Correcting "history": Bradley Manning revealed no war crimes

[daveman]

And there is no mistaking the fact that the van in the video was tending to the wounded...

Really? Give me a time stamp. Don't just screech your "America sucks!!" bullshit, give me something to work with.

A time stamp will do nicely. Watch the video I posted, and tell me the minutes and seconds that show where "the van in the video was tending to the wounded".

Hop to it.

 

[daveman]

You're not wrong.

No, you are!

Are you going to answer my question in this thread, or are you going to avoid them, like you do all the ones in the other threads?

I've answered every single question of yours in this thread, boy. Your questions in any other thread are immaterial to this one.

Now go get your diaper rash attended to.

 

[daveman]

No, you are!

Are you going to answer my question in this thread, or are you going to avoid them, like you do all the ones in the other threads?

Maybe because your questions suck. Defending terrorists and manning and wikileaks is asinine.

So you admit you failed, and lack the skill to debate, so go for attacking the messenger, Noted!!!

You were asking a Loser con!!! They can't debate.

I've answered every single question in this thread. Of course, like Billo, you will refuse to accept the answers (AKA: "reality") in favor of sucking terrorist ass.

 

[Billo_Really]

So even if it wasn't a van full of terrorists with their kids (and of course, they were terrorists, as the video shows), they shouldn't have stopped.

Is that what you would do? Just keep on driving by your own countrymen (who were bleeding out on the side of the road) after being shot up by a foreign army in your own country? If they were your neighbors you had known for years, you wouldn't stop to help them?

You really are a bastion of humanity, aren't you?

 

[Billo_Really]

Really? Give me a time stamp. Don't just screech your "America sucks!!" bullshit, give me something to work with.

A time stamp will do nicely. Watch the video I posted, and tell me the minutes and seconds that show where "the van in the video was tending to the wounded".

Hop to it.

Doesn't matter what the van was "allegedly" doing earlier, you can't shoot someone helping the wounded.

And anyone who thinks they can, has got to be really sick in the head!

 

[Sallow]

The entire invasion of Iraq and what followed, were war crimes.

 

[daveman]

So even if it wasn't a van full of terrorists with their kids (and of course, they were terrorists, as the video shows), they shouldn't have stopped.

Is that what you would do? Just keep on driving by your own countrymen (who were bleeding out on the side of the road) after being shot up by a foreign army in your own country? If they were your neighbors you had known for years, you wouldn't stop to help them?

You really are a bastion of humanity, aren't you?

Doesn't matter what I'd do, does it?

 

[daveman]

Really? Give me a time stamp. Don't just screech your "America sucks!!" bullshit, give me something to work with.

A time stamp will do nicely. Watch the video I posted, and tell me the minutes and seconds that show where "the van in the video was tending to the wounded".

Hop to it.

Doesn't matter what the van was "allegedly" doing earlier, you can't shoot someone helping the wounded.

And anyone who thinks they can, has got to be really sick in the head!

I said give me a time stamp. Show me what you think proves the van is helping people.

I won't ask again.

 

[daveman]

The entire invasion of Iraq and what followed, were war crimes.

Tissue?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that shooting people who respond to an expolsion is considered a war crime if somene else does it to US troops.

 

[Vox]

Assange and Manning lied. There were no war crimes shown in that video -- unless you count the terrorists who are unlawful combatants.

I would say I'm shocked but why lie.

Why lie? To advance the agenda.

And that is where those two lairs differ from Snowden.

 

[daveman]

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that shooting people who respond to an expolsion is considered a war crime if somene else does it to US troops.

Is anyone ever going to get around to proving the van's second appearance in the tape was an altruistic one?

Especially considering its first appearance was not?

The Law of Armed Conflict has this to say about illegal combatants:

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.​

The van and its occupants was a lawful target.

 

[Billo_Really]

Is anyone ever going to get around to proving the van's second appearance in the tape was an altruistic one?

Altruism has nothing to do with it.

You can see in the video the van stopped to care for the wounded.

Therefore, it is illegal to target them.

Especially considering its first appearance was not?

That's just bullshit military propaganda.

The Law of Armed Conflict has this to say about illegal combatants:

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.​

If they're engaged in unlawful activity.

Tending to the wounded, is not an unlawful activity.

The van and its occupants was a lawful target.

And you're seriously sick in the head!

 

[Billo_Really]

Doesn't matter what I'd do, does it?

So you haven't answered every question of mine in this thread?

Are you going to go back and correct that lie you told earlier?

 

[velvtacheeze]

The Collateral Murder video was edited to "prove" the US committed war crimes.

In fact, the unedited video shows no such thing.

Bradley Manning 'Approved' Edits To 'Collateral Murder' Video, Witness Says

FORT MEADE, Md. -- A computer forensics expert testified on Wednesday that confessed WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning said in a 2010 email exchange that he had "approved" edits to video of a U.S. Army helicopter attack in Iraq that killed two Reuters journalists.

That so-called "Collateral Murder" video was perhaps the most explosive document among the 700,000 that Manning sent to WikiLeaks. The organization's founder, Julian Assange, was criticized for releasing it initially in an edited and shortened form in 2010.​

Assange admits it was edited:

Stephen Colbert Grills Wikileaks Founder on Helicopter Video

One constant criticism of Wikileaks' helicopter video has been that its heavy editorial slant clashed with the supposed objectivity of the material they presented. Colbert challenged Assange on this point: "You have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called 'collateral murder.' That's not leaking, that's a pure editorial." Assange responded that Wikileaks promises their sources that they will "try and get the maximum possible political impact for the material the give us."​

Here's the unedited video:

"Collateral Murder" Deception and editing - Wikileaks - Iraq - YouTube


Assange and Manning lied. There were no war crimes shown in that video -- unless you count the terrorists who are unlawful combatants.

The whole war was a war crime. It was an act of American aggression on a country that had done nothing to the US and had no WMD program. Only 'dead enders' in America defend it today. How sad and pathetic. I look down on you.

 

[daveman]

Is anyone ever going to get around to proving the van's second appearance in the tape was an altruistic one?

Altruism has nothing to do with it.

You can see in the video the van stopped to care for the wounded.

Therefore, it is illegal to target them.

Especially considering its first appearance was not?

That's just bullshit military propaganda.

The Law of Armed Conflict has this to say about illegal combatants:

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.​

If they're engaged in unlawful activity.

Tending to the wounded, is not an unlawful activity.

The van and its occupants was a lawful target.

And you're seriously sick in the head!

There it is, folks, the mind of the progressive.

He'd rather believe what fits his preconceived notions than the evidence before his eyes.

 

[daveman]

Doesn't matter what I'd do, does it?

So you haven't answered every question of mine in this thread?

Are you going to go back and correct that lie you told earlier?

No, because it wasn't a lie when I said it, dumbass.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you haven't proven your contention that the van was aiding the wounded.

Ever gonna get around to that, or are you just gonna take the terrorists' word for it?

 

[daveman]

Doesn't matter what I'd do, does it?

So you haven't answered every question of mine in this thread?

Are you going to go back and correct that lie you told earlier?

But anyway, I'll answer your irrelvant question.

If I had children in the vehicle, and there were troops in the area killing terrorists, I would not stop to help wounded terrorists.

You simply cannot accept that those children are dead because the terrorists deliberately took them into harm's way.

Nope. Your programming demands that you say it's the American military's fault despite the evidence presented.

 

[daveman]

The Collateral Murder video was edited to "prove" the US committed war crimes.

In fact, the unedited video shows no such thing.

Bradley Manning 'Approved' Edits To 'Collateral Murder' Video, Witness Says

FORT MEADE, Md. -- A computer forensics expert testified on Wednesday that confessed WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning said in a 2010 email exchange that he had "approved" edits to video of a U.S. Army helicopter attack in Iraq that killed two Reuters journalists.

That so-called "Collateral Murder" video was perhaps the most explosive document among the 700,000 that Manning sent to WikiLeaks. The organization's founder, Julian Assange, was criticized for releasing it initially in an edited and shortened form in 2010.​

Assange admits it was edited:

Stephen Colbert Grills Wikileaks Founder on Helicopter Video

One constant criticism of Wikileaks' helicopter video has been that its heavy editorial slant clashed with the supposed objectivity of the material they presented. Colbert challenged Assange on this point: "You have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called 'collateral murder.' That's not leaking, that's a pure editorial." Assange responded that Wikileaks promises their sources that they will "try and get the maximum possible political impact for the material the give us."​

Here's the unedited video:

"Collateral Murder" Deception and editing - Wikileaks - Iraq - YouTube


Assange and Manning lied. There were no war crimes shown in that video -- unless you count the terrorists who are unlawful combatants.

The whole war was a war crime. It was an act of American aggression on a country that had done nothing to the US and had no WMD program. Only 'dead enders' in America defend it today. How sad and pathetic. I look down on you.

I can't tell you how little that means to me.

 

[Billo_Really]

I can't tell you how little that means to me.

That's the same answer you have for human life.