-26 votes

Everybody Meet Chelsea Manning

One day after being sentenced to 35 years in prison for the largest leak of classified documents in U.S. history, the Army private the world knows as Bradley Manning issued a statement about who she really is. "As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/chelsea-manning-reveals-herself-to-the-world-i-am-a-female-20130822

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You keep bad mouthing Ron Paul

your just another Zionist shill, you and Granger are two peas in a pod, why are you on this site? your just another Troll.

Wow, your an idiot troll.

Blocked as of .......now. : )

I think...

The key word he (or she) was pointing to was "your" and not "little" - It's kind of odd that you're on a Paul fan site, acting like a Paul supporter, yet using language that would indicate you don't consider yourself part of "OUR" group.

Are you a Ron Paul supporter or just an infiltrator trying to cause trouble?

Exactly

He doesn't consider himself to be one of "us."

Thank you!

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

I'm mostly a Paul supporter,

I'm mostly a Paul supporter, but I'm not a cultist disciple like most of you, ignoring the hard questions brought against him and incapable of original thought. Ron Paul is far from perfect. I much prefer his son Rand's brand of conservatism.

Lol

What makes us cultist disciples? Granted, I look up to Ron Paul and he's a model of mine, but I don't worship him. More than anything, I worship the ideals he upholds.

And the fact that you prefer Rand makes perfect sense. I repeat, you should go to redstate.com - it's more suited to your opinions.

I wouldn't go to an Obama supporter site and then argue with everyone while being curious as to why no one shares my opinion...

The simple truth of the matter is this:
Libertarians hate government. Whistleblowers expose government corruption and lies. Therefore libertarians love whistleblowers by extension.

Manning being a whistleblower means libertarians love him. Can't make it more plain than that.

I'm not at Red State because

I'm not at Red State because I can't stand them. I put them squarely in the neocon category. Rand isn't in their camp. Rand is more in line with Pat Buchanan. On the scale of politicians by a significant margin I'm more in line with Ron Paul, but I don't agree with everything he does. To be frank I don't think you guys do a very good job of representing him either.

Libertarians at large don't love Manning and don't regard him a whistleblower - you do. You do not represent most libertarians, you represent a very fringe cultist wing that sees a conspiracy in everything. You're the guys who follow Alex Jones and think 911 was an inside job. There are some good people here who see things clearly, but most of you are nuts.

But in answer to your question, really, I'm just in an argumentative mood and feel like arguing with Manning supporters because of all the recent news about him. :)

Lots of assumptions.

I'm not here to represent Ron Paul - he can represent himself. I have my own views and opinions.

I'd disagree that libertarians don't love Manning and consider him a whistleblower. Who couldn't consider him a whistleblower in the first place? He's the textbook definition of a whistleblower.

Also, I'm not a "conspiracy nut". I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job and I don't follow Alex Jones. However, this is hardly a conspiracy theory - it'd be laughable to consider it that since Manning actually had proof in the form of paper and electronic documents and the fact that the government tried him for treason.

Blowing the whistle means

Blowing the whistle means just that. He didn't blow the whistle on anything. Why so reactionary? He didn't expose anything. Civilians get killed in war! Really, ya don't say? Gee, I thought we were dropping brownie's from the sky.

Well, that's ironic.

If he didn't expose anything then why all the theatrics? You seem more perturbed by Manning than anyone else on the DP. And yes, civilians die in war - that's a common thing. However, you expect civilians to die in JUST wars. Have we been attacked by the middle east? A fringe group, yes, but not any particular country and we've attacked just about every country in the middle east, excluding Israel.

There's a big difference between killing innocents from a country that's personally attacked us and killing innocents from a country that hasn't attacked us; that's the major distinction here.

And the philosophy I'm presenting to you is the same one that Ron Paul has been espousing since he came into politics, so it shouldn't be new to you if you're actually familiar with him.

Name one middle eastern country that has declared war on the US or even launched an attack on the US and I can easily rebut it.

Americans seem to innocently think that every attack the U.S. has made has been in defense of itself. That is complete and utter bullshit. If you were truly in the military, you'd know that because there's plenty of public records and personal testimonies proving that we've been "slaughtering" middle easterners for a while now. You'd think people would get the point after we've ordered multiple drone strikes on weddings and children's schools.

Theatrics, what are you

Theatrics, what are you talking about? Half the posts on the front page of DP.com past several days have been prayers and well wishes to the hero Manning.

"There's a big difference between killing innocents from a country that's personally attacked us and killing innocents from a country that hasn't attacked us; that's the major distinction here."

You just defeated your whole argument by shifting the goal posts from the decisions made on the ground to the decisions made by politicians back home. On this subject I wholeheartedly agree with you, Iraq was a stupid, misguided war based on bad intelligence and naive politicians. This has nothing to do with the pilots! And that's my point! Hanging those pilots out to dry because of the actions of our pathetic leaders is reprehensibly wrong.

Really?

You're the one, who in so many words, said Manning wasn't a whistleblower. You've tried to discredit Manning on every level, including a personal/social one. And yes, I'd call it theatrics when you're using every available piece within your arsenal to attempt to discredit him; you might as well be working for the government (not saying you are, just saying you're doing their job for them).

I hardly defeated my own argument - I merely strengthened it by furthering Manning's own agenda: Attempting to end these nonsensical wars. And you've mentioned neither the pilots nor the politicians in this entire discussion; you've only tried to harm Manning's reputation, which I might add, is going horribly bad.

This is the first time I've heard of any concrete point from you as to why you oppose Manning. Apparently, he's done something wrong, in your book, and you're devastated that the trigger men might be held responsible for the actions of the men behind the scenes. For some reason, you hold Manning responsible for the actions of the "men behind the scenes" because he's the one who leaked the information.

IMO, if you do something immoral, you should be held responsible, not the people who tell on you. But, that's just me.

(PS: It's 1:30am here. If you reply, I'll get back to you when I wake up.)

Ok....

I'm not sure how pointing out the truth is a form of malice?

My conclusion of your intentions as malicious, come from your comment history. You are clearly against Manning, regardless of whether he goes by Bradley or Chelsea.

To say that "WHO Manning is, is irrelevant" is pretty dumb. Granted this in of itself doesn't change what he did, but it certainly lends to his state of mind, whether it's sound or not.

Manning is confused of his gender/sexual orientation. As it currently stands, being gay and/or gender-challenged is not automatic confirmation of mental illness/"derangement".

If Ron Paul where to chop of his wee-wee and change his name of Rhonda how do you think that might effect your little movement? I think it goes without saying what the consequences of that would be...

It's not worth my time to sift through hypotheticals of "What if Ron Paul did this..." statements. To entertain the thought, there would be a character assassination attempt of epic proportions. But regardless of whether Dr. Paul goes by Ron or Rhonda, makes little difference to me. His message would be the same.

As previously stated, Manning is a mentally deranged person. He engaged in a reckless and destructive criminal act. Not having the mental maturity to see him and his actions for what they are calls into question any other political position you take.

I've seen little to no evidence that Manning is mentally deranged. The reckless and destructive criminal act you are referring to is called "whistleblowing". Did Manning just dump thousands of classified documents into public sight? Sure he did. Could he have gone about it differently, like Snowden has? Absolutely. At the end of the day, Manning exposed war crimes. He deserves appreciation, not character assassination.

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

"Manning is confused of his

"Manning is confused of his gender/sexual orientation. As it currently stands, being gay and/or gender-challenged is not automatic confirmation of mental illness/"derangement"."

As it currently stands? According to whom?

A male wanting to chop off his wee-wee is mentally deranged. If that isn't plainly obvious, you are hopelessly lost and confused.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

Ok....

"Manning is confused of his gender/sexual orientation. As it currently stands, being gay and/or gender-challenged is not automatic confirmation of mental illness/"derangement"."

As it currently stands? According to whom?

Are you seeking an Appeal to Authority here?

A male wanting to chop off his wee-wee is mentally deranged. If that isn't plainly obvious, you are hopelessly lost and confused.

I find it amusing that you question my "mental maturity" while at the same time using the term "wee-wee". How does it affect my life if Manning wants to chop off his "wee-wee?" He's not cutting off mine! Now an argument can be made that it affects my pocketbook, if tax-payers are getting the bill for hormone therapies. Manning's gender/orientation is ONE pixel of the picture titled, "Who is Bradley Manning?" That ONE pixel does not make the picture. All of them do.


https://youtu.be/5rXPrfnU3G0

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

LMFAO Seriously mad23!?

After the rampage you've been leaving here over the past couple days, you have the gull to use terms like "Deranged" and "Mentally Immature"???

Wow dude, you officially have no clue!

We get it, you were in the military so you feel like this is a personal and close-to-home issue for you. But it's not an attack on the GOOD soldiers sacrificing their lives taken by those who are retaliating for crimes the likes of which Manning exposed. You cannot have it both ways of wanting to protect soldiers while others are committing war crimes.

This is why you're at a dead end here, because you can't even figure out what side you're on. You defend the military's actions because You HAVE TO. YOU'RE BIASED. So, why don't YOU "get over it"?

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Why do I have to defend the

Why do I have to defend the military's actions? And what makes you think that I do? You assume a lot.

MANNING DIDN'T EXPOSE ANY CRIMES

Why is this so hard to comprehend? Why are you so prideful that you can't see past this propaganda?

The pilots that dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, right on top of tens of thousands of "innocent civilians," were they criminals? No, they followed the orders they were given. They broke no laws.

The only person in jail is Manning!

Confirm this then:

Killing Innocent Civilians is Legal. Yes or No?

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

You can't reduce the issue to

You can't reduce the issue to black and white like that. It depends on the context. Legal according to who's laws? US military personnel are subject to the laws of the United States and their military chain of command.

If a superior officer orders, "shoot that person in the face," the soldier is obliged to obey. In that instance, regardless of who this person is, guilty or innocent, they are to comply and it's legal for them to do so. Refusing the order would be breaking the law in this case, regardless of the guilt of this person. The issue of the person's guilt is not relevant. The whole basis of the military relies on this chain of command and obedience to it... the military isn't a democracy.

The issue of whether the pilots engaged in criminal activity is only about whether they obeyed or disobeyed orders.

I just did, so yes I can.

This is precisely your problem coming from a Military background. You follow Laws made up by men for fear of persecution if you do not follow these orders. But there are Laws that sit well above those imposed by humans. They are Laws of Principal. Laws that cannot be broken. You have the free will to act according to those laws or not. If not, the Laws will deliver to you exactly what you put out in like degree. I've experienced it myself in my "darker days" and I've witnessed the opposite effects when "following" Natural Law.

You are stuck in this belief that the lines drawn on a map are real. That Nations are real. They're not. They're just patches of land with humans herded into these patches like cattle. Then you are taught to fear that patch over there because they're brown and wear funny hats. You are given the order to kill them. And you do. Good for you.

But a better human being is the person who places Natural Law above all else, human happiness and TRUTH above all else. Manning did just that and no matter what I say to you, you will NEVER understand that from your "bordered" perspective. Of course you can always change your perspective because YOU can think and feel freely, given that your military conditioning hasn't been too deeply rooted. You have few moments of clarity I can appreciate but then all the "other" stuff takes over and you loose me and others.

"Just following orders" isn't an excuse for war crimes. It didn't work for the Nazis and it won't work for ANY nation that orders the killing of civilians whether they knew they weren't armed or not.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Please don't assume you

Please don't assume you understand my world view - because you don't - you are laughably wrong. Talk about maps and nations and such, rofl.

Where did these principles come from you speak of? Men? Unless your higher law comes from a higher source - God - then it isn't a higher law and has no meaning as far as I'm concerned. And that's where it gets complicated as few agree on said higher law.

Look, I'm discussing a principle here, don't take things so literally. Yes soldiers follow orders, that doesn't mean they are brainwashed robots. Soldiers are expected to assess things based on each particular situation. If it is obvious that a criminal order is being given the soldier of course should refuse those orders. Using the fictitious example, if a superior is ordering you to shoot someone in the face, who are you to refuse the order? The superior is not obliged to explain to you why. For all you know this person is guilty. The assumption being made is that the order is lawful. It is not appropriate for the underlings to question their chain of command.

Does a police officer refuse to execute the orders of a judge because they aren't privy to the details of a particular case? Sorry, I can't execute that arrest warrant because I don't know if he's actually guilty or not. I need to see all the evidence for myself and make my own decision.

LOL

What you're talking about is anarchy, the complete opposite of law and order. No law is perfect. There is a spirit and there is a letter. Ideally all men would observe the spirit and not even need the letter, but we're far too savage for that.

Lots of words but we're still back to the same point, and that is, you cannot demonstrate that the pilots did anything wrong.

That's precisely where my understanding of a Higher Law

comes from. "God's" law or Universal Law whatever you want to call it. As long as we're limiting ourselves to the perspective of "multi-coloured monkeys" running around throwing sh*t at each other, then nothing will change. Monkeys will kill monkeys.

Anarchy is NOT the opposite of Law and Order. It is Law and Order "written" and followed by each individual. You either live by it and reap the rewards or you don't. Man made laws are all bullsh*t words scribbled on paper by weak men who seek to control others as if they're slaves to human gods. LMFAO! If people only knew what each of us is capable of.

If following "orders" blindly just for the sake of following orders isn't slavery to a "master", then I don't know what is. But then again we're all slaves as long as we're willingly participating in this "performance piece" we call society.

Manning has simply found that higher perspective, the Higher Law, that people who still remain on the lower plains just can't understand. And that's fine. It's all a part of the shift in paradigms and in global consciousness. I see this bringing us true peace, not through external force but through a realization of our individual internal power.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Simple

The pilot misrepresented to the ground controller what he saw in order to gain permission to engage a group of people who were unarmed. He then opened fire on one of his victims who was visibly badly wounded and unarmed, and again on the unarmed good samaritans who arrived in the vehicle to help. Not an uncommon incident during war unfortunately.

That is your opinion, based

That is your opinion, based solely on limited evidence. Again, said a zillion times now, that video doesn't show everything. If what you're saying is true the pilots would have been court-martialed over the incident.

You Are Correct

Just my one opinion among myriad others', based on limited information (thanks to Pfc Manning) versus no information, or disinformation, (courtesy of the DoD).

Some Issues E@sily Reduced To Bl@ck & White

They're known @s "principles".

What principle would that be?

What principle would that be? You're a police officer responding to a call, you find a kid pointing what looks like a gun at you. You have a family with 4 kids at home depending on you. How do you respond? Please, let's hear your black and white principle that applies to every scenario in the world.

You have no principles

"what looks like a gun," good thing your not a cop, you scum, it could be a toy gun correct, it could be something else correct? If it were me I would back away behind something solid and tell the child to put it down, otherwise you could have innocent blood on your hands, but you wouldn't understand that would you scumbag? Get off this site

deacon's picture

what about

refusing an unlawful order?
Or refusing an order that are wrong,and go against your own moral code?
One cannot make another do something that goes against their ethics
or against the law,unless they are inclined,which seems to be the case
I found something for you
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/soldiers-discuss-us...
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Where is your evidence that

Where is your evidence that the pilots received an unlawful order?

Your reference-less huffpo article is irrelevant. Drop weapons are a myth, and a totally separate subject. If anybody were caught doing something like that they would and should be court-martialed over it.

The video, even after all the selective editing, shows no crimes. It shows the pilots lawfully following orders. And what the video doesn't show is just as important, but you refuse to consider that.