Slashdot Mirror

Get the fuck outta here with that ignorant assed American Exceptionalism.

Get real, Iran has a history of openly supporting terrorism that goes back for decades.

Oh, you mean Hezbollah, who are terrorists because they dare to oppose the terrorist state of Israel. The problem for you dumb ass is America's funding and support of organizations like MEK in Iran, who also happen to be on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Or they were, until enough reporters started making a stink over high level politicians like Howard Dean and Rudy Giuliani getting money to lobby for them.

Look, Slick, Iran hasn't attacked another country for 200 years, compared to hundreds of aggressive military operations of choice for both the U.S. and Israel. You want to complain about Iran's government being controlled by mullahs? Start with the nearest mirror, since their secular democratic government was overthrown by the U.S. and Britain. After supporting the torture-loving Shah for decades, the U.S. also supported Iraq when it declared war on Iran, including giving Saddam intelligence that allowed him to gas the Iranians.

And of course there's Stuxnet, where the U.S. has already declared an act of war if done to us. Your ignorant American Excpetionalism BS doesn't fly in the age of information, where ignorance is a choice.

The term you are looking for is plutocracy. And the rich are already using technology to kills everyone else or at least will make life everywhere even more miserable, just after they die, climate change and its consequences, non renewable resource exhaustion like oil (not just is useful for burning it, and will be out for everyone, forever, in few decades/centuries), global social distress, and probably biological weapons that will be used this decade or next one, to name a few. A lot of trends are all of them ticking bombs, and a lot of the 1% are just abusing everything to make sure the world ends after them.

By far the main priority for the ones that causes the problem is to keep getting money, that is the ultimate good in US, not people, and they have enough resources to put their mansions elsewhere if a big city floods tomorrow anyway. And as they make the laws, nothing will change (unless the "change" makes even more profit for them, like building pharaonic dams that won't solve the problem, but will give them even more money)

So is pretty convenient that US is not a democracy.

First they came for the Tea Party

Except, really, they didn't. They "came for" -- i.e., put on their "be on the lookout" list -- several different classes of non-profits, including "Open Source", "Occupy", "Free Palestine", and "Tea Party" groups, all at the same time. No "first they came for" about it.

But since Tea Party groups were essentially created by Fox "News", you heard a hell of a lot about that. Not so much about Palestinian rights groups having the exact same problem.

If enough people misuse a word long enough, that becomes the new meaning.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_literally_now_also_means_figuratively_newscred/singleton/

http://www.salon.com/2010/11/15/unbroken/

Not just your country, UK, NZ, Sweden and others are either in bed with US or in their pocket. Is not enough that US is in fact a plutocracy, a lot of other countries that claim to be democracies aren't either, or are following orders of the same plutocrats (either by being bribed, extorted, scared, or being just retards). US is just out of hope, everything was given to the real rulers in a silver plate for decades, but would think that in some of those countries population opinion mean something.

you'd have found plenty of cases of me defending Snowden and his choice to leave the country, as well as contrasting Snowden's actions with the actions undertaken by Manning, not to mention providing the specific criteria by which I say that he acted unethically, rather than just pulling random reasons out of my ass to fit the occasion.

That's the definition of concern trolling: you claim to support someone's cause in general, but they did it in the wrong waaaaay. It's the same tactic whether it's used to dismiss gay rights protestors chaining themselves to the White House fence or dismissing Bradley Manning. And like I said, if you didn't find this excuse that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, you'd find another.

First, this wouldn't have happened in the first place if we weren't warmongering jackasses who invade and bomb countries based on lies and selective standards.

You're arguing that one wrong turn deserves another. That's hardly the morale high ground to be starting your attack on my comment from.

Psst....claiming that revealing war crimes is a "wrong" just like the war crimes themselves isn't going to help your protestations that you aren't a right wing authoritarian. And again, this "leaking indiscriminately" storyline holds no water when he gave the documents to a responsible media organization that asked the USG for help in redacting the documents before publication multiple times but were ignored.

Third, he tried taking his evidence to "responsible" outfits like the NYTimes and the WaPo, and was ignored.

I'm not sure what evidence you're talking about, nor am I aware of any attempt by him to contact those outlets for any reason. I'd love a link to some additional information.

I thought you were an authority on this? Bradley Manning Tried Going To NY Times, Washington Post, Politico Before Turning To WikiLeaks

Fourth, "following proper channels" isn't meant to protect whistleblowers, but to cover up crimes.

I don't know why you decided to add scare quotes

Oh, maybe since they tend to get shut down and prosecuted. John Kiriakou: "Everyone is corrupt, I've come to learn"

In 2009, Kiriakou took the position of senior investigator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under John Kerry. His job was to investigate waste, fraud, abuse and illegality and he turned his attention to the 2001 Dasht-i-Leili massacre, in which an American-backed warlord had been responsible for the deaths of hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of Taliban soldiers when he ordered them to be crammed into metal containers and then loaded onto trucks bound for a prison in Shibarghan, Afghanistan.

A source had told Kiriakou that Americans wearing T-shirts and blue jeans oversaw the box-up of the prisoners.

"I wanted to know,â Kiriakou said, "were these guys CIA officers? If they weren't, who were they? Were they Defense Department? Were they contractors? Who were these guys? And why didnâ(TM)t they stop this from happening? ...

Six weeks later, Kiriakou got a phone call from John Kerry asking if he was investigating the CIA.

"I said, 'Yes, I am.' [He said,] 'I want you to stop right now.' I said 'but we've got a story here. This is a serious situation.' 'I want you to stop right now,'" Kerry repeated. "So I stopped."

Former CIA Officer & Whistleblower

you'd have found plenty of cases of me defending Snowden and his choice to leave the country, as well as contrasting Snowden's actions with the actions undertaken by Manning, not to mention providing the specific criteria by which I say that he acted unethically, rather than just pulling random reasons out of my ass to fit the occasion.

That's the definition of concern trolling: you claim to support someone's cause in general, but they did it in the wrong waaaaay. It's the same tactic whether it's used to dismiss gay rights protestors chaining themselves to the White House fence or dismissing Bradley Manning. And like I said, if you didn't find this excuse that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, you'd find another.

First, this wouldn't have happened in the first place if we weren't warmongering jackasses who invade and bomb countries based on lies and selective standards.

You're arguing that one wrong turn deserves another. That's hardly the morale high ground to be starting your attack on my comment from.

Psst....claiming that revealing war crimes is a "wrong" just like the war crimes themselves isn't going to help your protestations that you aren't a right wing authoritarian. And again, this "leaking indiscriminately" storyline holds no water when he gave the documents to a responsible media organization that asked the USG for help in redacting the documents before publication multiple times but were ignored.

Third, he tried taking his evidence to "responsible" outfits like the NYTimes and the WaPo, and was ignored.

I'm not sure what evidence you're talking about, nor am I aware of any attempt by him to contact those outlets for any reason. I'd love a link to some additional information.

I thought you were an authority on this? Bradley Manning Tried Going To NY Times, Washington Post, Politico Before Turning To WikiLeaks

Fourth, "following proper channels" isn't meant to protect whistleblowers, but to cover up crimes.

I don't know why you decided to add scare quotes

Oh, maybe since they tend to get shut down and prosecuted. John Kiriakou: "Everyone is corrupt, I've come to learn"

In 2009, Kiriakou took the position of senior investigator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under John Kerry. His job was to investigate waste, fraud, abuse and illegality and he turned his attention to the 2001 Dasht-i-Leili massacre, in which an American-backed warlord had been responsible for the deaths of hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of Taliban soldiers when he ordered them to be crammed into metal containers and then loaded onto trucks bound for a prison in Shibarghan, Afghanistan.

A source had told Kiriakou that Americans wearing T-shirts and blue jeans oversaw the box-up of the prisoners.

"I wanted to know,â Kiriakou said, "were these guys CIA officers? If they weren't, who were they? Were they Defense Department? Were they contractors? Who were these guys? And why didnâ(TM)t they stop this from happening? ...

Six weeks later, Kiriakou got a phone call from John Kerry asking if he was investigating the CIA.

"I said, 'Yes, I am.' [He said,] 'I want you to stop right now.' I said 'but we've got a story here. This is a serious situation.' 'I want you to stop right now,'" Kerry repeated. "So I stopped."

Former CIA Officer & Whistleblower

Read this speech by Chomsky, it is very informative and depressing.

America is not a democracy, if looks, smells and tastes like a plutocracy, then no matter the handwritten label you stamp over it, is not. That you (and hopely, most) are becoming aware of it is an improvement, in any case.

Laura Poitras for several years has been subject to extraordinary harassment, intimidation and searches when travelling. http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/

This is becoming more like a suspect that kills in the open all witnesses because what could be discovered is far worse that the evident killing a bunch of people. And UK/US are playing that role, happy to breaking all international treaties, demanding other governments extraditions while they are refusing to extradite to those same governments people that did worse crimes, spying on 1st world countries governments to "protect from terrorism", and more evident lies to cover what they fear that could be released.

US is not a democracy, nor is interested in peace. And have several (most?) European countries in their pocket on this.

As far as militarization of police goes, it's been happening since the crime wave of the 80s. Left and right, the trend has steadily been towards a more violent and disconnected policing. Read

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/militarized_police_overreach_oh_god_i_thought_they_were_going_to_shoot_me_next%E2%80%9D/

for more.

I'd only add that authoritarianism doesn't have to be centralized; it can be a normalized mode of behavior for civilians and police. In other words if it becomes normal to be meek towards cops and to be threatened with serious harm over small crimes, then we live in an authoritarian state, regardless of who is in power at the national level.

http://www.salon.com/2010/10/17/wikileaks_7/
“did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods”
"“there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.”"
Other than that you have a country with a number of local people trying to translate for or help foreign troops.

GWB's father lost his 2nd term due to Ross Perot taking almost 20% of the vote, which arguably would have gone to GHWB & led to his reelection.

Myth. Perot earned votes from both Republican and Democratic voters. But the bottom line is that Clinton had already pulled ahead of Bush before Perot re-entered the race.

"I'm sorry I hurt people. I'm sorry that I hurt the United States," said Manning

Is this sonofabitch calling the Pentagon a liar? How dare he! The Pentagon investigated and clearly reported that the Wikileaks leak did not pose a threat.

DoD Says Wikileaks Not a Threat

The Pentagon is telling NBCâ(TM)s Michael Isikoff that a special assessment team looking over the WikiLeaks Afghanistan war logs has found nothing that could damage national security.

Ignored by who? till when? There are up to 5 millon people with access to that data, a lot of them belonging to for-profit companies, any of them can use that information for whatever they want. Blackmailing, stealing intellectual property (even before gets published/patented/whatever), using it out of context to put you in jail, or just sharing your hot conversation for fun, or as tools for political prosecutions are just a few of the possible consequences.

Remember that what you say today could stay forever in the net, and that happens too with private and apparently anonymous communications in the NSA world. They could use what they intercept today as evidence for the new defined crimes of tomorrow (and as they are weaponizing internet, all you did there could be end being a crime, including posting something as anonymous that could be seen as offensive in 10 years)

The IRS suppressed the speech of political groups and disseminated private information about them to other groups apposed to their views

"Suppressed the speech"?? How? But there was what seems to be a clear violation of policy in some of the info that was released to ProPublica.

Finally, this isn't about wanting taxes or not. Besides, the IRS is NOT A POLITICAL organization and should not in any way be singling anyone out because of political ideology or political speech

The IRS is an INVESTIGATIVE org and since there was influx of groups on both sides applying for tax-exempt status thanks to the idiotic Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, extra scrutiny is warranted based on a group activities since there are restrictions on the POLITICAL activity for groups granted tax-exempt status.

To reiterate, if a group seeking to be tax-exempt is going to be POLITICAL, then it behooves the IRS to be INVESTIGATIVE.

Imagine what happens when someone opposite your screwed up ideology gets power and the IRS starts coming after you.

That IS a grave concern and serious allegations SHOULD be investigated - but Issa and co appear to have started on the assumption that Obama has the Cincinnati office on speed dial and their "investigation" quickly became a witch hunt and is going up in flames.

twits like you

Et tu, sumdumass?

Further reading:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/19/1210132/-The-Only-Scandal-Regarding-the-IRS-is-How-EVERY-Tea-Party-Group-Obtained-501-C-4-Status
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

Actually, he's doing a false generalization from one of the Republican President Candidate wannabes (Rick Santorum) to the rest of the republicans. Rick did, in fact, campaign on the idea that sex should be limited to only procreative purposes even inside marriage. To help enforce his puritanical ideas on everyone else, he wants to make all contraception illegal. In fact he supports allowing the government to rifle through the bedrooms of the people to make sure that they are only have sex for the reasons he believes are moral according to his interpretation of his religion*.

So a more accurate statement would be "Most of those EVIL PEOPLE who disagree with your political opinions do not oppose sex between married partners."

* There are, of course, rumours that Rick is a closeted homesexual who is actually incapable of taking pleasure in sex with his wife, which might explains his antipathy to having sex more often than strictly required to create children.

As much as deserve prison everyone that works for NSA and every associated company. Ok, but they are working for the US government. So, would you complain if any of them get a century in prison in any other country of Earth? What if Russia extradite Snowden in exchange of US extraditing anyone spying on russia citizens? That should make things fair, but i don't know how much time would take to send to Russia so much people.

And remember what Manning disclosed, basically your country, at your name, doing nice things slaughtering innocents just for fun. If you feel heat in your high ground is because how close is to the earths core.

Except with crowdsourcing the backers aren't investors, but donators. They don't get any equity in the company. It would have been in fact illegal to do so. This might change in the near future.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/equity_crowdfunding_waits_on_the_sec/

The problem with that law is it is meant for people, it depend on people to be honest, not wanting extra money, not being able to be blackmailed or social engineered, not falling into common human bias like the ones shown in the Stanford prison experiment. You maybe could manage to find a few people that could cope with that. But if you have up to up to 5 millon people to access that information (including 500k with top secret access that work at for profit contractors), then you are doing the equivalent of giving guns to all prison inmates and setting them free in all the big cities. You know that people will get killed, abused, robbed and so on with that action. So in the actual context, that law is legalized robbery with impunity.

really question all this stuff. Not the numbers, but the purpose. Are the guys initiating and using this do it instead of doodling on paper?

Seems that just because the technology is available it is used and expanded without questioning the purpose and effect.

On top of it most happens under a veil of secrecy and when disclosed/caught it's defended and even more covered up or the whistle blowers are criminalized.

I can maybe understand that some software package like Prism is developed and the wow effect of all what can be seen with it may be there. Is it useful and adequate or does it lead to more suspects by association and then events like that:
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/militarized_police_overreach_oh_god_i_thought_they_were_going_to_shoot_me_next%E2%80%9D/

Implying Obama hasn't taken care of business?

He's been getting so much done, he's had time to comment on a trial in Florida! Forget about the IRS, Syria, Benghazi, Fast and Furious (fuck everyone involved in this), NSA unconstitutional domestic spying, keeping tax cuts, patriot act garbage. There is a long list of issues that really need to be addressed in this country, and we're too busy squabbling about little shit.

He averted an econopocalypse. There were not runs on the banks. FDIC didn't come into play. The stock market bounced back, if not the job market.

The whole thing began because of pressure from the government on the banks. In addition, 290,000 fewer people were counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work. That drop in those seeking jobs was the reason the unemployment rate fell to 7.6%, the lowest since December 2008. Second Largest Employer In America Is Temp Agency. And the stock market? Is not a bastion for the American middleclass.

He ramped down our military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. In such a way that was a non-newsworthy event. This is a SLAM DUNK.

Not according to the facts. All because of this due to the military industrial complex not to mention the deaths of thousands, for what, freedom?

But all in all he's got shit done. Despite the massive resistance he's facing from the Republicans.

Fuck all the partisan posturing. What's the narrative when he had a democrat majority in the senate and House? Why don't we take an objective look at what both of the hands are doing to for the body they're attached to?

All the nice sentences just to talk around full compliance with CALEA?
Its not like it was just some fax with a time, ip and port number from some city police department.. with an amazing letterhead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/edward-snowden-claims-microsoft-collaborated-with-nsa-and-fbi-to-allow-access-to-user-data-8705755.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/11/snowden_docs_detail_collaboration_between_nsa_and_microsoft/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/nsa-taps-skype-chats-newly-published-snowden-leaks-confirm/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
US Adult Computer and Adult Internet Users
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1158.pdf
The tiny % number wrt to big US computer use number and US MS marketshare seem to add up :)
Interesting http://cryptome.org/2013-info/06/whistleblowing/whistleblowing.htm lists gov works, bankers, military, a call-centre-employee, health insurance PR, a few former NSA, CIA, FBI employees, people in sports and education, press, lawyers...
In this broad mix, how/why did so many within the US computer/CS/networking elite stay so silent? Did they feel it was just a domestic link to the FBI in continuous use?
Was the psychological profiling and testing of contractors near perfect Cash was great?
So few staff over so many product ranges over many years?

In dismissing the case, the court agreed with the precedent set in two other cases, which basically said that Americans donâ(TM)t even have the right to sue their government over its surveillance program, unless they can prove that their communications were intercepted. Of course, thatâ(TM)s essentially impossible since the program is classified and you canâ(TM)t use classified documents in court, even if you somehow got your hands on them.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/10/why_you_cant_sue_the_government_for_spying_on_you/

I would say that those "paranoid fears" have most certainly come to fruition.

Bullshit. Obama is Center-Right by American standards...just not by the standards of our media echo-chamber, which is far further to the right than the general public.

This isn't just personal observation either (well, the media echo-chamber being the cause is)...studies show the American public is further left than people think it is. One example: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/05/politicians_think_americans_are_super_conservative/

One of the most horrific things that the Bush Administration did post 9/11 was declare that, in effect, you cease to be an American Citizen once you leave the confines of the USA.

If you would, please expand on that. I don't think that is correct, at least not at face value.

If I had nothing better to do with my time, I'd dig out exact details. Most of the readily-available discussion of this is found on left-leaning websites, and I don't like using biased sources. However, recent attempts to expand that declaration by the Obama administration make references to the original declaration which can be pursued by anyone who's interested.

Here are 2 of the more objective items I dredged up.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42337.pdf

Salon, of course, is more sensationalist, but here's their take on it: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

But whether or not literally American law extends beyond the borders of the USA, there is no doubt that effectively it does so. You can see that in the influence that the USA has had on shaping foreign copyright laws, as a prime example.

Countries negotiate all sorts of treaties, defense, trade, human rights. I don't think there is much special about that.

In the case of making the world's copyright laws an extension of the constitution of the Kingdom of Disney, a lot of people have noted that Don Corleone could learn a thing or two about negotiation from the USA.

Then, of course, there's the matter that apparently a mere hint from certain quarters was capable of major interference with the free international travel of an elected head of state.

Let the blackmailing games begin. Snooping all the information means that any people with access to that (and that means at least 5 millon) can use them for blackmailing anyone, foreigners and americans, from the lowest employee to Obama (as point the video). Give them enough power, and they will have power over you. Any chain is weak as if even the strong links can be blackmailed.

... is always people. Even if is just by stupidity (like going to one of those meetings with a cellphone), but could be plain malice, double agents or blackmailed "safe" people (and with all the data of the world you have plenty of material to blackmail anyone).

And thats the most worrying thing about NSA and associates snooping, you are getting 5 millon extra vulnerabilities in everything that surrounds all your data.

But in this one you know that the NSA (and associates, around 5 millon people) all have direct access to everything put there. Should be ok if what i put there is public anyway, but for companies and private stuff this should be considered malware (trojan, ransomware, spyware, etc, pick your labels for it).

You should read more of his other writings.
The man is a bigot, and I see no need to do anything with/for him besides tolerating him to the barest degree.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/sci_fi_icon_orson_scott_card_hates_fan_fiction_the_homosexual_agenda_partner/

Seems consistent with this story. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. The only thing that you are wrong is assuming accounting for what government "invest" in cyberwar.

Considering that you have between 500.000 and 5 millons "Snowden-style" external people with probably full access to all your organization data (that will do anything they want because they surely respect you), everyone have a far bigger problem than internal employees.

And retiring trust in them would not make them more loyal. Maybe the US can push the strategy of creating enemies to grab power because they will exist after that, but for me is an approach unsustainable in the long term and with very high cost. The right measures are not technical, is not that you will be fast enough to dodge bullets, but that you wouldn't have to.

"Breaking down" implies that they were, at some point int he past, stronger. This would tend to disagree with the recent leaked document detailing a comment by Henry Kissinger: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/wikileaks_dumps_1_7_million_kissinger_cables/

Macomber: That is illegal.
Kissinger: Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I'm afraid to say things like that.

Was this comment the only evidence that the past was anything but the story of the rule of law being strong and the government restrained in its activities, then I might brush it off, but I see little evidence that this has been anything but the standard MO throughout history.

Law is for the public, and things done in public. Law exists to be applied to the little people, as it is convinenet or profitable to do so.

What has changed is the little people, or at least the ones who care too, are able to see so much more than ever before. Over time, the ability of individuals to store and share information globally has reached a point that secrets are much much harder to keep, and so....when secrets get out we now get to view things that we never got to see before.

As we have seen with the legitimization of indefinite detention and dogged persual of whistle blowers is simply the result of a desire to not change but, to turn back time to a situation where the powerful could act with impunity and public opinion be damned and maliciously manipulated to the ends of those in power.

There is a difference between speculating and knowing. Maybe takes time to dig thru gigabytes of information, or decided to release it not all at once to let people assimilate all of it. But is highly possible that had first hand access to that information.

Also, "for a field that is compartmentalized".... maybe really a lot (half a millon? 5 millon? at that range don't matter anymore) of people had access to all that information, or at least all your information, that surely used it in a totally responsible way. Don't fall into the survivorship bias, don't focus in the visible Snowden, but in all the others that had the same access and could had used all that information in other ways.

Might also want to point this article out when they says they have nothing to hide and don't care:

http://www.salon.com/writer/radley_balko/ then click on the link to his article: âoeWhy did you shoot me? I was reading a bookâ: The new warrior cop is out of control
(for some reason, salon put a " in the URL which makes linking to the article directly really hard).

Sending in the SWAT team to break up home poker games for example.

More ominous, using the SWAT team to conduct warrantless searches of businesses and every customer on the property as part of "administrative searches" related to the business license. You literally can be totally innocent and get shot to death just by being in a business somebody in government has hard-on for.

People need to know that the 4th Amendment matters, and even the innocent can die from its abuse.

Having 500k to 5m people that can access all information stored in your servers you feel safe? You may trust one or 2 people you know, but that amount of apples should have more than a few bad apples, and knowing how the environment rots the apple, that number could be pretty high. And that access could be used to do ip theft (REAL ip theft, as in copyrighting, patenting, trademarking or whatever thing you discussed in private and that you wont be able to use anymore), blackmailing (from up top to lower bottom level, hey, why not make your bosses fire you and put my nephew with your salary there?), take something out of context to put someone not deserving in jail, or using your company as bridge to reach a goal elsewhere (damaging its image, doing damage elsewhere, whatever).

Besides that, if i asked to keep something safe, and I can't (because no matter how hard i push security, most software and hardware used is surely backdoored), im not doing well my job.

This snooping is worldwide, including foreing countries. And they have no regards on invading foreing countries over stupid excuses, managing their population thru social networks to promote riots and revolutions to push their own rulers, sabotaging in general, even use that information to blackmail your government into pushing laws that puts your entire country under their boot. Being in US is pretty bad (heck, you can be shoot for betting), but your risks outside are not isolated events, but massive ones.

But you may not deserve what your country could get from US. In the other hand, americans think that they voted they government, and by that poll, even approves what they are doing, I suppose that if any population deserves what is about to come, is US people. The rest of the world are just collateral damage.

There is your mistake - giving credence to Chomsky.

The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky - September 26, 2001

WITHOUT QUESTION, the most devious, the most dishonest and -- in this hour of his nation’s grave crisis – the most treacherous intellect in America belongs to MIT professor Noam Chomsky. On the 150 campuses that have mounted "teach-ins" and rallies against America’s right to defend herself; on the streets of Genoa and Seattle where "anti-globalist" anarchists have attacked the symbols of markets and world trade; among the demonstrators at Vieques who wish to deny our military its training grounds; and wherever young people manifest an otherwise incomprehensible rage against their country, the inspirer of their loathing and the instructor of their hate is most likely this man.

There are many who ask how it is possible that our most privileged and educated youth should come to despise their own nation – a free, open, democratic society – and to do so with such ferocious passion. They ask how it is possible for American youth to even consider lending comfort and aid to the Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins (and the Communists before them). A full answer would involve a search of the deep structures of the human psyche, and its irrepressible longings for a redemptive illusion. But the short answer is to be found in the speeches and writings of an embittered academic and his intellectual supporters.

For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one message alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the world. In Chomsky’s demented universe, America is responsible not only for its own bad deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude he is the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not for the victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe that befell them. -- more

Refuting Chomsky

In Chomsky’s telling, the bipolar world of the Cold War is viewed as though there were only one pole. In the real world, the Cold War was about America’s effort to organize a democratic coalition against an expansionist empire that conquered and enslaved more than a billion people. It ended when the empire gave up and the walls that kept its subjects locked in came tumbling down. In Chomsky’s world, the Soviet empire hardly exists, not a single American action is seen as a response to a Soviet initiative, and the Cold War is “analyzed” as though it had only one side.

This is like writing a history of the Second World War without mentioning Hitler or noticing that the actions of the Axis powers influenced its events. But in Chomsky’s malevolent hands, matters get even worse. If one were to follow the Chomsky method, for example, one would list every problematic act committed by any part or element in the vast coalition attempting to stop Hitler, and would attribute them all to a calculating policy of the United States. One would then provide a report card of these “crimes” as the historical record itself. The list of crimes — the worst acts of which the Allies could be accused and the most dishonorable motives they may be said to have acted upon — would then become the database from which America’s portrait would be drawn. The result inevitably would be the Great Satan of Chomsky’s deranged fantasy life. ...more

The Soviet Story (2008)

There is your mistake - giving credence to Chomsky.

The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky - September 26, 2001

WITHOUT QUESTION, the most devious, the most dishonest and -- in this hour of his nation’s grave crisis – the most treacherous intellect in America belongs to MIT professor Noam Chomsky. On the 150 campuses that have mounted "teach-ins" and rallies against America’s right to defend herself; on the streets of Genoa and Seattle where "anti-globalist" anarchists have attacked the symbols of markets and world trade; among the demonstrators at Vieques who wish to deny our military its training grounds; and wherever young people manifest an otherwise incomprehensible rage against their country, the inspirer of their loathing and the instructor of their hate is most likely this man.

There are many who ask how it is possible that our most privileged and educated youth should come to despise their own nation – a free, open, democratic society – and to do so with such ferocious passion. They ask how it is possible for American youth to even consider lending comfort and aid to the Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins (and the Communists before them). A full answer would involve a search of the deep structures of the human psyche, and its irrepressible longings for a redemptive illusion. But the short answer is to be found in the speeches and writings of an embittered academic and his intellectual supporters.

For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one message alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the world. In Chomsky’s demented universe, America is responsible not only for its own bad deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude he is the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not for the victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe that befell them. -- more

Refuting Chomsky

In Chomsky’s telling, the bipolar world of the Cold War is viewed as though there were only one pole. In the real world, the Cold War was about America’s effort to organize a democratic coalition against an expansionist empire that conquered and enslaved more than a billion people. It ended when the empire gave up and the walls that kept its subjects locked in came tumbling down. In Chomsky’s world, the Soviet empire hardly exists, not a single American action is seen as a response to a Soviet initiative, and the Cold War is “analyzed” as though it had only one side.

This is like writing a history of the Second World War without mentioning Hitler or noticing that the actions of the Axis powers influenced its events. But in Chomsky’s malevolent hands, matters get even worse. If one were to follow the Chomsky method, for example, one would list every problematic act committed by any part or element in the vast coalition attempting to stop Hitler, and would attribute them all to a calculating policy of the United States. One would then provide a report card of these “crimes” as the historical record itself. The list of crimes — the worst acts of which the Allies could be accused and the most dishonorable motives they may be said to have acted upon — would then become the database from which America’s portrait would be drawn. The result inevitably would be the Great Satan of Chomsky’s deranged fantasy life. ...more

The Soviet Story (2008)

Is not about countries, is about governments, specially the ones that claim that are elected by the people. The key there is trust.

I administer servers (in particular, mail and proxy ones, to talk about the easiest ones where you can harm privacy) from almost 20 years. In all that time i had access to all the mails of all the people on those servers. When i was hired for that job, i've been trusted with that access, and was up to me to deserve or not that trust, regardless if anyone ever discover that i peeked or not.

Now, will you put your future and the one of your entire family/friends/country in the hands of someone that you can't trust, specially because you already know that is deceiving you? Is not about if is ok or not, we are past that, is about if you can do something about it or not. The situation is just not stable in the long term.

There is also an small addendum regarding trust. We are not talking about a single person here. Snowden could be a case of survivorship bias, you see him, the one that went public and disclosed all of this, knowing that was recently hired and had all that access already. What about the ones that you don't see, that didn't went public, didn't disclosed any of this, and have similar access? We are talking about 500 thousands to 5 millons individuals. You are trusting all your information and all potential misuse of it to all of them too.

Well it was really only ever truly free for people who were not of African descent. If your ancestors were from Africa (in the recent past) then the US had no freedom at all.

That is false. Maybe you heard that the US used to be split into states with slavery and states without slavery? It led to a big deal called the Civil War? And slaves could certainly be freed, even in slave states. And there were white slaves as well.

Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery

Suggesting it will be met with screeches of "RACISM!"

Jihad Jane aka Colleen Renee LaRose

Gilles Le Guen

Joseph Jefferey Brice

And then, of course, there is the fact that white supremacists have committed 10x more acts of terror on US soil than anyone else in the last decade.

So, exactly what race are we going be "profiling" again?

it was largely an accident. Following WWII large parts of the world were destroyed and in need of rebuilding. Also, Eisenhower recognized that without a large scale gov't effort we'd slip back into the policies of wealth inequality that lead to so much unnecessary suffering, so he kicked off the Military Industrial complex (or as I like to call it, Weaponized Keynesianism). Finally the cold war scared companies and prevented the global race to the bottom that Karl Marx predicted (but all you can remember about him is that Mao/Stalin used his books for their dictatorships).

The cheap imports won't last. Already the price of almonds is skyrocketing because they're being exported. You will compete and lose on the global marketplace.

Also, what in God's good name makes you think most Americans own stock? Half of them are below the freakin' poverty line, which we haven't changed since the 50s'.

you don't need enemies. Anyway, some of them could had been aware, at least the NSA had a data collection agreement with several european countries. But i suppose that the information they gave didn't included the part where they were a target too, and how much truth were in the provided information, the best lies are half truths.

Heh...showing that many here are only interested in cheap shots and not actual discussion, you've missed the mark a bit.

As it turns out the Flat Earth Society has actually fallenfor the Creationism-level AGW theory:

"As it turns out, there is a real Flat Earth Society and its president thinks that anthropogenic climate change is real. In an email to Salon, president Daniel Shenton said that while he “can’t speak for the Society as a whole regarding climate change,” he personally thinks the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming."

(more at http://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/flat_earth_society_believes_in_climate_change/)

Really, if it's such a poor scientific theory that the Flat Earthers agree with you......then maybe there's not quite the "consensus" you think there is....

Ferret
From the High Mountains of Colroado