SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (21) down (18)
Edward Snowden interview with German TV

Edward Snowden interview with German TV

(30:22) January 26, 2014: Former NSA contractor and now fugitive in Moscow, Edward Snowden claims that US government officials "wanted to murder me" in an exclusive interview with German TV station NDR. The interview was conducted in Moscow.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2434 days ago)

Who should I believe? Edward Snowden, a felon, a traitor, and a fugitive that says only one incident was stopped due to the NSA data collection and that was a money transfer from a cab driver or General Keith Alexander, a highly decorated patriot who says these programs have protected our country and allies over 50 times since 9/11. Hmm...

If Snowden felt he didn't break any laws, then he should not have run away to Russia. Come back and face the music. Regarding the three felonies that he is accused of and him not getting a fair trial, I don't agree. Those trials may not be held publicly because the information discussed is intended to be secret and not given out to the public. That's what you've been accused of so of course the hearing will not be made public because even more information could be released. You will have a lawyer represent you just like Bradley Manning did.

Snowden is not a whistleblower. He is a leaker. Huge difference. If he did the right thing and used the proper escalation channels, that would be whistleblowing; however, he did the wrong thing by releasing confidential information to the public. That is leaking.

Snowden claims he didn't give this information to foreign countries. Who does he thinks will get this information once it becomes public? Think CNN and other news channels only broadcast in the USA and all citizens that watch the news would keep that information to themselves? Of course it gets out to other countries. It has already been stated that the NSA has been set back in their abilities to do their job because the terrorists have changed the way they operate due to the information Snowden leaked.

Collection of data is not spying. The government keeps a lot of information on the citizens and that does not mean they are spying on you. For example, the government knows my birth date, my social security number, all the data on my tax returns, where I live, etc.

The courts have upheld that what the NSA is doing is legal so get over it. The NSA also does not wire tap and listen to the physical phone calls of USA citizens without a warrant. The constitution protects us from illegal search and seizure and a warrant makes it legal. The NSA can listen to whatever foreign calls they want without a warrant because only USA citizens are protected by our constitution.

ReplyVote up (430)down (318)
Original comment

Who should I believe? Edward Snowden, a felon, a traitor, and a fugitive that says only one incident was stopped due to the NSA data collection and that was a money transfer from a cab driver or General Keith Alexander, a highly decorated patriot who says these programs have protected our country and allies over 50 times since 9/11. Hmm...

If Snowden felt he didn't break any laws, then he should not have run away to Russia. Come back and face the music. Regarding the three felonies that he is accused of and him not getting a fair trial, I don't agree. Those trials may not be held publicly because the information discussed is intended to be secret and not given out to the public. That's what you've been accused of so of course the hearing will not be made public because even more information could be released. You will have a lawyer represent you just like Bradley Manning did.

Snowden is not a whistleblower. He is a leaker. Huge difference. If he did the right thing and used the proper escalation channels, that would be whistleblowing; however, he did the wrong thing by releasing confidential information to the public. That is leaking.

Snowden claims he didn't give this information to foreign countries. Who does he thinks will get this information once it becomes public? Think CNN and other news channels only broadcast in the USA and all citizens that watch the news would keep that information to themselves? Of course it gets out to other countries. It has already been stated that the NSA has been set back in their abilities to do their job because the terrorists have changed the way they operate due to the information Snowden leaked.

Collection of data is not spying. The government keeps a lot of information on the citizens and that does not mean they are spying on you. For example, the government knows my birth date, my social security number, all the data on my tax returns, where I live, etc.

The courts have upheld that what the NSA is doing is legal so get over it. The NSA also does not wire tap and listen to the physical phone calls of USA citizens without a warrant. The constitution protects us from illegal search and seizure and a warrant makes it legal. The NSA can listen to whatever foreign calls they want without a warrant because only USA citizens are protected by our constitution.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2433 days ago)

Who should I believe, you mockingly ask? Edward Snowden, a honest decent human being who showed us the truth about a corrupt, evil, unlawful spying regime, or the american government, who lied about WMD to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people to get oil, who have a jail called guantanamo bay which is worse than any gulag or concentration camp that ever existed, that have been at war with another country or itself for over 90% of it's existence, who have invaded illigally many towns and cities across the world in the fake name of peace, a country that murdered any of its presidents that didn't want to go to war and murder people......

"Believe" who you want, I KNOW who is right and so do many others.

ReplyVote up (209)down (201)
Original comment

Who should I believe, you mockingly ask? Edward Snowden, a honest decent human being who showed us the truth about a corrupt, evil, unlawful spying regime, or the american government, who lied about WMD to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people to get oil, who have a jail called guantanamo bay which is worse than any gulag or concentration camp that ever existed, that have been at war with another country or itself for over 90% of it's existence, who have invaded illigally many towns and cities across the world in the fake name of peace, a country that murdered any of its presidents that didn't want to go to war and murder people......

"Believe" who you want, I KNOW who is right and so do many others.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

What in the world are you talking about? Iraq? If so, it wasn't a lie about WMDs as much as it was bad intel. The USA was not the only country to invade. The UK and other countries were there too so you cannot just blame us.

We did not attack to get their oil. If you did your research, you would realize that none of the oil coming from Iraq went to the USA until recently. It mostly went to China. Now that Iraq is able to export more oil than ever before, they are now selling it to the USA but not as much as to Europe. Note that I said selling it. We are not taking it for free. This is a booming economy for the Iraqi people so this is a good thing.

We spent a lot of money liberating Iraq from a tyrannical government where the former dictator was convicted of crimes against humanity and hanged for his crimes in a court ran by his own countrymen.

ReplyVote up (193)down (205)
Original comment

What in the world are you talking about? Iraq? If so, it wasn't a lie about WMDs as much as it was bad intel. The USA was not the only country to invade. The UK and other countries were there too so you cannot just blame us.

We did not attack to get their oil. If you did your research, you would realize that none of the oil coming from Iraq went to the USA until recently. It mostly went to China. Now that Iraq is able to export more oil than ever before, they are now selling it to the USA but not as much as to Europe. Note that I said selling it. We are not taking it for free. This is a booming economy for the Iraqi people so this is a good thing.

We spent a lot of money liberating Iraq from a tyrannical government where the former dictator was convicted of crimes against humanity and hanged for his crimes in a court ran by his own countrymen.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cengland0_is_a_twat (2434 days ago)

it's like you're the spokes person for OBAMA. "You will have a lawyer represent you just like Bradley Manning did." you sound just like Obama. What, are you a democrat now? are you a liberal now, in favor of big government? first you say you're a libetarina and now you say you want big government, there's just no consistency with you. you're a troll twat.

ReplyVote up (175)down (183)
Original comment

it's like you're the spokes person for OBAMA. "You will have a lawyer represent you just like Bradley Manning did." you sound just like Obama. What, are you a democrat now? are you a liberal now, in favor of big government? first you say you're a libetarina and now you say you want big government, there's just no consistency with you. you're a troll twat.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

If you have any sort of memory, you will note that I am for smaller government control and that I believe the role of the government is for defense. The NSA is there to defend us. I fully support them and am glad those 50+ terrorist attacks did not happen.

ReplyVote up (195)down (204)
Original comment

If you have any sort of memory, you will note that I am for smaller government control and that I believe the role of the government is for defense. The NSA is there to defend us. I fully support them and am glad those 50+ terrorist attacks did not happen.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cengland0_is_a_twat (2433 days ago)

i think those 50 terror attempts were made up by the NSA to motivate data collection. Can you prove they existed? Snowden can sure prove what he says.. i mean he has documentas and all.

ReplyVote up (196)down (182)
Original comment

i think those 50 terror attempts were made up by the NSA to motivate data collection. Can you prove they existed? Snowden can sure prove what he says.. i mean he has documentas and all.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

The general has documentation too but it's secret and that was a public forum so the details cannot be released. Also note that congressmen are elected officials, not people with top secret clearance.

In your opinion, if there is absolutely no security benefits by this data collecting, then why do you think the NSA does it? Just for fun because we have nothing better to do with our time and money?

ReplyVote up (187)down (197)
Original comment

The general has documentation too but it's secret and that was a public forum so the details cannot be released. Also note that congressmen are elected officials, not people with top secret clearance.

In your opinion, if there is absolutely no security benefits by this data collecting, then why do you think the NSA does it? Just for fun because we have nothing better to do with our time and money?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cengland0_is_a_twat (2433 days ago)

how conveniant, we have to take his word for it. Looks to me like you can't prove a thing, can you? why are they collecting data you say? well contractors need to get paid one way or another, no?

ReplyVote up (174)down (202)
Original comment

how conveniant, we have to take his word for it. Looks to me like you can't prove a thing, can you? why are they collecting data you say? well contractors need to get paid one way or another, no?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

From now on, any message that you post which calls me a name (a bad name to be judged by me) will get ignored by me. That includes the guest name you use to post these messages.

ReplyVote up (205)down (191)
Original comment

From now on, any message that you post which calls me a name (a bad name to be judged by me) will get ignored by me. That includes the guest name you use to post these messages.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

You don't need to take his word for it. He can provide the documentation to people that have the right to see it. I believe Obama was briefed on it.

"Speaking at a White House press conference, the president acknowledged that some Americans might believe that the government can read their emails or listen to their phone calls. But President Obama insisted the programs are conducted lawfully, don't violate privacy rights and are critical to national security."

LINK

ReplyVote up (188)down (210)
Original comment

You don't need to take his word for it. He can provide the documentation to people that have the right to see it. I believe Obama was briefed on it.

"Speaking at a White House press conference, the president acknowledged that some Americans might believe that the government can read their emails or listen to their phone calls. But President Obama insisted the programs are conducted lawfully, don't violate privacy rights and are critical to national security."

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cenglan0_is_a_twat (2433 days ago)
Latest comment:

LINK NSA phone surveillance program likely unconstitutional, federal judge rules. top that twat troll. you're a spokesman for Obama.

ReplyVote up (162)down (188)
Original comment
Latest comment:

LINK NSA phone surveillance program likely unconstitutional, federal judge rules. top that twat troll. you're a spokesman for Obama.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (2434 days ago)

Quite simply, Snowden is a hero to the people of the world who want freedom from tyranny. He may be an 'enemy of the state' but the state is proving itself to be an enemy of the people.

ReplyVote up (176)down (209)
Original comment

Quite simply, Snowden is a hero to the people of the world who want freedom from tyranny. He may be an 'enemy of the state' but the state is proving itself to be an enemy of the people.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (2434 days ago)

Oh and: ' The NSA also does not wire tap and listen to the physical phone calls of USA citizens without a warrant.'

Lol, of course not.

ReplyVote up (180)down (204)
Original comment

Oh and: ' The NSA also does not wire tap and listen to the physical phone calls of USA citizens without a warrant.'

Lol, of course not.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

Do you have proof that they do? We know that the courts have given them warrants so why would they do it without one? It seems to me that they are following the correct procedure.

ReplyVote up (186)down (194)
Original comment

Do you have proof that they do? We know that the courts have given them warrants so why would they do it without one? It seems to me that they are following the correct procedure.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (2433 days ago)

'Do you have proof that they do?'

Jeez, are you serious? You can't be. You've gotta be naive or a troll, I still can't figure it out.

If it's naive, well that's a shame. If troll, that's a massive shame 'cos you're wasting that brain of yours on wasteful and negative activities.

ReplyVote up (170)down (212)
Original comment

'Do you have proof that they do?'

Jeez, are you serious? You can't be. You've gotta be naive or a troll, I still can't figure it out.

If it's naive, well that's a shame. If troll, that's a massive shame 'cos you're wasting that brain of yours on wasteful and negative activities.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

So that means you don't have any proof because you didn't provide any.

There is proof against domestic eavesdropping. There have been several congressional hearings where the witnesses specifically state that it doesn't happen without a warrant.

ReplyVote up (155)down (186)
Original comment

So that means you don't have any proof because you didn't provide any.

There is proof against domestic eavesdropping. There have been several congressional hearings where the witnesses specifically state that it doesn't happen without a warrant.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cengland0_is_a_twat (2433 days ago)

reports like this one LINK ?? am i suppose to take you seriously?

ReplyVote up (155)down (177)
Original comment

reports like this one LINK ?? am i suppose to take you seriously?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (2434 days ago)

Cengland thinks: ' The constitution protects us from illegal search and seizure and a warrant makes it legal. The NSA can listen to whatever foreign calls they want without a warrant because only USA citizens are protected by our constitution .'

NSA collects data on UK citizens, passes it to the UK's GCHQ:

No 'law' broken.

GCHQ collects data on US citizens, passes it to NSA:

No 'law' broken.

'Hey british dudes, we can't get this info on one of our citizens legally, you know, Constitution and all that, blah blah. Can you get it and give it to us? Cheers buddy!'

ReplyVote up (183)down (207)
Original comment

Cengland thinks: ' The constitution protects us from illegal search and seizure and a warrant makes it legal. The NSA can listen to whatever foreign calls they want without a warrant because only USA citizens are protected by our constitution .'

NSA collects data on UK citizens, passes it to the UK's GCHQ:

No 'law' broken.

GCHQ collects data on US citizens, passes it to NSA:

No 'law' broken.

'Hey british dudes, we can't get this info on one of our citizens legally, you know, Constitution and all that, blah blah. Can you get it and give it to us? Cheers buddy!'

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cengland0_is_a_twat (2434 days ago)

he didn't even watch the video, he's just trolling on behalf of Obama because he decided to do a 180 and become a democrat now. he's just a twat troll, he doesn't think, he just trolls.

ReplyVote up (135)down (127)
Original comment

he didn't even watch the video, he's just trolling on behalf of Obama because he decided to do a 180 and become a democrat now. he's just a twat troll, he doesn't think, he just trolls.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (2433 days ago)

I agree he probably didn't watch it, none of what he says adresses what is in the video. He starts with the premise that he doesn't trust Snowden, and goes on (and on) from there.

ReplyVote up (122)down (146)
Original comment

I agree he probably didn't watch it, none of what he says adresses what is in the video. He starts with the premise that he doesn't trust Snowden, and goes on (and on) from there.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

If you think none of what I said addresses what is in the video, then perhaps you're the one that needs to rewatch the video. I even quoted things that Snowden said in the video.


If you want me to comment on specifics of the video, tell me what those are and I will give you my point of view on that portion.

ReplyVote up (133)down (127)
Original comment

If you think none of what I said addresses what is in the video, then perhaps you're the one that needs to rewatch the video. I even quoted things that Snowden said in the video.


If you want me to comment on specifics of the video, tell me what those are and I will give you my point of view on that portion.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (2433 days ago)

Nah, forget it, you're a predictable, slippery fish and I'm not gonna give you any more attention on this.

ReplyVote up (110)down (141)
Original comment

Nah, forget it, you're a predictable, slippery fish and I'm not gonna give you any more attention on this.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cengland0_is_a_twat (2433 days ago)

yeah, cengland0 is truly a troll twat

ReplyVote up (130)down (125)
Original comment

yeah, cengland0 is truly a troll twat

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

So then don't accuse me of not commenting on things in the video.

ReplyVote up (97)down (126)
Original comment

So then don't accuse me of not commenting on things in the video.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

I heard that part of the video and Snowden did not confirm that it happens. He said it's possible because the agreement we have with the 5 countries isn't legally binding. At this point, it's speculation.

ReplyVote up (177)down (182)
Original comment

I heard that part of the video and Snowden did not confirm that it happens. He said it's possible because the agreement we have with the 5 countries isn't legally binding. At this point, it's speculation.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (2433 days ago)

Guess what: BoreMe don't have an exclusive on this, it's been reported elsewhere.

You call it speculation.

One simple question CEngland, I hope you'll answer it, preferably with a yes or a no:

Do you trust your government/NSA that much ?

ReplyVote up (173)down (176)
Original comment

Guess what: BoreMe don't have an exclusive on this, it's been reported elsewhere.

You call it speculation.

One simple question CEngland, I hope you'll answer it, preferably with a yes or a no:

Do you trust your government/NSA that much ?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

Yes I do trust them. They have protected us from harm many times. I wouldn't trust your UK government especially after what they did at Londonderry from the early 70's until an official cease fire in 91. You remember that Bloody Sunday when your military fired upon unarmed citizens killing 14 in one day and injuring another 12 when they were just speaking out for civil rights? If you don't remember, then you might want to study up on your own government before trying to say ours is doing harm to our citizens by trying to protect us from terrorist.

ReplyVote up (180)down (178)
Original comment

Yes I do trust them. They have protected us from harm many times. I wouldn't trust your UK government especially after what they did at Londonderry from the early 70's until an official cease fire in 91. You remember that Bloody Sunday when your military fired upon unarmed citizens killing 14 in one day and injuring another 12 when they were just speaking out for civil rights? If you don't remember, then you might want to study up on your own government before trying to say ours is doing harm to our citizens by trying to protect us from terrorist.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2433 days ago)

who helped fund the IRA cary and what does that make them??

ReplyVote up (177)down (185)
Original comment

who helped fund the IRA cary and what does that make them??

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

If you mean the Irish Republican Army, I have no idea. Why is that important to this discussion? The Londonderry incident was in North Ireland that is controlled by the UK and they were British paratroopers that did the killing.

ReplyVote up (184)down (201)
Original comment

If you mean the Irish Republican Army, I have no idea. Why is that important to this discussion? The Londonderry incident was in North Ireland that is controlled by the UK and they were British paratroopers that did the killing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2433 days ago)

good old whiter then white usa yes bloody sunday happened as you say.but the usa never killed anybody by mistake in iraq or vietnam did they??no killing of 100% inocent people took place did it.as for who helped fund the IRA i would have thought you would have known? or just cant bring yourself to tell the facts

ReplyVote up (172)down (194)
Original comment

good old whiter then white usa yes bloody sunday happened as you say.but the usa never killed anybody by mistake in iraq or vietnam did they??no killing of 100% inocent people took place did it.as for who helped fund the IRA i would have thought you would have known? or just cant bring yourself to tell the facts

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

The question I was given is if I trust our government and I do to a point. I trust them more than I would trust the UK government and I cited an example of why. I don't know of any instances where the USA military fired upon unarmed USA citizens on USA soil for demonstrating for civil rights.

In the USA, we are allowed to own guns and our constitution clearly states it is to prevent our government from becoming tyrannical. We at least have the ability to fight back if needed but haven't had the need yet.

ReplyVote up (215)down (155)
Original comment

The question I was given is if I trust our government and I do to a point. I trust them more than I would trust the UK government and I cited an example of why. I don't know of any instances where the USA military fired upon unarmed USA citizens on USA soil for demonstrating for civil rights.

In the USA, we are allowed to own guns and our constitution clearly states it is to prevent our government from becoming tyrannical. We at least have the ability to fight back if needed but haven't had the need yet.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2433 days ago)

you will now!! try the kent state shootings LINK

ReplyVote up (175)down (208)
Original comment

you will now!! try the kent state shootings LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

Never heard of that one before but after reading parts of it, I think it's okay. Did you read about the legal action against the shooters? Let me copy and paste that section for you.

"Eight of the guardsmen were indicted by a grand jury. The guardsmen claimed to have fired in self-defense, a claim that was generally accepted by the criminal justice system. In 1974 U.S. District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed charges against all eight on the basis that the prosecution's case was too weak to warrant a trial."

That means there was no criminal activity. Even in civil court "resulted in unanimous verdicts for all defendants on all claims after an eleven-week trial." After it was appealed due to a technicality of a juror being threatened out of court, they settled the case by just paying the legal fees to the plantiffs.

ReplyVote up (178)down (208)
Original comment

Never heard of that one before but after reading parts of it, I think it's okay. Did you read about the legal action against the shooters? Let me copy and paste that section for you.

"Eight of the guardsmen were indicted by a grand jury. The guardsmen claimed to have fired in self-defense, a claim that was generally accepted by the criminal justice system. In 1974 U.S. District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed charges against all eight on the basis that the prosecution's case was too weak to warrant a trial."

That means there was no criminal activity. Even in civil court "resulted in unanimous verdicts for all defendants on all claims after an eleven-week trial." After it was appealed due to a technicality of a juror being threatened out of court, they settled the case by just paying the legal fees to the plantiffs.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2433 days ago)

lets play copy and paste

The Kent State shootings (also known as the May 4 massacre or the Kent State massacre )[2][3][4] occurred at Kent State University in the U.S. city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[5][6]

Some of the students who were shot had been protesting against the Cambodian Campaign, which President Richard Nixon announced during a television address on April 30. Other students who were shot had been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance.[7][8]

how are unarmed students a threat to the armed nat guard?? your point was that nothing like this has happened in the usa you were wrong simple as that!!

ReplyVote up (176)down (175)
Original comment

lets play copy and paste

The Kent State shootings (also known as the May 4 massacre or the Kent State massacre )[2][3][4] occurred at Kent State University in the U.S. city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[5][6]

Some of the students who were shot had been protesting against the Cambodian Campaign, which President Richard Nixon announced during a television address on April 30. Other students who were shot had been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance.[7][8]

how are unarmed students a threat to the armed nat guard?? your point was that nothing like this has happened in the usa you were wrong simple as that!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

I cannot answer your question in the last paragraph because I was not involved in the court case and I did not listen to the testamony. It seems that a jury of their peers agreed that it was self defense so they were not found criminally guilty. Who am I to second guess the decisions of a jury that spent all those weeks listening to evidence?

ReplyVote up (167)down (142)
Original comment

I cannot answer your question in the last paragraph because I was not involved in the court case and I did not listen to the testamony. It seems that a jury of their peers agreed that it was self defense so they were not found criminally guilty. Who am I to second guess the decisions of a jury that spent all those weeks listening to evidence?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2433 days ago)

not asking you to judge on the court case but to judge on the facts of what happened. is this the same as what happened in the uk on bloody sunday but on usa soil?? eg unarmed people shot dead by armed solders for protesting

ReplyVote up (165)down (169)
Original comment

not asking you to judge on the court case but to judge on the facts of what happened. is this the same as what happened in the uk on bloody sunday but on usa soil?? eg unarmed people shot dead by armed solders for protesting

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

The two events were not even in the same ballpark.

The Bloody Sunday event occurred in the early 70's and the investigation started in 1998 and took 12 years and concluded in 2010. The final report "contained findings of fault ... and potentially lead to criminal investigations for some soldiers involved in the killings. The report found that all of those shot were unarmed, and that the killings were both unjustified and unjustifiable."

The report was clear in concluding that the soldiers killed 13 people (one more later died of injuries for 14 total) and none of those people were posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. The British paratroopers lost control, fatally shooting fleeing civilians and those who tried to aid civilians were also shot.

The British soldiers concocted lies in an attempt to hide their crimes. The report states that no stones or petrol bombs were thrown by civilians before the soldiers shot them and the civilians were not posing any threat.

ReplyVote up (162)down (178)
Original comment

The two events were not even in the same ballpark.

The Bloody Sunday event occurred in the early 70's and the investigation started in 1998 and took 12 years and concluded in 2010. The final report "contained findings of fault ... and potentially lead to criminal investigations for some soldiers involved in the killings. The report found that all of those shot were unarmed, and that the killings were both unjustified and unjustifiable."

The report was clear in concluding that the soldiers killed 13 people (one more later died of injuries for 14 total) and none of those people were posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. The British paratroopers lost control, fatally shooting fleeing civilians and those who tried to aid civilians were also shot.

The British soldiers concocted lies in an attempt to hide their crimes. The report states that no stones or petrol bombs were thrown by civilians before the soldiers shot them and the civilians were not posing any threat.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2433 days ago)

so let me get this right in the u.k it is wrong for soldiers to shoot unarmed civilians who protest.but in the usa it is prefectly o.k for soldiers to shoot unarmed civilians who protest.is that what you are saying?? cos it looks like that too me

ReplyVote up (158)down (186)
Original comment

so let me get this right in the u.k it is wrong for soldiers to shoot unarmed civilians who protest.but in the usa it is prefectly o.k for soldiers to shoot unarmed civilians who protest.is that what you are saying?? cos it looks like that too me

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

No, you have misunderstood.

In the USA, it is acceptable for the military to defend themselves and that was the ruling of the court.

In the UK, they fired on citizens that were fleeing and other citizens trying to help the first ones that were shot. That is not self defense.

Do you see a major difference there? I do.

ReplyVote up (164)down (160)
Original comment

No, you have misunderstood.

In the USA, it is acceptable for the military to defend themselves and that was the ruling of the court.

In the UK, they fired on citizens that were fleeing and other citizens trying to help the first ones that were shot. That is not self defense.

Do you see a major difference there? I do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2433 days ago)

so in the u.k its not acceptable for the military to defend themselves??

in both cases unarmed protesters were shot dead by armed soldiers

what threat level do unarmed protesters have to a armed trained soldier that he needs to shoot them dead??all you are doing is pointing out the different out comes of the courts.in a vain attempt not to be proved wrong on the point that armed soldiers shot dead unarmed protesters on usa soil.why is it so hard to accept this fact the same as i accept what happened on bloody sunday.why am i not trying to twist the facts like you are.just accept the facts as they are it happened in the usa as it did in the u.k

ReplyVote up (147)down (135)
Original comment

so in the u.k its not acceptable for the military to defend themselves??

in both cases unarmed protesters were shot dead by armed soldiers

what threat level do unarmed protesters have to a armed trained soldier that he needs to shoot them dead??all you are doing is pointing out the different out comes of the courts.in a vain attempt not to be proved wrong on the point that armed soldiers shot dead unarmed protesters on usa soil.why is it so hard to accept this fact the same as i accept what happened on bloody sunday.why am i not trying to twist the facts like you are.just accept the facts as they are it happened in the usa as it did in the u.k

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

You missed the important piece that I said where the protestors in the UK were fleeing when they were shot. What defending did the military have to do when people were running away?

Regarding the USA military, the courts heard the self defense justification and the jury agreed after hearing the evidence for several weeks. Now it appears you want me to make assumptions about both events being the same because the citizens were unarmed in both situations. I cannot make those assumptions and will not try.

A person does not need to be armed in order for you to defend yourself, by the way. If a mob came running at you yelling and screaming and you told them to stop or you will shoot but they kept coming anyway, that could be justified in defending yourself with force. In the case of the UK military, the exact opposite occurred. The citizens were running away from the military.

ReplyVote up (163)down (145)
Original comment

You missed the important piece that I said where the protestors in the UK were fleeing when they were shot. What defending did the military have to do when people were running away?

Regarding the USA military, the courts heard the self defense justification and the jury agreed after hearing the evidence for several weeks. Now it appears you want me to make assumptions about both events being the same because the citizens were unarmed in both situations. I cannot make those assumptions and will not try.

A person does not need to be armed in order for you to defend yourself, by the way. If a mob came running at you yelling and screaming and you told them to stop or you will shoot but they kept coming anyway, that could be justified in defending yourself with force. In the case of the UK military, the exact opposite occurred. The citizens were running away from the military.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (2433 days ago)

Tornado, as you probably know, the CIA was behind the funding of many terrorist groups, we all know about their 'work' with Osama Bin Laden and in Central/South America.

But I was surprised to find out recently, that the CIA was complicit in funding and organising a 'stay behind' operation to fight communism after WWII, in case of an invasion in Europe and ended up funding many European groups that became terrorist groups, groups that carried out many atrocities.

Wikipedia has an interesting read if you search for 'Operation Gladio'.

The breadth of it is quite shocking. State sponsored terrorism.

Here's an interesting (and less wordy) link about it too:

LINK

ReplyVote up (168)down (173)
Original comment

Tornado, as you probably know, the CIA was behind the funding of many terrorist groups, we all know about their 'work' with Osama Bin Laden and in Central/South America.

But I was surprised to find out recently, that the CIA was complicit in funding and organising a 'stay behind' operation to fight communism after WWII, in case of an invasion in Europe and ended up funding many European groups that became terrorist groups, groups that carried out many atrocities.

Wikipedia has an interesting read if you search for 'Operation Gladio'.

The breadth of it is quite shocking. State sponsored terrorism.

Here's an interesting (and less wordy) link about it too:

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2433 days ago)

thankyou for the info but their are more scary things out there try looking up mk ultra

ReplyVote up (136)down (140)
Original comment

thankyou for the info but their are more scary things out there try looking up mk ultra

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2433 days ago)

They missed 9/11....

ReplyVote up (176)down (192)
Original comment

They missed 9/11....

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

You missed the important piece that I said where the protestors in the UK were fleeing when they were shot. What defending did the military have to do when people were running away?

Regarding the USA military, the courts heard the self defense justification and the jury agreed after hearing the evidence for several weeks. Now it appears you want me to make assumptions about both events being the same because the citizens were unarmed in both situations. I cannot make those assumptions and will not try.

A person does not need to be armed in order for you to defend yourself, by the way. If a mob came running at you yelling and screaming and you told them to stop or you will shoot but they kept coming anyway, that could be justified in defending yourself with force. In the case of the UK military, the exact opposite occurred. The citizens were running away from the military.

ReplyVote up (156)down (118)
Original comment

You missed the important piece that I said where the protestors in the UK were fleeing when they were shot. What defending did the military have to do when people were running away?

Regarding the USA military, the courts heard the self defense justification and the jury agreed after hearing the evidence for several weeks. Now it appears you want me to make assumptions about both events being the same because the citizens were unarmed in both situations. I cannot make those assumptions and will not try.

A person does not need to be armed in order for you to defend yourself, by the way. If a mob came running at you yelling and screaming and you told them to stop or you will shoot but they kept coming anyway, that could be justified in defending yourself with force. In the case of the UK military, the exact opposite occurred. The citizens were running away from the military.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2433 days ago)
ReplyVote up (115)down (116)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

Thanks for the additional link but it was clear from that (as well as the other you gave) that they were found not guilty.

ReplyVote up (111)down (88)
Original comment

Thanks for the additional link but it was clear from that (as well as the other you gave) that they were found not guilty.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2433 days ago)
ReplyVote up (110)down (113)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

Conspiracy theory. Too bad that information was not available at the time of the hearing, or maybe it was but was found to not be an accurate account of what happened. Who knows. I can only go by what evidence was given to the Jury (which I don't know) and the not guilty findings of the jury based on the presented evidence.

In the USA, we have a double jeopardy law. We cannot try people for the same crime twice. So it's not possible to try them again now that they have been set free. Not sure if you have the same laws but I hope you do. Otherwise, the government can keep trying to convict you over and over again until a jury finally convicts you. That is unfair to the citizens to put them through that.

ReplyVote up (129)down (138)
Original comment

Conspiracy theory. Too bad that information was not available at the time of the hearing, or maybe it was but was found to not be an accurate account of what happened. Who knows. I can only go by what evidence was given to the Jury (which I don't know) and the not guilty findings of the jury based on the presented evidence.

In the USA, we have a double jeopardy law. We cannot try people for the same crime twice. So it's not possible to try them again now that they have been set free. Not sure if you have the same laws but I hope you do. Otherwise, the government can keep trying to convict you over and over again until a jury finally convicts you. That is unfair to the citizens to put them through that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

Sorry this post is out of place. I replied correctly but it appeared here. I reposted it again and now it appears in the correct spot below.

ReplyVote up (108)down (118)
Original comment

Sorry this post is out of place. I replied correctly but it appeared here. I reposted it again and now it appears in the correct spot below.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (2433 days ago)

read the link so were the usa protesters walking away the soldiers followed them.

more to the point people think you are a troll i dont but i must ask are you one of the 4% LINK because you hit most of the points made in the post to me

ReplyVote up (117)down (135)
Original comment

read the link so were the usa protesters walking away the soldiers followed them.

more to the point people think you are a troll i dont but i must ask are you one of the 4% LINK because you hit most of the points made in the post to me

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2433 days ago)

Am I one of the 4% of what? I've heard of the 1% and that's about the richest people in the world but never heard of the 4%. Is that 4% of people in Florida that own a certain gun?

ReplyVote up (110)down (113)
Original comment

Am I one of the 4% of what? I've heard of the 1% and that's about the richest people in the world but never heard of the 4%. Is that 4% of people in Florida that own a certain gun?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cengland0_is_a_twat (2433 days ago)

cengland0 is a twat troll. everybody knows that allready.

ReplyVote up (129)down (152)
Original comment

cengland0 is a twat troll. everybody knows that allready.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Edward Snowden, hero or traitor?
Edward Snowden, hero or traitor?
Ron Paul on Edward Snowden: I don't think for a minute he's a traitor
Ron Paul on Edward Snowden: I don't think for a minute he's a traitor
Noam Chomsky: Snowden should be honoured
Noam Chomsky: Snowden should be honoured
What the US Constitution says about treason
What the US Constitution says about treason
Edward Snowden: I know how to keep a secret
Edward Snowden: I know how to keep a secret