in their careers because that's all they really have. Once your family turns your back on you and the world tells you that you can't make a family of your own then you need to focus your time into something else.
Having these people in powerful positions could come to the advantage of those who are involved romantically with them, it's not like other people in heterosexual relationships have never received any benefit from relating to their superiors, even and specially in the military.
Now, to go from don't ask don't tell to a gay mafia in the military in less than a decade? This is a little hard for me to believe.
And that right there is the problem, censorship, lack of transparency. I, for example, don't have any evidence of the feminist take-over of the trans and diversity subject in general, this is because of the heavy censorship. Because until Steemit came along all these conversations online were being censored, edited out.
In the same way information can be edited out it can also be edited in. If those records McCain speaks of don't exist they can be fabricated real quick.
DADT started 92, so about a decade is right. The problem with the military is that policy is determined by political officers rather than professional officers, look how fast the military started the whole "global warming as a security threat" nonsense. I haven't looked at total costs on that one, but they go way past buying "bio" fuel at 4x the price. So you can look at that speed that shift took place and see that took place in less than a decade.
I'm going to bring up Deep State subversion of the military as a possibility; by subversion I mean putting people that will take and promote the "right" ideas. I don't want to get too deep on that one because i don't have a clear picture of what is going on backstage. I say a leftist/globalist alliance, but there are always more factors than can be accounted for...
but in that scenario, leftist and globalist politicians have to give each other policy positions (otherwise, why ally?)
FWIW, I think that the military should be comprised solely of single hetero males (no married guys), and that the mission should solely be killing the enemies of America...no nation building, no social justice statements, no humanitarian missions...well, OK sometimes this.
I don't think that women, homosexuals, and married men are incapable of combat, but the social problems that come with diversity intfere with the base function of the job.
There is a civic problem in that, because everyone should be able to serve, but I haven't worked out a good solution. I know what we are doing doesn't work (see the navy boat that got captured by the Iranians)
you deserve some sources on these statements, so give me a couple of days and i'll put up a post
And how do you determine who is an enemy? A soldier should just shoot at anything he is told is an enemy of America?
The enemy thing is rhetoric, it's one of those famous trigger words. Same as the word leftist or globalist in my opinion.
Are there dangerous people out there? Yeah. Are there people who may resent the American government or even American citizens? I'm sure there are, specially after watching that video. But rest assured the military isn't moving a finger unless there is some financial interest in doing so. No such thing as humanitarian missions, even if soldiers have helped a few or many people, no such thing as humanitarian missions.
The idea of people willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, to protect their loved ones, it's a beautiful idea. I've known people joining the military after that idea so I'm not trying to say soldiers are bad.
I just want the real business out in the open so that we can tell why people are being labeled as enemy, the truth. I want people to see the mess that are these missions, I want them to hear the children cry as their parents are killed in front of them. If I could get the smell of rotten bodies through the TV I'd want everyone sponsoring the military smelling that too.
We are told that we shouldn't care about the surveillance because if we are not doing anything wrong then we should have nothing to be afraid of, I want governments, not just the American, to show us what they've got and are doing at all times if its true they're not doing anything wrong.
I don't want more men dying under the illusion of honor while fighting for the financial interest of a few, but if I am wrong and there is use for the military today, then I should be able to tell if things were made transparent.
shoot, forgot:
transparency is a hard balance in military affairs...but it shouldn't be after the fact. I think everyone sees this video the way they want to. I see weapons, most of the vets I know saw weapons, but there are vets who don't. we are all subject to cognitive bias