LeWoVoc wrote:
You write off every possible response as irrational before you make your initial statement, and the argument degrades into this. Guess what? The other side feels the same way, generally. Thanks for proving my point, ya twit.
How am I writing off every possible response when no has yet answered why they support the compromising of classified documents over doing the proper reporting protocols? Thanks for proving my point, you idiot.
EC wrote:
Alma, you just don't get it do you?
So you attack me for something everyone here seems to know but you. I was born with a Language Processing Disorder, thus I added the disclaimer in my Sig that anything I say here may make no sense unless you can read Elnese. A term for how I write and speak, given to me by a best friend who proof read my homework back in 12th grade. She is a publish poet and by 9th grade had learn on her own, at lease 3 dead languages. I've earn enough respect here that most long time readers at least try to figure out what I'm trying to say. At least I know my spelling is at the 4th grade level, grammar tests at 10th grade and in every other area I test in the top 10%. My Reading score has been in the top 1% since at least 9th grade. For fun I read about quantum physics, though I yet to master the Math needed above Pre-Calc. Artist don't normally need to understand sub atomic particles.
I get it quite clearly. I'm trying to convey to you that your illness has nothing to do with you insulting me. So either talk to me as an adult or be fair game with the childish insults.
EC wrote:
Now try to tell me why Elleberg should still be view as a traitor for releasing The Pentagon Papers to the press when no one in the Government was willing to listen to him, after he had sent the papers to top Defense, Administration and Congressmen. You do know this was the incident, that lead the Nixon staff to start burglarizing offices don't you?
One then cabinet-member, who was involve in trying to discredit Ellsberg was our Defense Sectary Donald Rumsfeld, who would As Bushes Sec of Defense, later make so many fail decisions in Iraq that he had to leave in disgrace.
Maybe I was referring to the wrong person. If that person went all the way to the top, then it was something that probably needed to be done. That was not the case with wiki-leaks and I doubt that with your said story, but I'm too lazy/busy to do any research on it and will take your word for it.
EC wrote:
Was my ex father in law also a traitor in 1984, for talking about the fact that he was in the Gulf of Tonkin and confirm the fact that the American public and even top Government officials had been lied to about what had happen. He also told the story of how he had been the last American allowed in Libya after Gaddafi had made it very clear we weren't allowed near Libya's coast. One of our dummy bombs had wash onto the beach and fearing it was a live bomb, Gaddafi wanted a expert from our Navy to come in and disarm it.
Or is that story still classified.
What about information about My Lai, finally being reveal a year after it happen, by Ron Ridenhour who had heard about it after he had join Charlie Company, trying to get President Richard M. Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress to look into what happen and only Morris Udall was outraged enough to demand something be done.
While war is and will be always ugly with crimes committed by all sides, it doesn't mean we can just look away when it our country leaders and military that did these things. Patriots are people who are willing to act when they see something being covered up by the government or harming defenseless civilians.
We study history of wars and conflicts, so in the future we can try to avoid the same mistakes of the past. Wikileaks shows us that our Leaders have fail to learn the lessons taught time after time in our own country's history.
This is very simple.
There is a proper procedure in reporting war crimes and Wiki-leaks isnt one of them This isn't that hard to grasp.
Belkira wrote:
So you think that no one "reported" this to someone higher up to take care of. What you're saying is, these reports are made, then someone else has to report on them. Then someone can stop it. Right? Or do a couple more people have to make reports on it before action can be taken?
It is evident that you're not trying to understand this at all. These reports are
SUMMARIES from missions, not police reports of wrong doings. When these summaries come in, no one has to report anything any higher
UNLESS they feel that there were something in those reports that were wrong and not being properly taken care of. Reading these responses on this forum, none of these are war crimes, but mere outcomes of war that people don't like.
I've already told you, the military is bounded by the RoE (rules of engagement) and as long as their actions aren't contradicting the RoE, they are not committing any war crimes. This is why you see them in the summary in the first place. Once again, only a fool would send up a summary with him/her knowingly breaking the law.
Belkira wrote:
How do you know that wasn't done?
Almalieque wrote:
This is very simple..
All reports are briefed and placed on one central system.
There are IG and legal on every major military instillation world wide.
So, there are two major possible solutions.
1. Joe Blow exported files as an excel or something and blogged it on the Internet.
2. Joe Blow obtained classified information (either by the above method or some other method) and he contacted every single IG/legal representative world wide and every single one of them decided to "cover it up" (even though it's their job to expose it), which lead Joe Blow with the ONLY option left, blogging it on the Internet.
Do you honestly believe that option 2 happened over option 1? That is why I know those reports weren't properly reported and this is nothing but a publicity stunt.
So Paul links a story where the IG reports 8.8 billion dollars missing and you think the IG (world wide) would cover up some random innocent person dying in war? Seriously? People are worth more than money, but not when you're corrupt.
Gbaji wrote:
Ah... The ol "prove a negative!" argument. Always a win with the kiddies...
That doesn't even make any sense how he is asking you to show how something is no when he was the one who proclaimed that it was.
