By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Manning sentenced to 35 years

 

What do you think about the sentence?

Free Manning! 51 45.54%
 
Too harsh! 15 13.39%
 
Just right! 5 4.46%
 
Death penalty for traitor! 10 8.93%
 
Who is Manning? 31 27.68%
 
Total:112

Bradley Manning, or whatever ITS name is at the moment, is nothing more than a flaming __________.

IT deserves to die, nothing more, nothing less.....

Gimme the authority, and I will end this sad distraction.

Moderated,

-Mr Khan



Around the Network
theprof00 said:
Mnementh said:
theprof00 said:
 

Does it help you when other countries start banding together against us and create international problems? Not to mention undermine our efforts at quelling dangerous terrorist cells. Our main weapon against terror is being a better country for our citizens. People coming out and contributing to the idea that we might be just like muslim regimes, or reinforcing their belief that we are evil does not help. It hurts...a lot.

I was unaware he went to HK. That's fine with me.

Well it was quite a revelation to the Russians...great job. Glad to see our foreign relationships are threatened by these AMERICAN HEROES.

A Patriot would do what is best for the country. Exposing military secrets and secret intelligence to enemies does not help. Enjoy more of your taxes going into NSA and military so that we can now protect ourselves from new enemies.

So, you think supporting the criminals in charge is the best for the country? The people demonstrating in the arabian spring were doing not the best for the country? Russian opposition that fights for gay-rights or freedom of press is not the best for the country? All dictators and criminals around the world are thanking you for this line of argumentation.

And don't come with terrorism. Far more people die of traffic-accidents, obesity or smoking than from terrorism. Terrorism is only used as a cause to justify pissing on basic rights of all people. We also know already, that Prism and similar programs aren't used against terrorism. The last reveal was, that it was used against Megaupload. Not that this helps to create a valid case, so far the founder Kim Dotcom is and stays free and sued the country of compensation for the closing of Megaupload.

wtf are you talking about? You're just saying things nonsense. It's like if I said I support the rights of all people, you would turn around and say "oh so you support the rights of serial killers". Listen to yourself. You're engaging in enemy creation 101. You're generalizing arguments and calling me an enemy. Your post is so full of vitriol it makes me sympathetic for anyone who has to engage in conversation with you IRL. You think you're being a leader, but in fact you're just being a bully.

Also, FYI We've also spent billions on car safety, smoking cessation, and obesity and created lots of laws to help protect our citizens from outside forces that might introduce these things on us unwillingly. Excellent fucking point.

???

Who was hurt by Manning or Snowden? What has done the spying on everyone and the war-crimes good for the people?



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

sc94597 said:
This thread borderlines itself with hypernationalistic tendencies. When people use the word "country" they really mean "nation-state" or in the context of the U.S, since there exists no single nation, "state." According to the law of the land, both Manning and Snowden did the right thing by notifying the sovereign entity (the populous) of illegal activities instituted by their employees (the government.) Morally, for anybody who prides some degree of individualism, Manning and Snowden informed the individuals (not some silly construct of a nation which doesn't exist in the U.S) about the intrusions of their individual liberties by the U.S government. All in all, they were right, the state was wrong, and that's why they were(or would be) punished.

Of course, the US is a single nation, historically, politically etc.

 

//This's fascinating how deeply people are trapped inside that system vs. dissident myth, which is understandable if you're aware of political context of the given audience. Nevertheless I posted few words about that the other day, an Elysium review of sorts, doesn't seem like anybody got that or simply didn't care. Wrong audience it is.



mai said:
sc94597 said:
This thread borderlines itself with hypernationalistic tendencies. When people use the word "country" they really mean "nation-state" or in the context of the U.S, since there exists no single nation, "state." According to the law of the land, both Manning and Snowden did the right thing by notifying the sovereign entity (the populous) of illegal activities instituted by their employees (the government.) Morally, for anybody who prides some degree of individualism, Manning and Snowden informed the individuals (not some silly construct of a nation which doesn't exist in the U.S) about the intrusions of their individual liberties by the U.S government. All in all, they were right, the state was wrong, and that's why they were(or would be) punished.

Of course, the US is a single nation, historically, politically etc.

 

//This's fascinating how deeply people are trapped inside that system vs. dissident myth, which is understandable if you're aware of political context of the given audience. Nevertheless I posted few words about that the other day, an Elysium review of sorts, doesn't seem like anybody got that or simply didn't care. Wrong audience it is.

"Nation" in the context I'm using (as referring to nation-states) is not a political term, it's a socioeconomic one analagous to the term "ethnicity" and historically the U.S was even more divided than it is today in terms of politics and economics. 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nation

c.1300, from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci; see genus). Political sense has gradually predominated, but earliest English examples inclined toward the racial meaning "large group of people with common ancestry." Older sense preserved in application to North American Indian peoples (1640s). Nation-building first attested 1907 (implied in nation-builder).


sc94597 said:

"Nation" in the context I'm using (as referring to nation-states) is not a political term, it's a socioeconomic one analagous to the term "ethnicity" and historically the U.S was even more divided than it is today in terms of politics and economics.

A lot of today's nations have been more divided politically and economically in the past, doesn't really strengthen your argument here. I use nation in strictly nation-state meaning, i.e. in the meaning it was brought to the political sciences, which absolutely has nothing to do with ethnicity (btw how this's a socioeconomic term?). Spare me from Old French, Latin, Greek etc. -- not relevant.



Around the Network
mai said:
sc94597 said:

"Nation" in the context I'm using (as referring to nation-states) is not a political term, it's a socioeconomic one analagous to the term "ethnicity" and historically the U.S was even more divided than it is today in terms of politics and economics.

A lot of today's nations have been more divided politically and economically in the past, doesn't really strengthen your argument here. I use nation in strictly nation-state meaning, i.e. in the meaning it was brought to the political sciences, which absolutely has nothing to do with ethnicity (btw how this's a socioeconomic term?). Spare me from Old French, Latin, Greek etc. -- not relevant.

It wasn't meant to strengthen my argument, in fact, it was an entirely different argument. Nationalism is rooted in the ethnocentric definition of "nation." How can a country with such a diverse cultural, ancestral, economic, political, and ethnic basis be one nation? How can a state with no official language, cultural traditions, etc be a nation-state? 

Just look at the characteristics provided by wikipedia. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

"The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit.The state is a political andgeopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation state" implies that the two geographically coincide. Nation state formation took place at different times in different parts of the world, but has become the dominant form of state organization."

"The most obvious impact of the nation state, as compared to its non-national predecessors, is the creation of a uniform national culture, through state policy. The model of the nation state implies that its population constitutes anation, united by a common descent, a common language and many forms of shared culture. When the implied unity was absent, the nation state often tried to create it. It promoted a uniform national language, throughlanguage policy. The creation of national systems of compulsory primary education and a relatively uniform curriculum in secondary schools, was the most effective instrument in the spread of the national languages. The schools also taught the national history, often in a propagandistic and mythologised version, and (especially during conflicts) some nation states still teach this kind of history."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/#ConNat 

 The distinction is related (although not identical) to that drawn by older schools of social and political science between “civic” and “ethnic” nationalism, the former being allegedly Western European and the latter more Central and Eastern European originating in Germany (a very prominent proponent of the distinction is Hans Kohn 1965). Philosophical discussions centered around nationalism tend to concern the ethnic-cultural variants only and this habit will be followed here. A group aspiring to nationhood on this basis will be called here an ‘ethno-nation’ in order to underscore its ethno-cultural rather than purely civic underpinnings. For the ethno-(cultural) nationalist it is one's ethnic-cultural background which determines one's membership in the community. One cannot chose to be a member; instead, membership depends on the accident of origin and early socialization. However, commonality of origin has turned out to be mythical for most contemporary candidate groups: ethnic groups have been mixing for millennia.

 

http://www.towson.edu/polsci/ppp/sp97/realism/whatisns.htm

A nation-state differs from a "state" or a "nation" for a couple of important reasons:

    nation refers only to a socio-cultural entity, a union of people sharing who can identify culturally and linguistically. This concept does not necessarily consider formal political unions.

    state refers to a legal/political entity that is comprised of the following: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) a government ; and d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

     



Just 35 years? I was hoping for the death sentence for this traitor scum. I can't wait until they catch Snowden bitch ass, so they can send him to the guillotine



Without order nothing can exist - without chaos nothing can evolve.

"I don't debate, I just give you that work"- Ji99saw

sc94597 said:
mai said:
sc94597 said:

"Nation" in the context I'm using (as referring to nation-states) is not a political term, it's a socioeconomic one analagous to the term "ethnicity" and historically the U.S was even more divided than it is today in terms of politics and economics.

A lot of today's nations have been more divided politically and economically in the past, doesn't really strengthen your argument here. I use nation in strictly nation-state meaning, i.e. in the meaning it was brought to the political sciences, which absolutely has nothing to do with ethnicity (btw how this's a socioeconomic term?). Spare me from Old French, Latin, Greek etc. -- not relevant.

It wasn't meant to strengthen my argument, in fact, it was an entirely different argument. Nationalism is rooted in the ethnocentric definition of "nation." How can a country with such a diverse cultural, ancestral, economic, political, and ethnic basis be one nation? How can a state with no official language, cultural traditions, etc be a nation-state? 

Just look at the characteristics provided by wikipedia. 

Ok, I'm on shaky ground here, but whatever.

Don't see it that way, nationalism (negative connotations aside) is above any ethnical or religious definitions, it denies them. That's the way the still relevant doctrine of nationalism was first practically implemented during and after French Revolution (American Revolution qualifies as well btw). It practically solved the social, religious and ethnical problems of France at the time, because religion wasn't able to do it anymore. Nationalism takes place of religion as leading ideology and, as many political doctrines, acts in many ways as religion. Hence the term "empereur des Francais" as opposed to "empereur de France", because French nation was born at the time. In that regard Americans are very nationalistic (negative connotations included but not exclusive).


//There're forums where people got banned for quoting Wikipedia ;)



badgenome said:

I think it's too bad for him that he had the misfortune of doing this under the current administration instead of the previous one.


you mean like having the media actually cover the story, but they wont out of fear that criticism might reach the obama administration.



PullusPardus said:
Uh... this manning person is a woman?


he decided he's now Chelsea. and what the government (read: taxpayers) to pay for him to get his penis removed, so he can feel more like a women. even though he was born with and will forever have an X and a Y chromosome, thereby never actaully being a women. Just a ball-less and penis-less eunich of a man.