Bradley Manning leaked Granai Airstrike "~86-147, mostly women and children"

If it was deleted in September 2010, how was it decrypted and still in their possession in March 2013? Why are the possibly outdated and conflicting events listed after future events?

In this case, its a newspaper article that are citing Assange, which is why the sentence beginning with "Julian Assange said". Changing it to "Julian Assange allegedly claim" would make the article worse, as the implied disbelief of using the word "allegedly" is not supported by the source.

Having to base edits around sources is hard, but I think a crucial aspect of any encyclopedia. The alternative is just so much worse, don't you agree?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacke...

My point here being that "our freedoms" plainly is not why they hate us. The real reason is because of our involvement and interaction with them. When such involvement and interaction is kept classified for decades, then the American public has no hope of correctly evaluating statements such as Bush's.

But while it is true that part of their beef with the US was things that we would consider freedom a much bigger issue would be America's support of Israel or the stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. And then 9/11 happened and the West invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and this became very much beside the point. So Bush's famous mention of Al Qaeda hating us for our freedoms, while true in some sense, was very much a red herring.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

Answer: Because they hate our freedoms honey...

/They reason it is presented in that way is because the explanation is infantile and geared for an infantile mind but it is funny how well it has worked for so long

The trouble is, Americans believe they have the best system, society, country in the world, and that it is up to them to make every one have that same sort of system, regardless of whether or not they asked for it.

If you see America as a religion, its constitution as a holy book, its foreign policy as a crusade, its politicians as religious leaders, its people as believers, then you begin to understand the problem.

The problem is, America has a fundamentally different history than most other countries, and is that way it is because of its history. Essentially diverse people came from abroad for many different reasons to create it. The rest of the planet is not like that. Nothing wrong in that at all for America, it makes total reasonable sense, and works fairly well inits context. But for most other countries it does not. All America needs to do is accept that its unique and that other systems have equal validity to their own people. It is not up to America to judge other and seek to tell them they are wrong. If other countries and culture are wrong for their people, its is up to them to change it, not have it forced on them. If such people want American "democracy", which lets face it, Americans seem to have plenty of issues with, then such people will fight for it, loose blood for it, and really value it. Just like Americans did for themselves. No one forced democracy on Americans.

Let's start here:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/200601011_fbi_un...

it could be interpreted as a feeling that there is an incompatibility/conflict between the physical gender of the "motherboard" body and the gender identity of the mind.

c wat I did there? ;)

and for the record, I'm from a fly-over state and a bit of a redneck, and a bit not...

You have to remember that this is an IM transcript after all. The "trigger-happy hyper-masculine" comment was likely just a joke or either angst at his predicament.

Fuck that, the U.S. has a huge dominant army with superior technology and well trained personnel. They bombard a village because it's easy and effective.

Someone made a decision that the lives of American soldiers were worth more than an entire Afghan village. That's a war crime, and someone should pay for that. And that person should not be Bradley Manning..

Seriously, how can justify these kind of mistakes when you have military satellites, surveillance drones, intelligence and all the stuff that goes with it. I don't buy in it being just "collateral damage".

"We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means." -- Carl von Clausewitz

Now, the past decade of war has been against enemies which do not have the authority, power, or will to be dealt with politically. The obvious question, then, is how we can be fighting a war--we are going after the criminals that hit us, no?

Even a defense wherein we say "Aha! But the Taliban and Saddam regime were opposed to us, politically!" is flawed, for we had successfully conducted combat operations against their regular forces and won by any reasonable definition of the phrase. We now find ourselves in a long and bloody occupation---for that is what this is, and an occupation is not a war.

To be even more blunt about this, we cannot simply ascribe the bombing of an Afghan village as an unfortunate side-effect of total war.

We are not engaged in total war, we are not engaging an enemy which has hills and manufacturing capacity worth our bombs and weapons--this is no Dresden or Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Hiding behind "War is hell" at the very least requires us to be engaged in an honest war, and this we are not.

I don't think that would happen without someone leaking.

How would I say the truth?

The world is a beautiful and amazing place full of divinely creative and wonderful humans. We all need to work together toward a singular goal: evolving our civilization and exploring the truths of existence and the universe. We should see that we are a singular species on this planet that has evolved to a level of intelligence that allows us to explore the wider universe around us and gaining understanding and ultimately wisdom of this universe, existence and ourselves should be our cohesive, singular goal.