No they do not.

Since most of the deniers seem to get their arguments from quality sites like youtube they probably thought it was a good place to post a video with some real research.
The mistake they make is thinking the deniers are interested in science at all....

RTFA, the reporting is fine, you are doing a lousy job at reading.

It was unmanned... that is why there are no injuries.
The damage was such that if a pilot had been in there he would have been able to walk away.

We can't stop you from killing......
We simply don't want to have any part in it.

It all comes down to definitions... I regard myself as both as I regard them two answers on two different (but related) questions.

When someone asks me wether god (pick your favorit) exists I answer 'I don't know' since I have no proof either way. This is the agnostic part.
When someone asks me wether I believe in god (pick any flavour), I answer 'No' since I don't see any reason to blindly put my faith in any of the various religions. This is the atheist part.

Space flight is incredibly inefficient.
You lift a tin can above the atmosphere only to drop it back in a little later. All the energy you used to lift it will be lost.
It also doesn't scale very well.

Gitmo is used for a new category of people made up because it was convenient.
This isn't even close to the military prisons you refer to.

Gandhi had been arrested before, and this had proven to work out for his cause. He made a judgemend call that being arrested would work out again.
In Snowden's case the opposite might verry well be true, and he obviously made a different choice.

However the main point still stands: both broke a law (both viewing it as justified). They also both publicly admitted what they did and why.

I was not expecting anything else....
But the mere fact that the US is affirming its own stereotype does not make it right.

No you and parent still don't get it.
And your selective quoting is a big hint.
I never said that Russia looks better as a whole. (Re-read those first five words again, better yet do it a few tims).
As for the sentence you qouted: it also contained the words 'IN THIS CASE' which you conveniently left out.

To make it a little bit easier for those who still don't get it:
-Russia bad
-Russia looking better than US in regard to Snowden.

In 1930 India was still under Britsh rule and it was forbidden to produce your own salt. This was the law.
Some indian guy thought this law was morally and ethically wrong and marched to the sea and produced his own salt.

Back then types like you when all nuts with 'He broke the law!'.
Today very few would argue that what Ghandi did was wrong.

Is the case against Snowden exactly the same? No, if only because the most brilliant part of Ghandi's actions were its shear simplicity.
But it does show that breaking the Law, no matter who wrote it, is not by definition the wrong thing to do.

And that is why this great justice system of yours has worked out great for those in Guantanamo Bay?

As for him bein a traitor in your opinion: history books will judge different about him.

The first sentence of my post only contained five words....
Please wake up yourself and READ them.

I don't know if Snowden likes those countries anymore than you, however if you want to get away from the US government it isn't a bad move to go to those coutnries least likely to turn you over....

As for Latin America.... compared to the US just about any country could be called 'leftist'. For me (as I am not an American) that doesn't necesseraly mean a bad thing.
Especially since most of those 'leftist' regimes have been democraticly chosen and have replaced US backed rightwing dictators.

No, it definitly is not.
And that is why it is so sad to see that the nation that just can't stop telling how free and great they are comes of looking worse than the Russians.
The Russians might just do it to simply piss off the US, but a trully free and just country should not have any problems winning this PR battle.