Look, it seems to me that what we debating here comes down to what was going on. You claim it was intense, heavy combat, fire fights, and chaos. Yet the video shows a man standing straight up casually talking on the cell phone. And a guy with his two children drive up, and he gets out of the van to attend to the people that are down. I'm not calling you a liar. I'm saying you may be inaccurate in what you say the conditions were at that point in time in that immediate area. If you get hypersensitive and overly defensive and think that I'm calling you a liar, then that's on you. I'm just saying that in the middle of hectic firefights, and battles even if someone wanted to use their cell phone they would try and find cover, move around, and make themselves less of a target. They wouldn't stand straight up talking casually. Add to that a father with two children drives right up and gets out of the van. That also doesn't happen in the middle of hectic combat. If the conditions were such that multiple casual activities were happening, then the Apache crew had time to make sure if the guy in the van was an insurgent or not. They lose nothing by waiting five more seconds. You can believe that those weren't the conditions, but the evidence I see doesn't point to that. We can disagree, and that doesn't make either of us a sap, or a liar or whatever other names you want to call me.
No, you are COMPLETELY ignoring available evidence just so you don't have to change your biased and unfounded view on the matter. I freaking handed it right to you, yet you apparently didn't even bother to read it. Had you done so you would have known that the same pilot and gunner at another point during the engagement had an opportunity to engage another group of insurgents in the area. They noticed that there were children and noncombatants in the area and held their fire. When the noncombatants and children were clear from the area they engaged the insurgents. How does THAT fit into your accusation that they are indiscriminate murderers? It doesn't. Not at all. Wikileaks also knew about this, because they had THAT footage as well. But telling you about that and showing you that video would have destroyed their entire premise. Manning also presumably knew about it. Yet he still did what he did. You are in denial about this. The actual facts obliterate your predisposed view on the matter, so you simply ignore the facts.
I have given you the evidence and made my case. If you choose to ignore it then there's no use debating it further. I have to go to work anyway. I'd advise educating yourself on this matter before slinging around words like "murder", especially when all you are basing it upon is a thoroughly biased and edited video.
Bradley Manning now wants to be known as "Chelsea" and is starting the process to become a woman. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/22/us/bradley-manning/index.html
I haven't ignored your evidence, nor do I have any doubts there was combat going on in the area close to the time. However at the time of the video nobody on the ground was acting as if there was combat at that particular time. Not the guy casually talking on his cell phone, nor the driver who pulled up with his child, or anyone else.
As long as it isn't taxpayer funded, whatever he/she wants to do I guess. I wonder how that plays out in prison?
Despite the leaks, it sounds like this has been part of his original plan. He feels like a woman. It's cool with me, as long as he pays for the hormone therapy. Depending on how someone feels about our punishment system through prisons, it may make more sense to ignore his request and make him stay as a man during his sentence. Odd development in a strange world.
Yeah, in prison he can become Chelsea for free, if you know what I'm saying. Not going to be a pretty transition for him/her.
Let the man be a woman if he wants to. Dude's got 35 years to experiement. He knew the consequences of doing what he did, so he was clearly prepared for it. I have no sympathy for it, but don't think his gender identify need to be a part of the conversation.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Nv4b1Iaclmo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
No, but her whole biography seems shaped by uncertainty and bad decisions. I think there was a longer and more meaningful journey here that could have transpired without her ever having leaked anything. Unfortunately I think there will be a moment of clarity after the media attention dies down of exactly what direction she's taken her life in this early on, and for causes and issues she might realize she might not have cared that much about.
