It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Betrayal: The Cult of Trump turns on Chelsea Manning

page: 4
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   
So Manning's only claim to fame is leaking information to Wikileaks, who is persona non grata because they don't leak anything negative about Trump or work for Russia. Trump hasn't wavered on his position regarding Manning, and most of his supporters haven't either.

So while you may still praise Assange, the rest of the left does not.

This is the weakest and most pathetic attempt to paint Trump and his supporters as ____________ I've seen yet.

Congrats.





posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Yes it does make sense to think the worst... It’s absolutely the only logical approach in fact.

Because even if they’re not all corrupt, one could easily approach the ones who definitely are, and there would be no sure way of knowing that at all.


It’s an ugly reality to face.

You’d rather a whistleblower risk blindly trusting a higher up, who may or may not be compromised...
That only adds to the chances of the info never being released.

Fame? WTF are you talking about?



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Let's first cover one thing off here. It's well documented that Trump has never been a fan of Chelsea Manning and this extends all the way back to 2010. He's never been secretative about his dislike of her and has even called for Manning to face the death penalty in 2010.. Trump can, rightfully, claim consistency on his stance on Manning (whether we agree with him or not). The issue at hand here isn't with Trump himself but most of his supporters and this is what this thread is about.

Let me just remind you all that Julian Assange and Wikileaks owe a great deal to Chelsea Manning. After all, she was the source for 750,000 classified material that jump started their global fame in 2010. Without Chelsea Manning, Wikileaks would not have gotten the boost and exposure it received back then. This is a fact. She put herself on the line for Wikileaks. During that time those of us on ATS who praised Wikileaks and Assange never questioned their releases. We praised them and we've continued to praise Assange for his efforts to this day. Didn't matter where the sources came from, we were giving the administration the middle finger and exposing corruption. That is, we were giving the Obama administration the middle finger. That all changed rather quickly.

Queue in Trump and his entry to the presidency and we get this:



Complete 360 I tell ya.

She's a traitor now right?! Chelsea Manning? Yet Assange and Wikileaks used those exact classified materials to their advantage and we continue to praise them. But now Manning is scum because well she's American and a soldier? But praise Assange for releasing this information and exposing? Makes now sense? What the hell?!

Let's not forget Chelsea's inconvenient gender transition. We'll go there. That didn't align with Trumps views especially when it comes to them serving on the armed forces. It's also majorly inconvenient that Chelsea is running as a Democrat. Totally irrelevant that she intends to unseat a total establishment dinosaur Ben Cardin (D). And just like clockwork. Just like clockwork, Trump's supporters flock to mock '.and attack her, as if the sacrifices she made for Wikileaks are totally irrelevant now. All 'cause Trump nuh' and that's really it.

Chelsea Manning hasn't changed her intentions or her positions. It's many of her supposed supporters who have and this is all because of this new administration they support now. It's astounding - rights and the truth be damned. So protective of Trump that you'll betray and throw anybody else off the bus. Same with Bannon. All because Trump?

Seriously.


There is a diffrence between Assange and manning.

Julian Assange is:
1) Not a US citizen.
2) was not in the USA when he leaked.
3) has signed or taken no non disclosure agreements with the USA or taken any oath of alliegence.

Therefore he owes no loyalty to the USA and so by definition can not be a traitor.


Bradley Manning

1) Is a US citizen.
2) Has taken a oath of alliegence
3) was a member of the US military.
4) He has signed non-disclosure agreements
5) was in the USA when he leaked.

By definition he did commit treason, even if it was for the right reasons.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Umm the left called WikiLeaks fake news due to Trump hate. Stop acting like only people from one side changed tunes.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But its fun to be a hypocrite.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Lysergic

It does seem to be the consensus across all of humanity.




posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Theprodicalson

Didn't read the OP.


She's a traitor now right?! Chelsea Manning? Yet Assange and Wikileaks used those exact classified materials to their advantage and we continue to praise them. But now Manning is scum because well she's American and a soldier? But praise Assange for releasing this information and exposing? Makes now sense? What the hell?!


People praise Wikileaks and their actions, but attack Chelsea Manning, the source of that very important information that keeps Wikileaks running. You praise one, attack the other. The latter is responsible for getting the information out there that you praise and insist needs to be released.

It's hypocritical. And claiming that she was a 'soldier' or 'american' doesn't change that hypocrisy.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

When were they called fake news?



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


I consider Manning a hero for going to prison so that the American people will have a better understanding of just how criminal their government is. I have supported Manning here at ATS, but I must say, I think those who support Manning are highly outnumbered by those brainwashed well enough to consider Manning to be the bad guy.

Despite no evidence to support their claim, many Americans think Manning's actions led to the deaths of others.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Bradley Manning

1) Is a US citizen.
2) Has taken a oath of alliegence
3) was a member of the US military.
4) He has signed non-disclosure agreements
5) was in the USA when he leaked.

Oh and LBGWTF is still a male by science text book definition. He has a mental disorder.

End of Story

^TRAITOR - forever will be known as one.

Supporters of such a person show their true colors on who would be quick to join the other side if the US mainland was invaded by a foreign superior force.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Theprodicalson


Which definition of treason are you using?

Moreover, your post reminded me of the words of Hartley Shawcross, a US prosecutor at Nuremberg. He too wondered about conscience, and how it might be involved in anyone's life, knowing the difference between right and wrong.

There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his own conscience.

Something to think about.

Lt. Ehren Watada effectively did the same thing at the end of the Bush terms. He won in court.
edit on 15-1-2018 by Salander because: Ehren Watada



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

The UCMJ. That is exactly the version of treason he is referring to since Bradley was still in the US Army at the time of the breach.

You really needed to ask that question, right?



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: WarPig1939


Yes, I did need to ask that question and I did because I'm using the definition found in the US Constitution, if you don't mind.

And you fair enough bring up UCMJ, so let's square them.

I'm going with US Constitution.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: WarPig1939


Yes, I did need to ask that question and I did because I'm using the definition found in the US Constitution, if you don't mind.

And you fair enough bring up UCMJ, so let's square them.

I'm going with US Constitution.


No I don't mind at all. Just seemed kind of "hook-line-and-sinker" kind of deal.

Still amazes me how people still come white knighting in defense of this guy like in spite of the obvious charges he was handed. You can't just walk away from something like that.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: WarPig1939

Dude knew he'd eat snip for it kind of stokes the heroic patriot angle, no?

When evil needs to be exposed it needs to be exposed.

Blind loyalty, a virtue?
edit on 15-1-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yeh, Oh he got the right amount of exposure he deserved and will get plenty more until he gets sick of it. That much I am sure. Kinda happy about it tbh.

Blind loyalty is not to be confused with loyalty to the USA when you volunteer to serve in the US armed forces. There is no choice in that regard.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: WarPig1939

That worked so well in Nazi Germany, eh?



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: WarPig1939


FWIW, the material taken by Daniel Ellsberg was all classified TOP SECRET, and I'm pretty sure none of the material taken by Manning was so marked.

Collateral Damage, especially the audio portion, showed a lot of people what crimes are committed for body counts and justification of existence.

Eventually the story of the bright and shining lie was available to the public. Honesty is always the best policy. Dishonesty leads to irrational decisions.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: WarPig1939

That worked so well in Nazi Germany, eh?


Well the same could be said about every other modern standing army's requirements to signing up.

That's why I always like to err on the side of caution, "Don't join a military unless you can without doubt prove to yourself of loyalty to such an army and its country."
edit on 15-1-2018 by WarPig1939 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: WarPig1939

That means you have to not be in the worlds preeminent Evil Empire. Which that's what the US is and has been for 60+ years. Of course most people are absolutely oblivious to this fact. And you insist when people on the inside figure it out they should just maintain the Status Quo. Not unlike the scum that fill DC. And as such it just marches on and on roughshod over everything including US.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join