jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (75 posts)

Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years

  1. IslandBites profile image84
    IslandBitesposted 3 years ago

    What do you think? Do you agree? Do you think he should not be in jail? Do you believe the sentence is too lenient?

    1. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I believe he broke the law, he was sentenced  for what he did. If he didn't agree with the laws as they were then maybe he should have become a politician and try and change the laws.
      Not so long back he would have been shot as a spy.

      1. innersmiff profile image80
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Again, nobody is arguing that he didn't break the law. What we are arguing, or rather what we should be arguing, is whether the law is just.

      2. innersmiff profile image80
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, and "he shouldn't complain about this atrocity, an even greater atrocity occurred earlier in time" ???

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Of course he should, but it would have been prudent of him to leave his position and run for president first.
          Please tell me what has he achieved? Apart form getting himself 35 years in lock up, did he really think he could change the world!

          1. innersmiff profile image80
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Have you thought about that argument for more than 3 seconds? So you may as well Martin Luther King to stop marching and run for President, and tell the victims of Nazi concentration camps and the Soviet gulags to try and get in with the government to try and agitate change that way. Without getting into the ridiculous disadvantage civil liberty-favouring, anti-war candidates have in the current electoral system, the US government was committing international war crimes - is it outrageous to suggest that letting people know that they were occurring is a much more efficient way of changing things?

            The fact that the US government has made such a drastic and public persecution of Manning proves in and of itself that his actions are dangerous to the regime. The fact that these issues are being discussed widely and openly is a good thing: Bradley Manning is the top trend on Twitter! Talk about achievement.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image60
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's all very well being the talking point of America but he will still be serving 35 years in prison.
              I suppose its more about him being in a position of trust and then betraying that trust.
              The American military have always committed atrocities much like all armies around the globe, it will take a little more than one man betraying the trust placed in him by his employers. I wonder if you would feel the same way if he was passing secrets to terrorists so they could commit atrocities, who knows maybe he did.

              1. innersmiff profile image80
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                There has been no evidence to suggest that Manning passed information directly to terrorists. There has been no evidence to suggest that the Wikileaks revelations have been the direct cause of a single death, as confirmed by the link towards the bottom of the thread. The government's response and ultimately, the sentence, shows then, that the US sees the revelations as a threat to the image of their foreign policy. You may not agree that Manning has achieved anything, but the US government is absolutely terrified that she will.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If there is no evidence how would you know?
                  If manning was let off it would give licence for anyone to reveal anything to anyone on the grounds of they personally didn't think it was right.

    2. Don W profile image85
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      By accepting full responsibility for his actions and the legal consequences, Bradley Manning is following in a great tradition of civil disobedience. Most of the historic figures who brought about significant change through non-violent means had the the full weight of the law thrown at them at some stage in their lives. They did not seek to avoid the legal consequences of their actions. They surrendered themselves to the law, and in so doing placed a spotlight firmly on the injustice they wanted to highlight. It is that voluntary acceptance of personal punishment for the sake of speaking truth to power that differentiates those people from the rest of us.

      Depending on how he copes with the traumatic experiences he has been through, and will go through during his time in prison, we will see either the breaking of a young person, or the creation of a powerful voice for change. He did not hand himself over to the authorities, that's true, but movements need heroes. Even if he himself shies away from the role of being a martyr for a cause, his name will be invoked as exactly that. Facing the legal consequences is an important aspect of that.

  2. innersmiff profile image80
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    He was made an example of: the regime wants you to know what happens to dissenters.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      While Bradley was found guilty of 19 different charges, I don't believe "dissension" was one of them.

      Unless, of course, disagreeing with a specific law means that you are free (or should be free) to violate it?

      1. innersmiff profile image80
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Breaking un-just laws is in fact a very brave and noble thing to do, in my opinion.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Uhh - just a little modification.  "Unjust" in your opinion.  Others need not apply for the job of deciding what laws are necessary or desirable, and certainly officials elected by the general population to make laws should check with you first!

          Unfortunately, everyone else wants the job, too, with anarchy and societies destruction being the inevitable result when that concept is accepted as workable for everyone.

          1. innersmiff profile image80
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm trying to point out the absurdity of discussing whether he broke the law or not. He clearly broke the law, and to point that out in a discussion about whether you think he should be sent to prison or not clearly demonstrates a lack of an argument.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "He was made an example of: the regime wants you to know what happens to dissenters."

              There are other reasons to punish lawbreakers, you know.  As in because they broke the law.  Or am I once more (sigh) misunderstanding the thrust of your comments?

              1. innersmiff profile image80
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Manning catches the US government with its pants down in a clear and vast abuse of power, and we're supposed to buy that the reason he's been persecuted is because of "national security', and/or it's because it forms the part of a noble pursuit for justice and equality before the law. I don't know about you but I'm not the type of person who does buy that kind of thing.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  From which I conclude that your opinion is that he should not be punished for violating the law.

                  Which is what I said in the first place; individuals should be allowed to decide which laws they wish to follow and which they can violate with impunity.  I disagree, I'm afraid, and can't see whether violating "caught the US government with its pants down" or not.

                  1. innersmiff profile image80
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Correct, because the law is un-just. My view is that people should be just in their actions, and the law is secondary to that.

                  2. innersmiff profile image80
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Question number 2: do you think it immoral to let the public know about atrocities they are paying for?

  3. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 3 years ago

    Mannings lawyer is claiming he is a whistle-blower and that President Obama promised to help them on the Change.gov site. Now the site is gone.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201307 … egov.shtml

  4. MG Singh profile image83
    MG Singhposted 3 years ago

    Manning deserved his jail term. Frankly he is lucky he was not shot by a firing squad. No army can fight any war with men like Manning in their ranks.

    1. innersmiff profile image80
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Then what you are saying is that we need more Mannings, and then nobody will fight wars, and then we'll have world peace.

      1. HollieT profile image89
        HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So manning got 35 years, for leaking information that some would argue is the public interest- where ever you stand on this issue however, wouldn't the next pertinent question be to ask how long the helicopter pilots who massacred civilians were sentenced to?

        The mass murder of civilians vs. the leaking of military secrets. Emm, which one is the atrocity?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Consider that military secrets are very often instrumental in killing hundreds or thousands.  Now think that what Manning gave out was probably more information than was collected on the Nazi's in WWII - information that was again instrumental in winning the war and saving the lives of millions of American Jews.  NOW which one is an atrocity.

          Pilots that murder civilians and traitors that give away military secrets.  Apples and oranges; why would it be pertinent to ask the sentence of people that murder others?

          But if you do, the pilot that murdered civilians will be sentenced to life.  Forever to remain in prison.  Now do you compare 35 years (or any other term) to "forever"?

          1. HollieT profile image89
            HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Pilots that murder civilians and traitors that give away military secrets.  Apples and oranges; why would it be pertinent to ask the sentence of people that murder others?

            Wilderness, part of the leaked information reveals helicopter pilots opening fire on civilians, and they knew that they were civilians and joked about their death. They also murdered a journalist and his family. As far as I am aware, they have not even been charged. It would be pertinent to ask the question because there is evidence that the soldiers also committed offences. Or, should we just overlook that crime and concentrate on Manning's offences?

            The pilot that murdered civilians knew he was breaking the law, and he knew what the consequences of his actions would be. Or, does consequential thinking and responsibility only relevant when we discuss Manning's offences?

            And, Manning wasn't giving information to the enemy which would have cost lives- it was given to the US public etc. No comparison. And his actions haven't led to atrocities, he exposed atrocities.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Manning gave information about pilots killing civilians to the enemy.  An enemy which WILL use the information in the propaganda war against the US in the hopes it will produce more terrorists (which it probably will).  Still, that has nothing to do with the murderers that killed civilians.  Manning chose to help our enemies while your pilots chose to kill our friends.  Still can't understand why you would want to know the sentence given the pilots when discussing Mannings traitorous acts.  One has nothing to do with the other.

              Not charged; I can't comment on the particular incident Manning disclosed, but yesterday's paper contained an article about our soldiers murdering civilians; the death penalty has been denied and the only question is whether the life sentence will be with or without parole.  According to my local newspaper article.

              "And, Manning wasn't giving information to the enemy..."

              Don't be silly; it was made available to the entire world.  Which includes enemies that can and will try to use it to kill Americans.  Such an action is an atrocity in itself whether you think it is or not.

              1. innersmiff profile image80
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                This whole response begs the question: why is the US military committing acts that would provoke terrorism, if they were found out, in the first place?

                On another note, it's rather worrying that you label an individual 'traitorous'' for simply allowing the US population to know what is happening with their tax dollars, and I'm yet to see from you an unabashed condemnation of the murder of innocent civilians. Please tell me your priorities are not that screwed up.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "murderers that killed civilians"
                  "pilot that murdered civilians"
                  "soldiers murdering civilians"

                  Sorry if you can't see "unabashed condemnation of the murder of innocent civilians" in those quotes from my posts; I thought it was pretty plain.  Killing is not necessarily murder; by using that term it was an act plainly condemned.

                  No, I did not label Manning as a traitor for allowing the US public to know what the military was doing; you have intentionally twisted the words beyond all recognition.

                  But no, it is not begging the question of whether Manning should be in jail.  You are doing that by ignoring the question in favor of a completely different topic, just as Hollie is.

                  1. HollieT profile image89
                    HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Pot, kettle, Wilderness.

                  2. innersmiff profile image80
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I really can't. To call something murder is one thing, to condemn it is another.

                    I find "he broke the law, therefore he should be in jail" insuffient as an argument, as the law is not the ultimate moral barometer. "Should" denotes preferable behaviour, so you have to explain why the law in question is just, and by extension you have to address the action that lead to the breaking of the law. "It's the law" is the vernacular of the tyranny apologist.

              2. HollieT profile image89
                HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Manning gave information about pilots killing civilians to the enemy.

                The information was leaked to Wikileaks. The "enemy" as your put it, are more than the aware of the murderous acts of the military- it is their civilians who are shot down. They don't need Wikileaks to inform of them of their own realities. How will exposing corruption and murder to taxpayers lead to more terrorism? That's the propoganda put out by govts. when they want to keep their wrongdoings under wraps.

                Of course the murder of civilians, that Manning exposed, has to do with the leaks- that was one of them. And, as far as I'm aware, the pilots haven't even been charged for murder. As they rightly should be.

                Don't be silly; it was made available to the entire world.  Which includes enemies that can and will try to use it to kill Americans.  Such an action is an atrocity in itself whether you think it is or not.

                You appear to forget that your own nation, and mine, are capable and commit, just as many atrocities as the enemy. Such actions are atrocities in themselves, whether you think it is or not.

    2. HollieT profile image89
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      He is lucky he didn't get shot now we all know (thanks to manning) what the military are capable of.

  5. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    A firing squad would have been my choice , When you enter any government job , civilian or military , you take an oath to protect your country from  just this kind of action ! Please .......he knew what he was doing , looking for a  hero status among the P.C. anti government  squad !

    1. HollieT profile image89
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, you take an oath to protect your country, not hide corruption and murder!

  6. innersmiff profile image80
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    It's interesting to me how the reaction to Manning, Assange and Snowden isn't:
    "Oh my goodness, the American government is vicious, corrupt and is violating the rights of the world"
    but
    "These people deserve to die"

    That seems strange to me.

    1. HollieT profile image89
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And me!

  7. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Meanwhile this thread is about whether Manning's sentence was appropriate.

  8. aliasis profile image95
    aliasisposted 3 years ago

    Not appropriate. Manning is a whistleblower and should be treated as one. Duty to the people and doing the right thing override duty to the military - if Manning existed in any other country, the US would be quick to applaud them, but heaven forbid someone expose evils in our own country. Manning should be pardoned immediately.

    Not to mention, Manning was tortured and held unconstitutionally for years before she was finally granted a trial. Surely she has more than paid back anything she owed. Who I'd like to see on trial are the soldiers who massacred innocent people, including children, in the Collateral Murder video that Manning leaked in the first place. That's where this discussion ought to be.

    1. innersmiff profile image80
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Apparently the right of the government not to be bothered is more sacred than the rights of the people.

    2. HollieT profile image89
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1

    3. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A whistle blower that gave out seven hundred thousand files.  Do you honestly think he looked at every file to see if it is appropriate to divulge?  Didn't contain information that would harm the country but DID contain information the American public needed to know?

      No, he just grabbed what he could and gave it to the world.  Anything to gain notoriety and the prison time that he hopes will provide a sex change for him.

      1. innersmiff profile image80
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What an absurd suggestion.

        1. Think of the logic of wanting to go through being called a traitor, being held without trial for months and then serving a very long jail time just for a sex change. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

        2. Manning didn't give the information to the public willy-nilly, nor to terrorists, she gave it to Wikileaks. Julian Assange personally rifled through the data, censoring any information that could conceivably be used to harm individuals involved, before releasing it to the public. Manning must have known he would do this otherwise she would have given it to Anonymous or some other source.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What a laugh.  If you think Assange personally read seven hundred thousand files you need to think again.  At 3 minutes per file it would only take 1,458 days, working 24 hours per day without a bathroom break.  Believe that if you want; I don't.

          But it doesn't matter.  Manning may or may not have trusted Assange, but that doesn't matter either.  He gave secret information to the public - what hands it went through is irrelevant.

          1. innersmiff profile image80
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "A respected broadcaster for SBS Australia, [Mark] Davis was an eyewitness, accompanying Assange during much of the preparation of the leaked files for publication in the Guardian and the New York Times . . .  He told me, “Assange was the only one who worked day and night extracting 10,000 names of people who could be targeted by the revelations in the logs.”

            http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/john … y-manning/

            As to how he did this, I don't know - it is conceivable, as a hacker, Assange has programs that can search for names and can perform mass commands.

            Aha, straw-man alert. No one is disputing the fact that secret information was given out, we're disputing Manning's motives, and whether it put anyone in danger. Manning gave the information to someone who was careful not to put anyone in danger, and it has since been confirmed that no one has been harmed by the information. The evidence mounts against your case.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Uh huh.  You can believe that as you wish.

              "censoring any information that could conceivably be used to harm individuals involved" 

              "extracting 10,000 names of people who could be targeted by the revelations"

              Either no one will be harmed by the revelations or 10,000 people were targeted.  Which was it?

              1. innersmiff profile image80
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I will because there is no convincing case to be made otherwise. Individuals may have been targeted if the information wasn't filtered, but it was filtered, and no one has been harmed. What exactly is your argument at this point?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Same as it was in the first place; the appearance is that Manning engineered this whole thing because he didn't want to pay for his desired medical treatments.

                  I find your claim that someone (Manning, Assange, whoever) read every file to make sure no one would be hurt to be utter nonsense.  It wasn't done and certainly the person who stole the files (Manning) and thus had total responsibility to do that if he was a whistle blower didn't do it.

                  There is no possible software that could do that and there is no known group of people that put in the required tens of thousands of man hours to do it either.  Ergo, it wasn't done and Manning doesn't care if anyone was hurt or not.

                  1. innersmiff profile image80
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So this essentially boils down to the eye-witness account of a respected journalist versus your apparently clairvoyant 'knowing' that it wasn't done. I think you're trolling me.

      2. aliasis profile image95
        aliasisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        SHE (not he) gave files out of moral conscience, because the military was committing despicable acts. The military is not free to do as it wants at the expense of freedom and human rights. It must be held accountable. It was utterly absurd that we're pointing fingers at Manning, who yes, is a whistleblower. I would go so far as to say if such crimes hadn't been reported - that would have been the real crime here. What is most shocking to me is how many people think it's okay that the military has committed so many war crimes.

        The notion that she just wanted a sex change is totally absurd. She wanted to face the death penalty and/or spend the rest of her life in prison? Seriously, that argument lacks more than a little logic. Manning very clearly wants to be free and go home. I hate that she had to become a martyr, but that's where she is. And this dialogue is not going to end. History books are going to be much kinder to her than the gov't now.

    4. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How was Manning tortured?
      Why was his confinement unconstitutional?

      GA

      1. aliasis profile image95
        aliasisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Manning was held in extreme solitary confinement, had to remain naked in her cell, was denied sheets for her bed, and was not given the right to a speedy trial. Everything about her confinement was legally torture. Research a little about the conditions she was held in.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Reference to a law that says not having sheets is torture, please?  Or not being given clothing at night?

        2. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Just a quick reply,
          As I do not see depriving him of underwear at night, ( a suicide protection?), nor a sheet for his bed, (another suicide protection?), as torture,  nor referring to a biological male as he an error, - it appears we view the realities of life differently.

          ps. I spoke with a friend who is currently a correctional officer in a Maryland facility about the their suicide prevention and solitary confinement practices - he confirmed the underwear issue and sheet issue as suicide prevention tactics, and spoke of the suicide smock as being made of what he describes as "untearable" material. The cell dimensions, and 23 in - 1 out schedule is also standard procedure.

          GA

  9. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Bradley Manning got off easy , considering that the MILTARY justice system would normally  consider execution at the act of treason.  He is not a whistle blower as much as the divulged of military secrets .You need to remember that as a soldier , military law dictates and has authority over civilian law !  He signed an oath upon voluntarily joining the army !  Not to do just what he did anyway !

    1. innersmiff profile image80
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Tell me, is killing civilians accepted in military law?

  10. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    It is in battle , under certain conditions , like it or not !

    1. innersmiff profile image80
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That doesn't answer my question.

  11. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Sure ,  collateral damage !

    1. innersmiff profile image80
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure you're aware of what the revelations were. Civilians were intentionally targeted.

  12. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Collateral murder in Iraq, one of the items released by Bradley Manning:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

    1. lone77star profile image91
      lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Bravo, Ralph.

  13. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Bradley Manning on murder in Iraq:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX6NyElC698

  14. lone77star profile image91
    lone77starposted 3 years ago

    Bradley Manning was a hero.

    He sacrificed his life in defense of the Constitution of the United States against an increasingly corrupt government.

    Bradley Manning was a whistleblower in the classic sense of the word.

    It's incredible that the Corporate Party (Military-Industrial Complex) media would concentrate on the man and not the message he tried to share with us.

    Bradley Manning exposed government CRIMES! Get that through your thick skull, if you haven't opened your mind, yet.

    Oooo! So, there really is such thing as a conspiracy? Yes, and the CIA finally admitted their conspiracy regarding the deposing of a democratically-elected leader of Iran in 1953. Wow! Keeping the world safe for "democracy." What a lie.

    On 9/11, we had numerous whistleblowers. Some of them have since died mysteriously. Some of them were arrested (one of them under the Patriot Act for knowing too much about the crimes of the Bush White House -- Susan Lindauer, former CIA asset).

    I find it incredible that so many Americans (even Hubbers) who would otherwise be considered extremely intelligent folk, still believe the lies given to us by the Corporate Party media. Perhaps they don't know how to find the alternative media or to research stories on their own.

    Perhaps they're too wrapped up in Normalcy Bias to see that America is becoming a Gestapo state.

    http://benswann.com/man-brutally-shot-a … car-thief/
    http://www.infowars.com/young-deputy-sh … wn-garage/

    In one YouTube video, a retired police officer reports that hiring policies within police departments have changed over the years to allow more psychopaths to become police officers. Fewer inhibitions to attack or shoot civilians. Dr. Jim Garrow found out from one retired, top military officer that Obama sent out a questionnaire to some (all?) military officers that forced them to resign if they answered that they would not obey the President in illegal orders to fire upon American citizens.

    The seeds of tyranny have been planted and they are choking the lifeblood of the country -- its Constitution and the love of the law.

    It's incredible when a top journalist dies in a mysterious crash, the coroner declares that drugs had NOTHING to do with his death, and all of the Corporate media lead with "DRUGS" in their headlines on the death of Michael Hastings. At the very least, that's incompetent journalism. It's character assassination and an implied falsehood. Plus, like Bradley Manning's case, it deflects attention away from the message being delivered by the hero. Hastings was investigating government crimes. Manning was revealing government crimes. Susan Lindauer knew the dirty little secrets behind the Iraq war and how Iraq was very cooperative, but psychopath Bush wanted his dirty little war that would make profits for his buddy Cheney and Halliburton and his Dad and the Carlysle Group.

    We know that 9/11 was an inside job. We don't know all the details, yet, but we have proof that 3 buildings in New York were brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11 -- the 2 towers and WTC7.

    It's sad that some Hubbers (like GA Anderson) simply bury their heads and call it "conspiracy theory" -- even the facts are "conspiracy theory" to him.

    And it's sad that someone like Wilderness, who is otherwise quite articulate and intelligent goes immediately stupid on the subject of physics, thinking that somehow solid steel can ever offer zero resistance to collapse, as it seemingly did for 8 floors of the collapse of WTC7.

    The Corporate Party TV, magazines and newspapers don't want you to know the truth. Their Military-Industrial Complex branch is making too much money from their never-ending Cash Cow, War on Terror, while the private Federal Reserve continues to rake in profits on the backs of American citizens who don't know it's a big PONZI Scheme about to go bust. $17 Trillion in National Debt about to go bust -- accelerating toward oblivion.

    But it's not all doom and gloom. We can do something about it, but first we have to wake up to the fact that we've been sold a bill of goods by people we should be able to trust.

    Look at the message Manning brought us. Look at the fact that America is committing horrible crimes against humanity -- all for Military-Industrial Complex profits -- and the power that worldwide chaos will give to those who are properly positioned when the Debt Bubble Bursts, and the dollar becomes toilet paper.

    We could stop the madness by spreading the word and then walking away from the Corporate machine. Stop feeding it your dollars. Spend locally and with small shops. Starve the beast before it eats you and your future.

  15. GA Anderson profile image86
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    Hello again Lone77star, 
    I see your passion for the theory that the U.S. government was involved, (perpetrated?), in the 9/11 disaster is unabated. But I was a bit surprised to be referenced in your post as having my head "buried in the sand" regarding the truth of your facts.

    2+2=4 is a fact, that controlled demolition brought down the Towers is a theory. I do not believe that your "facts" are beyond dispute, and I also believe that doubting them is not equal to having my head stuck in the sand. (better than being stuck somewhere else)

    But looking on the bright side, perhaps we are lucky to have passionate truth seekers like yourself to serve as a bit of counterweight to those of us with our heads in the sand.

    GA

 
working