Slashdot Mirror
Edward Snowden Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize
An anonymous reader writes "A Swedish professor of sociology has nominated Snowden for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize. Giving him the prize would also 'save the Nobel Peace Prize from the disrepute that incurred by the hasty and ill-conceived decision to award U.S. President Barack Obama' the prize, according to professor Stefan Svallfors. He notes ultimately that at great personal cost, 'Edward Snowden has helped to make the world a little bit better and safer.'"
a good idea. This would send a positive message to arrogant governments everywhere.
Smivs on the intertubes!
This man not only revealed a not-technically illegal surveillance program, he told other countries we were spying on them and revealed details about programs that aren't covered by any Consitutional protection. May as well go back and award the Peace Prize to the Rosenbergs because they helped make sure other countries had the bomb.
Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Peace Prize in 1939.
Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize for bombing the shit out of Vietnam and Cambodia.
Obama got the Peace Prize doing sweet FA.
The fact that somebody was either nominated for the Peace Prize, or actually won it, does not actually mean much.
I'm still ambivalent about the Snowden case, as I believe many still are. So we're going to compensate the rush to give the award to Obama by rushing to give it to Snowden?
In the words of Valentine Michael Smith, "Waiting is."
" 'save the Nobel Peace Prize from the disrepute that incurred by the hasty and ill-conceived decision to award U.S. President Barack Obama' "
No, it won't.
You're far, far too late on that one.
-Styopa
hasty and ill-conceived decision to award U.S. President Barack Obama
Because this isn't hasty orill-conceived. This does prove, however, that the Nobel Peace Prize is designed to be awarded to whomever is popular in the news currently before the public forgets them and moves on to the next disaster. Who is next for the Nobel PP? Trayvon Martin? Or is that story already run its course since the trial is over?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Actually be responsible for bringing peace to the world? Barack Obama didn't do anything to promote peace when he first took office, and Snowden hasn't done anything "yet" to promote peace either. Nothing saying that what he did might not later, but should we not at least wait to see how the drama unfolds first before we award the medal?
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
Edward Snowen is a hero to US and to the World. Revealing that tyranny governments are spying and controlling peoples life, running the risk of being killed it's an act of courage. He gave up his comfortable life with a good salary on Hawaii and a relationship with a beautiful woman to prove to us that we are being watched illegally. Edward Snowen deserve support of all US citizens and the world. He is not a traitor, traitor is the politician who use it's power to do illegal action against citizens of their nation and the rest of the world. Those politician who allowed this crime to happen. Are who must be judged and arrest for a treason.
Subject-line above = fact. Change the rules? Then, what good ARE rules for if you do?? Nobody can be trusted with that kind of power - period. Nobody. That, is the problem: Absolute Power Corrupting Absolutely. Your "it's legal" bullshit doesn't stand up when the people of the USA didn't have ANY SAY WHATSOEVER in its alleged/supposed "legality" when WE are the employers of those people. They are not our masters. They should do what WE say, not the other way around. You have it ALL FUCKED UP if you think otherwise.
>incurred by the hasty and ill-conceived decision to award U.S. President Barack Obama'
What saved them from the disrepute of giving it to Kissinger & Arafat? Forgetfulness?
Someone should give Obama the "best arming of rebels" award now too just to really rub in how stupid that decision was. Foreigners need to keep their opinions and million dollar prizes out of our elections. Snowden, however, should get one. Well, except that he probably worsened foreign relationships and might actually cause a war. But just on merit, why not?
It will not stop exposed organized crime from hunting him down. Just look what these arrogant pricks do. They don't respond to anyone, they think laws don't apply to them, they own the media.
We can just expect another round of denials by criminals caught in act. They have too much to lose.
So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.
Not really. It's meant to be a prize for making the world more peaceful. Giving it to Obama was nuts, and it's now not clear if this prize has any point any more.
And Obama hates America. So ya, you're right.
I have bad news for you about that "treason" term you throw around so casually. If you read the _whole_ Constitution instead of just the fashionable parts, you'll find that treason has a very specific definition in Article 3, Section 3. While I agree that the NSA programs are illegal, "the people" {{which ones?}} at NSA didn't meet the definition of treason. Not even close.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
it triggers an actual war somewhere. Stranger things have happened in history.
What do you mean?
So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.
Not really. It's meant to be a prize for making the world more peaceful. Giving it to Obama was nuts, and it's now not clear if this prize has any point any more.
And the other world powers that have multicultural prime ministers and presidents are ... ? I feel like Obama's Peace Prize was more about transcending race and color finally among the world's super powers. France is super liberal but you'll never seen someone of Algerian descent as their prime minister.
The world isn't better or safer because of what he's done - it might be one day, but for now we're just slightly better informed.
If there was a Nobel prize for good intentions, sure, give him that.
And let's not forget, Snowden didn't do this in the name of safety (certainly not his own). He did it in the name of liberty.
Still, he deserves it a lot more than some.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Given that the US has the largest military in the world, has been involved in every major conflict of the last 50 years, and instigated a couple of them, it sounds like a pretty decent heuristic to me.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
It's been almost 24 hours and except RT and DailyMail, rest of propaganda outlets keep the news out of the stream.
Correction, the security apparatus of the US is a traitor. Spying on your citizens is morally wrong and legally suspect. Ask anyone who lived in the DDR(aka East Germany) how they felt about living under the Stasi. In short, the NSA is becoming the Stasi, think about that and then tell me who is really the traitor here?
Is that because "peace" = "hate America" or "America" = "hate peace"?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
It sounds like this is the "I'm not Obama" award, counterpart to the "I'm not Bush" award that Obama was given. I saw this coming a mile away. The Peace Prize has been a joke for years.
That depends on your criterion for "largest". By defense spending? Most likely. By active military members, reserve members, paramilitary members or military members per capita, then not even close (although we are a distant #2 for active military).
And what do you consider a "major conflict"? There really hasn't been that many truly major individual conflicts in the last fifty years when compared to the fifty years before that. There's a lot of ambiguous statements there.
And the other world powers that have multicultural prime ministers and presidents are ... ? I feel like Obama's Peace Prize was more about transcending race and color finally among the world's super powers. France is super liberal but you'll never seen someone of Algerian descent as their prime minister.
And maybe that proves the point that the color of the your skin really shouldn't matter at all, either when discriminating or when promoting "multiculturalism"? I mean, Obama is just more of the same. They gave him the Nobel Peace Prize because they bought into the whole "hope and change" bandwagon, but then he turned out to be third and fourth terms of Bush.
Why should I care what color the President is, one way or the other?
And that means we should give someone the prize based entirely on the color of his skin?
the Peace Prize shall be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
Seems that all he has done is piss off the government and some of it's people for one nation.
Even better, impeach Obama give Snowden the Presidency, then you'll have a president that ACTUALLY UPHOLDS THE CONSTITUTION.
How does that not make him more worthy of the prize? Aren't most wars started due to secret ambitions? It just makes sense to me that when country A says it wants C, country B will try harder to protect C. It's when B doesn't doesn't know that A wants C that causes violence to arise.,
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
It doesn't. I scoff at the Nobel committee.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
How is nominating for a peace prize to Edward Snowden interpreted as hatred to America?
Why can't it be equal to saying that 'we're against unauthorized intrusive spying on you're own citizens'?
Why do people need to degenerate this into hate mongering against an entire country rather than what it is. A critic of a part or it's government going rogue?
Well, what criteria do you propose? The content of their character? ROFLOL
That depends on your criterion for "largest". By defense spending? Most likely. By active military members, reserve members, paramilitary members or military members per capita, then not even close (although we are a distant #2 for active military).
And what do you consider a "major conflict"? There really hasn't been that many truly major individual conflicts in the last fifty years when compared to the fifty years before that. There's a lot of ambiguous statements there.
a complete list from wikipedia: "1960–1969[edit]
1962 – Thailand. The Third Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by July 30, the 5,000 marines had been withdrawn.[RL30172]
1962 – Cuba. Cuban Missile Crisis On October 22, President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against nations in the Western Hemisphere would bring about U.S. nuclear retaliation on the Soviet Union. A negotiated settlement was achieved in a few days.[RL30172]
1962–75 – Laos. From October 1962 until 1975, the United States played an important role in military support of anti-Communist forces in Laos.[RL30172]
1964 – Congo (Zaire). The United States sent four transport planes to provide airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.[RL30172]
1965 – Invasion of Dominican Republic. Operation Power Pack. The United States intervened to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt and sent 20,000 U.S. troops as fears grew that the revolutionary forces were coming increasingly under Communist control.[RL30172] A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country's elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.
1967 – Israel. The USS Liberty incident, whereupon a United States Navy Technical Research Ship was attacked June 8, 1967 by Israeli armed forces, killing 34 and wounding more than 170 U.S. crew members.
1967 – Congo (Zaire). The United States sent three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.[RL30172]
1968 – Laos & Cambodia. U.S. starts secret bombing campaign against targets along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the sovereign nations of Cambodia and Laos. The bombings last at least two years. (See Operation Commando Hunt)
1970–1979[edit]
1970 – Cambodian Campaign. U.S. troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked U.S. and South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.[RL30172]
1972 - North Vietnam - Christmas bombing Operation Linebacker II (not mentioned in RL30172, but an operation leading to peace negotiations). The operation was conducted from 18–29 December 1972. It was a bombing of the cities Hanoi and Haiphong by B-52 bombers.
1973 – Operation Nickel Grass, a strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
1974 – Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated U.S. civilians during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.[RL30172]
1975 – Evacuation from Vietnam. Operation Frequent Wind. On April 3, 1975, President Ford reported U.S. naval vessels, helicopters, and Marines had been sent to assist in evacuation of refugees and US nationals from Vietnam.[RL30172]
1975 – Evacuation from Cambodia. Operation Eagle Pull. On April 12, 1975, President Ford reporte
Considering the fact that America is the instigator if not the outright aggressor of most modern wars today, yes, I happen to think that Peace comes from opposing the United States.
I don't respond to AC's.
Everyone knows what the NSA is about, but Snowden takes the operational details of the programs and gives them the Russians and Chinese.
Who is this 'everyone'? Because it sure didn't include me. I had no idea the NSA was trolling the whole internet or had cooperation from major IT giants. I didn't know they were spying on their own allies and friends. I didn't know GCHQ was collecting every scrap of traffic they could get their paws on and searching it for god knows what. I don't believe they are looking for terrorists because terrorists don't fight some technological war, they use disposable calling cards, disposable mobiles, cash, and improvised weapons.
So what the hell are the NSA and GCHQ looking for? Nothing is my guess, it's just military morons with a huge budget and no oversight. that budget should be reallocated where it might do some good, like education or paying down the national debt.
"2001 – On April 1, 2001, a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals surveillance aircraft and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States and the People's Republic of China called the Hainan Island incident."
This is what you call a "major conflict"?
And the other world powers that have multicultural prime ministers and presidents are ... ? I feel like Obama's Peace Prize was more about transcending race and color finally among the world's super powers. France is super liberal but you'll never seen someone of Algerian descent as their prime minister.
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion. I'd be more interested in seeing an openly Atheist president than a black one but I'm not holding my breath on that happening in the USA anytime soon.
No sig today...
I think you need to include the whole supply chain when you look at a military now. Note how the NSA is headed by a general, look how many private suppliers and contractors, mercenary groups (PMCs in sanitized language) count the US military as the a critical client. Size per capita means nothing when you include this shadow segment of the military, and consider that the draft (while highly unlikely) is still on the books.
Other countries do not incarcerate 4.8 percent of their black population.
Agreed like how Yasser Arafat was given the same dumb prize.
So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.
Sorry, this is way too black and white.
There are some very nice places in eastern Europe and some very nasty places in America. Eastern Europe isn't the communist era hell-whole some people seem to think it is.
You're a fool. Every country large enough to have a military has spies. All the world powers do serious espionage, including on their own citizens and supposed allies. Sorry, there's no other way to identify other country's spies living within your borders, and terror plots such as 9/11. Remember Al Qaida's hallmark is strike massively without warning.
The USA is not Soviet-controlled East Germany. We have a free press and democratic elections here at the national, state, and local levels, and have for over 200 years.
It sure made me laugh.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Literally thousands of people are nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year. Nominating just means someone has sent in a letter suggesting them. Nomination is not in any way noteworthy.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Is it? That shows what you know about whats going on in the world could be written on the back of your single lonely braincell.
So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.
Not really. It's meant to be a prize for making the world more peaceful. Giving it to Obama was nuts, and it's now not clear if this prize has any point any more.
No. Giving it to Obama was controversial. Giving it to Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, and not giving it to Gandhi, now that was, is and will ever be nuts. Another nuts (read stupid) decision? Giving it to Al Gore while completely ignoring Holocaust savior and survivor Irena Sendler who saved 2,500 Jewish children during WII (acts for which she was detained, tortured, sentenced to death but miraculously survived.)
The Nobel Peace price not about peace. It's about political posturing.
Defence spending is the normal measure because troop numbers doesn't determine military strength.
China for example has a massive standing army but it doesn't have the logistical infrastructure to take them anywhere of interest (i.e. it has a relatively small navy right now that could do little to defend itself against the US) and this is entirely an issue of defence spending. Defence expenditure is the greater measure of military effectiveness and hence why it's the key measure of military size and strength. In 30 years time for example if the US has an all drone robo-army and only 20,000 people to run it that doesn't make them less weak than an army of 100,000 but no counter to the drones and hence that 100,000 gets slaughtered.
Major conflict normally means a conflict that spreads beyond it's own borders and/or involving a sizeable force. A small scale military incursion by special forces to rescue a hostage from Somali pirates would not be a major conflict, but a raid into Somalia and some degree of occupation as in the 90s would. It is quite arbitrary but not so much so as to invalidate the GP's point - it's pretty easy to tell which conflicts would be classed as major in common parlance. Since World War II it'd include things like Korea, the Cold War, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq x2, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia.
This is the way the terms are used in the media and have been for a long long time and across the globe so it's not unreasonable for the GP to use them as he has and in no way invalidates his point.
Please give examples.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Oh, Christ... is Svallfors still going on about the President's NPP? Let it go, man... it's 2013... just let it fucking go...
While there's no denying that many wars have been fought under the guise of religion; I'm sure people can make war just fine (and they have in the past) without religion.
Snowden should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because absolutely nobody would of even suspected the NSA of spying on the internet and requesting communications corporations to hand over their logs. Nor would anyone ever suspect said corporations from handing their logs over to a powerful government agency. That is, until Snowden came along...
Who knew that being a redneck with a pole-dancing girl friend that exaggerates his role in the NSA and spews out "secrets" that was pretty much already known in the press would get you nominated for a Nobel peace prize? It seems all those other people who actually placed their life at risk to make a change in their corner of the world was doing it wrong.
All you really need to do is personify some controversy by becoming a celebrity.
Going to an atheist president won't help either. Officially atheist regimes were some of the biggest killers in the last century.
League of Militant Atheists
The Black Book of Communism
The Black Book of Communism - (book review) by Daniel J. Mahoney
The Black Book of Communism is one of those rare books that really matters. It is the first systematic and comparative analysis of the "crimes, terror and repression" that accompanied Communism everywhere and that seemed to define its "genetic code." The book's centerpiece is a relentlessly documented narrative of political violence and repression in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, drawing on extensive archival materials made available to researchers since the collapse of Communist rule in 1991. But The Black Book also contains absorbing accounts of Communist repression in Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Third World.
The Soviet Story (2008)
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Giving him the prize would also 'save the Nobel Peace Prize from the disrepute that incurred by the hasty and ill-conceived decision to award U.S. President Barack Obama' the prize, according to professor Stefan Svallfors
Save the Nobel Peace Prize from disrepute? Too little too late dumbass. To the Stefan Svallfors of the world, where the hell were you when the Nobel Prize was given to Arafat and Rabin, when it was given to Al Gore over Irena Sendler, or when it was never given to Gandhi?
Svallfor's motion has nothing to do with reputation or morality. It's about political posturing. I'm sure and certain that there are people other than Snowden more deserving of an actual peace price that actually matters. I mean, Snowden was more than willing to go on asylum in Venezuela or Cuba, hardly bastions of democracy and decency. People deserving of a true peace price (Gandhi for instance) would never had contemplated such a cognitive dissonant option, regardless of consequences.
Good thing the Nobel peace prize lost most of its credibility when it was awarded to Obama just for winning an election, otherwise this would be a huge setback. Instead its just more of the same, a member of the nominating committee making some political statement.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
If your saying that if it doesn't match the size of WW2 then yes you are correct, But to say a 10 year occupation after invading a sovereign nation isn't a major conflict is flat out ridiculous as it destabilized an entire region.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Allow me to dissect your argument and prove why it is entirely irrelevant.
I understand that many might not approve of spying and the NSA, but Snowden was a professional working for them via the contractor Booz Allen.
Who else would know the facts of the program? Who else could provide this information? It had to be somebody "inside". Had these accusations come from some guy on the street they would have been ignored as yet another crackpot conspiracy theory. Whistle-blowing on illegal activities always comes from a man on the inside.
Everyone knows what the NSA is about,
There were long suspicions of "what the NSA is about" but no proof, and the rule of law is that proof is necessary to convict. Prior to Snowden's release, any accusations of mass surveillance of US citizens leveled at the NSA were scoffingly disregarded and without evidence it was impossible to proceed. Thanks to Snowden, these accusations can no longer ignore the accusations (they may ignore the orders to stop, sadly).
but Snowden takes the operational details of the programs and gives them the Russians and Chinese.
Snowden released the details of the illegal and un-Constitutional programs to the /press/. You make it sound as if he snuck up to the Russian ambassador and passed secrets on to only them, which is hardly the case. Yes, the Russians now are aware of the program (most likely, the ones in power who actually worried about such things probably had a good idea of the capability of those programs already anyway, but that's beside the point). But more importantly, the US citizenry know about it as well. Ultimately, they are the only ones who can legally force a change. That other nations may now know of these programs is a side effect and - idealistically - irrelevant anyway. After all, illegal programs should be stopped so any intelligence gained about them becomes useless.
Snowden may be a "traitor" to the /people/ in the NSA, but our loyalty should not lie towards individuals but to the law and ideals that define our nation. Snowden obeyed those principles while other agents turned a blind eye or actively pursued these unconstitutional activities. He's far more a patriot than they.
No, they incarcerate more. Racism is unfortunately worldwide.
"Black prisoners make up 15% of the prisoner population and this compares with 2.2% of the general population – there is greater disproportionality in the number of black people in prisons in the UK than there is in the United States."
21st Century Renaissance Man
Snowden is a criminal. He broke the law by divulging state's secret information that he was under contract to not divulge at the risk of criminal prosecution. Despite this, it does not automatically make him a traitor just a fugitive.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Well let's use the major one in recent history. Iraq.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Is that really what it's meant to do?
2012 - European Union (how's that going, guys?)
2009 - Barack Obama (for strengthening international diplomacy and cooperation)
2007 - Al Gore (promoted a film that promoted his carbon credits scam)
2001 - Kofi Annan "and the United Nations" (did dick all during the Rwanda and Balkin genocides).
1994 - Yasser Arafat
1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum (was found to have fabricated most of the achievements she was being praised for)
1979 - Mother Theresa (I guess we're awarding it to her for the media sensationalized fabrication of her and not the real apathetic version of her?)
1973 - Henry Kissenger (for engaging in Vietnam Peace Accords while simultaneously secretly bombing Vietnam).
1945 - Cordell Hull - Secretary of State during Roosevelt. He denied the Holocaust and forced Jewish refugees back into the arms of the Nazis.
An awful lot of people (especially in the last 35 years) who really don't seem to be contributing much (if anything) to peace.
Oh please, you just sound like a retard who knows nothing outside of the US when making statements like that. And the focus on "race" is also a typical US thing. What about a female president or a gay one or even an atheist one?
Belgium has a gay prime minister who is the son of two Italian immigrants.
Germany has a female chancellor.
Great Britain had a female prime minister decades ago.
I can't count the number of countries that have atheist prime ministers/presidents.
There a dozens of other examples if you care to search for them. None of which make those leaders eligible for a Nobel Peace prize.
Yeah but the US president deserves a nobel peace prize just because he's black? What an achievement!
USA! USA! USA!
Hey, we haven't been at war in almost 70 years. That's saying something, right?
. . . right?
Only in Kenya can you piss on Norway..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJZ3L_5nKm4 (0:20 in)
Warning: This song is hypnotic and you will be singing it your head for days!
Yes, I think we should urinate all over Norway.. LOL, figuratively speaking. Let's face it when Obama received the Nobel price, it was a true WTF moment.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
I thought so too, but it appears to be wrong :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
Only for the Low IQ crowd.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What's he done so far? I mean, to receive this honor, don't you actually need to do something, say actions which promotes world peace? All he's done, so far is instigated trouble. None of this yet has done anything towards world peace. World unease, perhaps, world friction, sure, but nothing about peace. Someone is jumping the gun here.
Beats the hell out the the alternatives the Republitarians were putting forth.
Or perhaps you're forgetting McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan. And the alternative Ron Paul was even worse.
Defense spending is one measure, there are plenty of others that matter. Number of troops, number of divisions, number of aircraft, number of missiles. The readiness of those units and equipment. The technology levels. They all play a part in assessing the strength of a nation's military.
China has been significantly increasing their military spending, and the size of their navy. They have a plan to build a number of aircraft carriers. The Chinese fleet has been taking part in anti-piracy patrols around Somalia which is giving them experience in extended naval deployments. China has been encroaching on the territory of its neighbors, trying to take control of various islands.
China is likely to become an increasingly formidable adversary as times passes.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You may want to stop drinking the Ghandi koolaid brought to you by Western Civilisation. From what I can tell (which is probably very biased as well), Ghandi isn't seen in some parts of India (Tamil Nadu, in my experience) as the great saviour of the nation as he is hailed by the media in the rest of the world.
He was someone who looked down on a number of castes, was an incredible imperialist, and hence very loyal to the British Empire. He didn't fight apartheid in South Africa because he believed the Whites were wrong, he fought it because he believed "clean Indians" were above "uncivilized races".
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ghandi.htm
http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi5.htm
http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/gandhi2.html
Also, from Velu Annamalai's recommended readings regarding Gandhi:
Ambedkar, B.R. What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables. Bombay: Thacker, 1945.
Annamalai, Velu. Sergeant-Major M.K. Gandhi. Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akadiy, 1995.
Assisi, Francis. "Gandhi's Links with South Africa Examined." India West, 28 Sep 1990: 45.
Assisi, Francis. "Mahatma Gandhi's Links with SA Blacks Questioned." News India, 28 Sep 1990: 1.
Assisi, Francis. "Two New Books on Gandhiji." India West, 28 Sep 1990: 45.
Das, Nani Gopal. Was Gandhiji a Mahatma? Calcutta: Dipali Book House, 1988.
Edwards, Michael. The Myth of the Mahatma. London: Constable, 1986.
Gandhi, Mohandas K. Untouchability. Edited by Bharatan Kumarappa. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1954.
Grenier, Richard. The Gandhi Nobody Knows. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983.
Grenier, Richard. "The Gandhi Nobody Knows." Commentary (Mar 1983): 59-72.
Huq, Fazlul. Gandhi: Saint or Sinner? Foreword by V.T. Rajshekar. Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akadiy, 1991.
Kapur, Sudarshan. Raising Up a Prophet: The African-American Encounter with Gandhi. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992.
Rajshekar, V.T. Hinduism, Fascism and Gandhism: A Guide to Every Intelligent Indian. Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akadiy, 1984.
Rajshekar, V.T. Why Godse Killed Gandhi? Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akadiy, 1986.
Rajshekar, V.T. Clash of Two Values: Mahatma Gandhi and Babasaheb Ambedkar (The Verdict of History). Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akadiy, 1989.
This idiocy is "5, Insightful"?
My son got one in his last box of Cracker Jacks.
Hyperbole much?
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's money.
FTFY.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Maybe. I agree the US could have waited to invade Iraq. Of course, Saddam Hussein didn't do himself any favors when he continued to openly defy UN nuclear inspectors and made public threats about his desires to become a nuclear power. Any sane person would have STFU after the 9-11 attacks. Unfortunately Hussein was not known for his sanity and over played his hand. His public statements gave credibility to false reports of weapons of mass destruction and the rest is history... It was still just a matter of time.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion
No. Religion has been used in the past in the same way "the war on terror" is used now. It's a way to rally people against a seemingly powerful, brutal and subhuman enemy.
I know about the Physics one, not much about the rest:
1) In 2009 it was given to 2 guys from Bell Labs put pressure on Alcatel and prevent them from closing down the labs.
2) in 2008 it was given to 3 people who worked on stuff that was supposed to get tested at the Large Hadron Collider as a last resort to put pressure on politicians and prevent them from shutting it down.
3) In 2004 it was given to 3 guys who again worked on LHC-related stuff. The LHC was supposed to start running that year, but we all know that it went over budget and 5 years late.
So at least one of the science prizes is used simply as a plug for funding holes.
Who else would know the facts of the program? Who else could provide this information? It had to be somebody "inside".
When you go to work for an agency whose business is surveillance and spying, then you've signed up for that not only legally, but morally as well. That IS the charter of the NSA. If you turn around and spill those secrets you're a traitor, whether you receive payment or not. Now, if it turned out that there was systematic sexual harassment or taxpayer-funded spending on Vegas gambling sprees within the ranks of the NSA, that would be different. That is NOT the charter of the NSA.
You make it sound as if he snuck up to the Russian ambassador and passed secrets on to only them, which is hardly the case.
Snowden sought asylum in Hong Kong (part of China) and then in Moscow, where he's been detained at an airport for the last few weeks. He's been leaking NSA documents. Don't you suppose that he's been visited by both Chinese and Soviet agents a few times? Hello?
Snowden may be a "traitor" to the /people/ in the NSA, but our loyalty should not lie towards individuals but to the law and ideals that define our nation.
You could be a defense lawyer for any number of CIA double agents who defected to the Russians over the years, and who undoubtedly gave them intel about US government programs some of which were technically illegal.
Let me add that it still doesn't justify the US actions, and I agree with Holi that this is a single instance where the US violated it's own policy of preemptive strikes.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
One is not most. Sorry for the multiple replies... too much coffee. ;)
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
So basically, you consider any deployment of US troops for ANY reason to be a major engagement?
You're retarded.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I had no idea the NSA was trolling the whole internet or had cooperation from major IT giants. I didn't know they were spying on their own allies and friends.
Well, for me at least, the push to get people's data onto the internet and off of their own hard drives was a red flag to me. Even if it wasn't the NSA/CIA/FBI/DHS specifically, there seemed an oddly timed shift, cohesive shift to "the cloud", in order to solve problems that, in many cases, had been solved for some time. Personally, I suspected corporate profits and data mining for marketing data with the side bonus of Uncle Sam making the occasional offer Apple/Amazon/Google/Microsoft/Facebook couldn't refuse.
We might not have KNOWN that the government specifically had their own spy network that would make the KGB jealous, but trusting that the United States Government would both pass the Patriot Act and let multibillion dollar companies amass huge amounts of data on their citizens and say "We'll have to acquire a search warrant and follow due process every time we want data" is a level of optimism that doesn't add up to reality.
Power, actually, the addiction to it, and the associated mental problems.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
yes, religion is the cause of all war. for instance communism which is atheistic has never caused any wars or mass murder. wait...
And the other world powers that have multicultural prime ministers and presidents are ... ? I feel like Obama's Peace Prize was more about transcending race and color finally among the world's super powers. France is super liberal but you'll never seen someone of Algerian descent as their prime minister.
I don't think Obama's peace prize had much to do with race or colour of skin; it was more a(n over-)reaction to the antics of his predecessor, who was arguably as anti-peace as is possible to be.
But given the way Obama on one hand claiming he's not that interested in pursuing a 29-year-old hacker, while on the other hand doing all he can to nail Snowden's hide to a fence, I'd say he should be handing that peace prize back.
"Religion".
I don't think you understand what that word means, yet like so many religious people, try to spread it around to every context to poison any argument.
Also, of course there are a lot of militant atheists out there. The same way there are/were a lot of militant "black people" out there. Guess what? When people trod all over you, threaten you, treat you like second class citizens, and impose their will (via legislation and political power) on you -- you're probably going to be a tad mother fucking militant.
"Stop being intolerant of my intolerance you assholes! C'mon guys!"
Out of the 124 individuals or institutions awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, 23 of them have been from the United States. That is nearly 1/5th of all Nobel Peace Prizes. So, to state that the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize is staggeringly idiotic on its face. I am not able to comprehend what could lead you to state such an ill-informed opinion in public, in front of everyone. Please try to do better with your future forum posting.
>So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.
In addition to that: "I HATE AMERICA BUT I LOVE THE EU"Prize.
Guess who won the Nobel Peace prize last year? Huh? Huh?
The US? Nope... Try again!
If they reward him (Snowden) the NPP, it shows that the committee has a backbone of Titanium and balls of Wedontgiveashitium. But is it the smartest thing to do? Mnnnnehdont think so.
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
Your single example isn't proving much.
The fact of the matter is that atheist killer regimes need to base their killing in reason. Of course even atheists can be assholes and say 'kill em all because they are enemies', but they cannot resort to 'they must die because it is the will of [deity] and we must obey if we want to go to [good afterlife]'.
Notice how even your Wikipedia-link says this: "it led a concerted effort telling Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and "harmful", and that "good" citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview" (my emphasis)
Religion can make a plethora of irrational 'reasons' for wishing other people dead perfectly valid to its followers. It also has pretty effective fear-mongering strategies: eternal burning and suffering sounds pretty uncomfortable. If you can avoid that by torching a few heretics, why even think twice?
Atheists can only make you fear things that could actually exist and even then, they have to work to make you believe that those things have a non-negligible chance of happening.
[citation needed]
Seriously, I'd like to see that study.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Yeah but the US president deserves a nobel peace prize just because he's black? What an achievement!
To be fair, I think it was actually because he isn't Bush.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Yes. Specially that they were Jew kids.
Let's frak the lives of Iraqi, Afghan and Palestinian kids right now and say poems about saving Jew kids at world war 2.
Giving it to Obama was nuts, and it's now not clear if this prize has any point any more.
That ship sailed when they gave it to Arafat.
The 4.8% are the percentage of black men that are in prison. Your 15% are the percentage of UK prisoners that are black. You can't compare these two numbers directly.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam...
I don't respond to AC's.
"Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Maybe the PATRIOT ACT has made you think these kinds of writings are particularly unamerican? Or you could just accept the fact that Snowden's acts are just as american as were the actions of founding fathers of the United States; who were also temporarily considered traitors.
...and I'm sure, all over the world, Edward Snowden has a higher approval rating than NSA.
Also consider that now Snowden has higher approval rating than... US Congress and Barack Obama
Now, how were you supposed "to institute a new Government"? Oh you can't. And if you'd even become interested about it the government would know about it; thanks to PRISM.
"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I think Snowden is well worth one Nobel Peace Prize.
and consider that the draft (while highly unlikely) is still on the books.
In the worst-case-scenario, are there any countries that wouldn't draft? Granted, they may not draft for foreign wars, but if invaded ...
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Citation
21st Century Renaissance Man
Engage in espionage, get a peace price. Fuck Edward Snowden and the douche Greenwald who set him on his course. I hope their idiot supporters wise up soon.
Oh, my. Your post has been up for more than a minute, and not down modded to hell? Wow. I've posted things about the real Ghandi in the past, on slashdot and elsewhere. The downmods, thumbs downs, and dislikes always pour in immediately.
During World War I, Gandhi called for a repeal of the unpopular Indian Arms Act of 1878 that granted the government extensive powers to restrict the possession of arms. In his autobiography, Gandhi condemned this act in the strongest of words:
“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
Ghandi was no pacifist, by any stretch of the imagination. He used pacifist methods, only because he was forced to do so.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.
Not really. It's meant to be a prize for making the world more peaceful. Giving it to Obama was nuts, and it's now not clear if this prize has any point any more.
No. Giving it to Obama was controversial. Giving it to Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, and not giving it to Gandhi, now that was, is and will ever be nuts. Another nuts (read stupid) decision? Giving it to Al Gore while completely ignoring Holocaust savior and survivor Irena Sendler who saved 2,500 Jewish children during WII (acts for which she was detained, tortured, sentenced to death but miraculously survived.)
The Nobel Peace price not about peace. It's about political posturing.
Some of us maintained that Obama got the Nobel Prize for "not being Bush". Unfortunately, it turned out that Obama is Bush. Right down to the funny ears.
Sendler didn't actually do anything that specifically promoted the cause of world peace, although certainly she deserved some equally prestigious award.
Gandhi's eligibility is stronger, but his major claim to fame has to do with peacefully liberating his own country, not so much the world. On the other hand, I have no problem seeing Nelson Mandela with a Nobel. For whatever else he did in his life, he managed to forge a peaceful post-apartheid South Africa when virtually everyone expected a bloodbath. And while that, too was mostly intra-national, I'm sure his neighbour countries appreciated it. To say nothing of the example he set.
Arafat, on the other hand, was involved in peace, but still surreptitiously dabbled in war. Weasel. Better than nothing, I suppose.
In the end, all we really demonstrate is that popularity and "sending messages" count for more than actual accomplishment, even at the rarefied level of the Nobel Prizes, whether Peace or other.
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion.
In the past, cultural groups were mostly defined by their religion so unrest was typically between groups with different religion. In the last century or two there has been a significant growth in non-religious states and organisations, but without a corresponding drop in the level of war or unrest. This would imply that the real problem is the underlying tribalism rather than the religious affiliation of those tribes.
So you believe returning to the barter system would increase general quality of life for humanity?
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
While there's no denying that many wars have been fought under the guise of religion; I'm sure people can make war just fine (and they have in the past) without religion.
Of course they *can*; the OP's point was that they *haven't*, not nearly in the numbers of wars of religion.
These wars are nothing to do with religion, or terror, drugs or anything else.
These wars are waged (not fought, or even usually declared) because there is a mentality that says the US always has to be fighting "the last war", because they're "the good guys", and for some reason the "end of days" is in their hands. The US is incapable of functioning in the absence of a state of war.
Well, I have news: Lots of Muslims are good guys too. And Vietnamese. And Cambodians. And Russians. Even Americans (excluding American politicians generally).
An interesting read. Still, even though the proportion is greater, it seems the chances of being jailed if you're black are still less in the UK than in the US, though that's probably more to do with ASBOs and community service being used in lieu of jail time.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
'The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion.'
I would suggest that the main cause is any ideology with its unwavering faith in its rightness. Religion just happens to be the most pernicious, unreasonable, and widespread form.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
The constitution is the highest law of the land and trumps both the patriot act, and Snowden's private agreeement with Booz Allen.
The only people who hate America, are those who would destroy the values outlined in the Bill of Rights. People like Snowden who act to protect the Bill of Rights, are patriots and heros. People who support the US no matter what it does, wrong or right, are mere amoral sociopathic nationalists.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Atheists can only make you fear things that could actually exist
Like Eurasia and Eastasia? Pretty scary if you ask me. :)
Well, the above probably stands to reason given that Alfred Nobel was an arms manufacturer and the inventor of dynamite.
assume: make an ASS out U and ME
Nobel committe should have paid attention to one of the oldest jokes in the world before laying that peace prize on Obama by assuming he wouldn't be GWB the Second.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
That is a very ignorant statement. Anyone who loves america will support snowdon because he is exposing those who are destroying the country, those destroying it in many ways, not just this case, but others as well. I would say the majority who found what Snowden did to be legitimate are those who absolutely do respect the constitution, but also the US itself, the sovereignty of its people and the protection of the USA from invasions (in any form) and so on. For reasons I will discuss later, it is hard these days to miss the fact that the US government itself nowadays is complicit in aiding and abetting the enemy and commiting acts against the people of the USA by assisting in violation of their sovereignty over their exclusive territorial domain, with the intent of dispossessing and crowding out the countries founding group from the country they founded and fought for, and has turned against such people (IRS, NSA, Bengazi, Airport Patdowns), treating them as an enemy, while aiding the invaders who are stealing their country from them, often by giving foreign invaders immunity from the deprivation the countries traditional populations are subjected to (note the instances where while grandmas and little kids are being groped in airports the Obama administration has exempted Muslims from scrutiny). Note that snowden did not wantonly release documents to attempt to damage the NSA by blowing the cover of NSA people by exposing their names, but only specifically those necessary to expose the crimes to the American people. Note for instance, that the Bush II administration commited true crimes of treason by intentionally orchestrating the outing of Valerie Plame as a retribution act against her husband for being a vocal critic of the Iraq War. This shows something that is quite concerning, that the rule of law has broken down and that the government now feels itself to be above the law. This has created a condition where the government has unlimited power and the people increasingly have little. This is also shown with the IRS scandals and so on, which do extend all the way to Obama, which are worthy of impeachment of the president, and yet Obama apparently can commit these crimes and get away with it because he is above the law the, laws do not apply to him, so he cannot break any law. I have heard it said that Snowden should have gone to a congressman. This is nonsense. The American people absolutely have a right to know of the crimes of their government and the government itself of course should not be given the authority to decide whether or not the people should be alerted to the governments own crimes. In fact, congresspeople already knew about the crimes that were occuring months earlier, most of them were willingly and agreeingly helping to cover it up, only two of them gave the most vague read between the lines references. Often due to secrecy laws, it would be impossible for a congressman to alert the people to these crimes themselves and perhaps they would be in even hotter water than Snowden for doing so. Whistleblower laws are designed specifically to provide for the public to be alerted to crimes of government, especially since it is likely the government itself is often so corrupt from one end to the other internally that it is unlikely that such corruption would be rooted out internally. The fact is if congressman being aware of the crimes would have resulted in them being addressed, they would not have continued, and yet they were continueing as Snowden exposed. If Snowden had gone to a congressman nothing at all would have happened because the congresspeople themselves already knew of these programs for long periods of time, if they were going to put an end to it they would have already. Also, the people have a right to know when such a crime has occured whether or not it is effectively dealt with internally. The fact that these crimes have been exposed and it is clear that they are major breaches of the Constitution, and yet almost nothing subtaintial has been done about it by any branch of government,
Of course, Saddam Hussein didn't do himself any favors...
Let us not forget that the US helped prop up Hussein at a time when it was convenient.
Ditto, in fact, Osama bin Laden. It might be convenient for politicians to [persuade us to] forget the last 30 years of history, but there are a (vanishingly) few of us who aren't so ignorant.
So we're going to follow it up with another hasty and ill-conceived decision.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
And we have a winner!
which is totally what she said
"...at great personal cost, 'Edward Snowden has helped to make the world a little bit better and safer.'"
So what. Malala Yousufsai was shot in the head for daring to go to school. She deserves the prize for herself and the rest of the women in the world. Snowden just uncovered a rock and found scum.
So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.
I don't get it. Snowden is American and seems to be trying to uphold some of the American principles embodied rather famously in its constitution. I'm not sure how awarding the peace prize to Snowden would be hating America. Quite the contrary.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
And I nominate the people who awarded the Nobel Peace Price to Obama for the Ignoble peace price.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
The early industrialization of Britain and what became the USA would not have been possible without genocidal colonialism and slavery. Famine and mass drug addiction were tools of the British Empire which made modern capitalism possible.
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's greed.
FTFY.
FTFY.
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. - Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson is often, and inaccurately, called an Atheist by wingnuts who would have his name removed from our already useless high school history text books. However, he did not believe in miracles, and even published his own version of the New Testament which excludes them. While spiritual, and apparently a believer in God, Jefferson's stubbornly insisted on holding beliefs backed by actual evidence. On his tome stone, Jefferson wrote his own epitaph, which mentions only three of his many accomplishments:
"Author of the declaration of American independence, of the statute of Virginia for religious freedom, and father of the University of Virginia"
By religious freedom, Jefferson meant quite specifically a secular government. He was the original author of America's "separation of church and state." So, when you hear wingnuts claim that America was founded as a Christian nation, typically they have in mind passing laws that tend to force their religion on everyone. If we could get them go read a bit of actual history, they'd find even Ben Franklin wanted Muslims to have as much right to preach their version of "the Truth" as anyone else.
So, I hope you can feel like we've already had a president with reasonable religious views. I think a woman would be next on my list, as they're roughly half of the population, and you'd think after 42 presidents we would have elected one by now.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
No, the major cause of war and unrest is, and always has been, access to or control of scarce resources:
Water. Food. Minerals. Energy. Timber. Ores. Trade routes & waterways.
A common secondary cause is for political ideology - religion sometimes comes along for the ride there, or is used to pretty up the rhetoric about the war, but it's just as common to have active suppression of religion (see communist revolutions) as it is to have religion-on-religion violence, or religion-sanctioned violence.
I know it's cool to be anti-religion here on Slashdot, but let's not pretend that religion is the cause of the "majority" of the world's wars. Most of our wars have been fought for the simple reason of, "You have X, I want X, and so I will take it from you." The "wars of religion" are generally pretty minor footnotes compared to wars of greed & conquest.
Snowden is fine and well, but I want to see the prize go to Malala Yousafzai. If you aren't familiar with her, she's the girl who recently spoke before the UN about education. She's also the girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban for going to school and insisting she would go even if she had to sit on the floor.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Try Kissenger. Or maybe Chamberlain.
You sir, couldn't be any more wrong. Many of us, but yes there are some militants out there, who are atheists, are generally more accepting of other's belief systems than those who believe in a deific religion. The only people that I come across who are anywhere near as accepting are jewish, taoist, buddhist, hindu, nature based religions etc. Generally, I find most intolerance is held by christians and muslims. We do not "worship" science, but we do accept that in many instances, it is fact, not fiction. When proof of something is held before us, we do not stick our fingers in our ears and chant "I can't hear you" repeatedly because it might disagree with my personal belief system.
Maybe Obama could return his prize and give it to Snowden. He's obviously not deserving of it.
Signature intentionally left blank.
Sure, lots of atheist people will be racist war mongering assholes.
Atheism doesn't preclude flawed actions or flawed beliefs, but given the logical fallacies of faith, and religion's inherent necessity for irrational belief in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary, religious people are more likely to be racist war mongering assholes. At the very least most have to tolerate that behavior to a degree as all of the major religious texts dictate violence, racism and sexism.
Religions always devolve into violence. Always.
[Y]es, religion is the cause of all war.
No, it isn't. The causes of wars are complex and varied.
[F]or instance communism which is atheistic has never caused any wars or mass murder.
Never caused? That's debatable.
[W]ait...
Nah, I have better things to do than wait around for you to finish grammar school.
If that were the case the NSA would win it. America isn't the US Government, it's its civilian citizens who are America. The NSA, by spying on innocent US citizens, is the traitor, not Snowden. Its head should go to prison for perjury and Contempt of Congress.
No, atheists kill because "they're not the Aryan race" or "killing people is just like mowing the lawn". You know, good reasons like that.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Most atheists are just tools who treat it as a religion themselves. I've met one maybe two atheists that weren't just as big of douches as someone like Jimmy Swaggart. Most of the rest are just as nut job 'I'm right you're wrong you must be like me' as any religion. They generally worship science. Worship is not the same as understanding it. Worshipping is 'steven hawking says X so X is absolutely true beyond any doubt because science!@$@%!@#^'
Someone has been to Reddit.
One thing I do think has been helpful is that the current debates have broken across once impenetrable ideological boundaries; people usually on opposite sides of the political divide are finding themselves agreeing with each other. It's forcing people on all sides to focus on the facts and issues rather than cling to ideology..
Instead of Democrat vs Republican, it is now Government vs The People. Isn't it nice how an adversarial government unites us?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/11/black-prison-population-increase-england
There was an update and a correction - doesn't really change the absolute numbers, but it does revise some of the comparison relative to the US penal system.
Doesn't mean the UK justice system is free of prejudice, but the correction does paint things in a slightly more forgiving light.
"Religion".
I don't think you understand what that word means, yet like so many religious people, try to spread it around to every context to poison any argument.
Also, of course there are a lot of militant atheists out there. The same way there are/were a lot of militant "black people" out there. Guess what? When people trod all over you, threaten you, treat you like second class citizens, and impose their will (via legislation and political power) on you -- you're probably going to be a tad mother fucking militant.
"Stop being intolerant of my intolerance you assholes! C'mon guys!"
So, like Atheists are doing right now. Yes, they are acting like religious nutjobs, hence the (valid) comparison..
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Religion or not, if you don't think belief was the cause of all those deaths, i have to wonder if you know anything about human history.
There is a vast difference between that and deaths caused by survival for resources.
It might be splitting hairs, but isn't that what your post and this thread was about?
FTFY.
(Because time is money, of course)
Staggeringly idiotic is a good way to describe most of his posts.
Yet you pick 9 of the 100+ recipients.
I would think there is a young girl, who despite being shot in the head, refused to stop reading and learning, that might be doing just a little bit more to make the world better. I'm sure the list could go on.
Thank you for the opportunity to share this relevant comic: http://www.xkcd.com/1238/
Giving the prize to Obama was wishful thinking. The Nobel committee specifically said that they were awarding the prize in hopes that Obama's election would further the cause of peace. It may seem odd to award speculative prizes, but they choose to do so.
Giving the peace prize to Henry Kissinger -- now THAT was just nuts.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Bro, I've seen the documentaries "Hostel" & "Hostel 2". I know all about your little Slovakian enterprise - don't try and fool us into believing eastern Europe is anything but a hellish chamber of torture.
Or, as someone has said before, the problem isn't white, black or brown, it's green.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
The major cause of war between humans is that they're human.
Don't assume we have a feeling to take care of all humans. Don't assume we even can conceptualize all humans as humans. Assume that we're somewhat aware of humans as numbers, but really we have a small clique of people we can think of as humans, and we take care of those. That means it's very easy for us to abstract out anyone else, and yes, kill them. One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic.
So, we find semi-random excuses to kill people. Religion. My flag has stripes and stars, but yours has a single star; you must therefore die. I'm on this side of this line of some demarcation. You're on this other side; you must therefore die.
Need more proof? Don't even think of war only. How many times has a NGE (non government entity) decided that it's OK for you to die. Bhopal India was a corporate disaster, where a corporation thought it was easier to risk you dying rather than fix some valves. A web search for "death by corporate negligence" will pick up one or two other cases I'm sure.
So blame the human brain, that allows us to abstract out the life of other people and eliminate them for various reasons. Don't act as if Religion is the actual cause, nor Video games, nor Patriotism. They're really more tools than causes.
So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.
Not really. It's meant to be a prize for making the world more peaceful. Giving it to Obama was nuts, and it's now not clear if this prize has any point any more.
And the other world powers that have multicultural prime ministers and presidents are ... ? I feel like Obama's Peace Prize was more about transcending race and color finally among the world's super powers. France is super liberal but you'll never seen someone of Algerian descent as their prime minister.
You should look up racism:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
You are a racist if you think it was right to give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who had done nothing to deserve it but solely based on his race. That is the very definition of racism. Multicultural? Do you mean multi-racial? Again, who cares? There are a lot of multi-racial people around the world but what does their ethnicity have to do with winning a prize for peace making? It is supposed to be based on actions and character, not your background. The fact that they gave him that prize shows that they were racists caught up in hero worship and white guilt.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
You missed two:
2006 - A US air force officer posting online describes his visit while on vacation to a popular tourist site in Northern Ireland as, "okay, but not really worth going out of your way for." Afterwards, there is a 0.2% drop in tourism to the area, which the UK government describes as "economic terrorism" while seeking sanctions at the UN. Tensions only eased after the US Air Force agreed to ask the officer to remove his Yelp review.
2011 - A US infantryman flying home on leave from Afghanistan uses a public toilet in Charles De Gaulle airport while waiting for a connecting flight, and accidentally clogs the toilet, leaving a smelly mess. This causes an international dispute between France and the United States about who should pay for the cleanup which is unresolved to this day.
These Major Military Engagements will just slip on by if you don't stay on your toes, bruh!
And the other world powers that have multicultural prime ministers and presidents are ... ? I feel like Obama's Peace Prize was more about transcending race and color finally among the world's super powers.
If it was about electing a black president, it should have gone to the American people.
At the time, I thought it was premature, but I also thought he'd eventually be worthy of it. Needless to say, I'm a bit disappointed.
Remember Vietnam? That entertaining little 'Police Action'? We were the aggressors (and on the wrong side) from the get go.
It's not all Bush's fault.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion.
I would invite you to show cause and effect. My view is that religion is a coat of paint people put on their deeds to make them look better. People without religion can make war just as well, they just need a different coat of paint, such as extreme political ideologies (the many flavours of Communism and Fascism), nationalism.or tribalism.
Many wars have been fought in the name of religion simply because religion is endemic to the world. But to show it is a cause of warfare, you have to show more than partial correlation,
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I have no additional info/argument regarding Gandhi, but had to say I first read this as "Why Goatse Killed Gandhi?"
Yeah but the US president deserves a nobel peace prize just because he's black? What an achievement!
To be fair, I think it was actually because he isn't Bush.
That assessment turned out to be somewhat incorrect.
Just want to point out that most of the comments here are comparing this to Obama's award. Snowden has been NOMINATED but not awarded. It turns out a fairly large number of people have the ability to nominate recipients: http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/index.html
This really isn't news. It's more comment trolling by slashdot -- and they've been doing a very good job of it lately.
The first Iraq war was in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Afganistan hosted the Al Queda training camps and was complacent about the 9-11 attacks.
The second Iraq war was over accusations of weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's defiance of UN nuclear inspections. WMDs were never found.
Vietnam was not started by the US. The communist North Vietnam directed the Viet Cong (NLF) to make attacks against South Vietnam. France was initially involved in the war and the US simply took over. China and other communist countries allied with North Vietnam, while France, US and other anti-communist countries allied with South Vietnam.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion.
Bullshit... The major cause of war/unrest in the world is the biological quest for power and dominance. Religion is just a tool. There are many others, but religion works best on basic instincts and emotion. So, if religion is the dominant issue, it's because it works so well.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
LOL, jewish. Good one. I think the Palestinians may be a tad wont to disagree as is most of the world with the notable exceptions of the UK and US as well as dependent countries.
Only I can judge you.
Like Stalin?
Being Religious or Atheist doesn't make you a better person. Being a better person makes you a better person. I could see an "evangelical" Atheist president, really making lives difficult for religious folks, just as much as the "evangelical" Religious president makes life difficult for non-religious folks.
The unrest in terms in the name of religion, is only because they figure that will be the best way to get the masses behind them. No Religion they will find something else to go under, political party, ideology, location... People will find ways to be bad to each other no matter what.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Adolf Hitler was nominated once in 1939. Incredulous though it may seem today, the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939, by a member of the Swedish parliament, an E.G.C. Brandt. Apparently though, Brandt never intended the nomination to be taken seriously. Brandt was to all intents and purposes a dedicated antifascist, and had intended this nomination more as a satiric criticism of the current political debate in Sweden. ( At the time, a number of Swedish parliamentarians had nominated then British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin for the Nobel Peace Prize, a nomination which Brandt viewed with great skepticism. ) However, Brandt's satirical intentions were not well received at all and the nomination was swiftly withdrawn in a letter dated 1 February 1939.
... is to give spying on americans by the governemnt more room to do so. For now the excuse can be used that americans all didn't speak up about it enough and as such its acceptable.
Its the political mentality of one person uses a gun and all citizens have to be restricted in gun use, but when the government does more than that one person it requires all citizens to oppose for something to be done in corr3ection.
Huge unfair bias happening here benefiting only the political direction, not the peoples direction.
Any assertions that so-and-so "has been nominated for a Nobel prize" are unverifiable. Anyone can claim to have nominated anyone, but there's not way to know if they're telling the truth, because nominations can be made only by nominators invited by the Nobel committee, and the identity of the nominators and their nominations are kept secret for fifty years. See Nomination FAQ:
"Q: Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize?
A: Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.
Q: What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?
A: Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Actually you need to read up on your history. The US were not the aggressors. North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam which was originally defended by France. The US took over from France in a policy of containment with the goal of preventing the spread of communism.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion.
Bullshit, it's lust for power by people who already have way too much of it. The powerful who want more power simply use religion as a tool. I no more believe that Bin Laden believed in the teachings of Muhammed any more than I believe Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile.believed the teachings of Christ.
Snowden leaks had zero utility and zero consquences yet. Assange is still waiting his for being harassed for doign a journalist's job.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion.
I've always thought this opinion to be a bit naive. I think a far greater cause of war is assholes with too much power. Religion is just a frequently used tool to rally support for the asshole's agenda.
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion. I'd be more interested in seeing an openly Atheist president than a black one but I'm not holding my breath on that happening in the USA anytime soon.
Wrong. The major cause of war/unrest is hunger for power and wealth. An openly atheist person is the same thing as an openly racist person. Atheists are against religion. Are you confusing atheist with agnostic? If you look at the average "atheist" on the internet, they are anti-religious bigots who have declare war on the first amendment protection of freedom of religion. If you look at the text of the first amendment: [QUOTE] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [/QUOTE] http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html The first phrase talks about not establishing a state religion like the church of england which is meant to prevent religious discrimination as occurred in England against the catholics because the Anglican church was the state religion there. The second phrase is there to block congress from passing any laws which would prevent the free exercise of religious freedom. The fact that the first two phrases of the first amendment to the Constitution to me means that they held the right to religious freedom in high esteem. They were not secularists but rather understood the dangers of a "state church" and knew the effects of religious discrimination.
It is sad that it is now being used to censure people who are trying to express and exercise their freedom of religion based on some wrong interpretation of that clause into a "separation of church and state" doctrine. The church, even broken up into multiple denominations played a critical role in shaping your country's past. It served as a conscience for your leaders and an advocate for the poor.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
"Number of troops, number of divisions, number of aircraft, number of missiles. The readiness of those units and equipment. The technology levels."
Sure but what are all these summarised by? Defence spending.
Ultimately the more money you spend the more you get, efficiency comes in to play to some extent but not so much so that the US' 5 to 6 fold increase on spending over the nearest competitor - China - is wiped out. It may well be that you have less troops but if you're spending more it just means you have more missiles or drones or whatever instead and that's really the key.
"China is likely to become an increasingly formidable adversary as times passes."
Agree that China will become more formidable, though not convinced it will ever really be a threat. It has too much internal strife and as soon as it shifts it's military focus externally it's going to lose control of Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet, and all influence over Taiwan - even if it reaches US expenditure and size it's going to have to have half it's forces stationed in it's own back yard regardless to prevent itself collapsing. But sticking to the thread of discussion it was just about the current state of the US military and it's involvement in wars over the last 50 years.
Interestingly a large portion of America's military expenditure is on it's nuclear arsenal. China could become a threat to it conventionally because of this if the US opts to maintain an arsenal large enough to wipe the world out many times over rather than reduce it's nuclear arsenal to a more sensible size and shift the expenditure to conventional equipment instead.
Obama vs Snowden, with music from frankie goes to hollywood.
More often than not, everyone has their good sides and bad sides. You won't find a single person in history that was lauded as a savior of a certain time or period without some bad sides.
This is not to mean it is wrong to discount them, but it also wrong to discount all their good effects as well. Gandhi, in particular, had far more good than bad.
Also, 'koolaid'? Really? Welcome to 2008.
They just try to lure him to Sweden. Assange does not recommend that trip.
So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.
Not really. It's meant to be a prize for making the world more peaceful. Giving it to Obama was nuts, and it's now not clear if this prize has any point any more.
I suspect the prize was given to Obama because early in his first term, he was personally spearheading negotiations with Russia to substantially reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. The problem of course was that Congress would be unlikely to approve such reductions.
As for Obama being just like Bush, I think that to believe such a thing is intellectually lazy. One thing that is often missed by arm chair pundits is that the American political elite have an existential fear of a nuclear ransom scenario, where some nefarious organization gains control of a handful of nuclear bombs, explodes one in a major city, and then threatens to detonate the others in other American cities. Such an incident would quite literally unwind the threads of American civilization. Such fears cause our leaders to do all sorts of bad things in the name of protecting society. That said, I think it is important that we keep pressure on our leaders and let them know that the population will not be cowed into submission. Thus I think what Snowden did was important, in that it brought a very dangerous surveillance program into the public eye.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Oh c'mon now. Let's make it easy for you:
Vietnam (and its neighbors)
Central and South America
The entire middle east (Though I will grant that the US is acting as muscle for a British operation that began in the late 19th century and continues today)
But nowadays we pretty much get the locals (Africa) to do our dirty work and chase off the competition (China).
But let's not single out the US. All the world's great powers are doing the same to extend the reach of their commercial interests. Basically the world is run by pirates, organized criminals. All governments are subservient those interests.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And until Obama has his Nobel Peace Prize revoked, the prize will be almost completely meaningless.
But I suppose this is no different than throughout history when both Stalin and Hitler were once nominated...
(Side note: should we really trust the UN as a governing body when they routinely make decisions like those above in this post?)
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
You mean the illegal and un-Constitutional program that congress (you know, those leaders that you elected) approved - multiple times?
That one?
Because if you're black and don't, it means you're not supporting your race and you're "the man".
If you're white and don't, it means you're a race hater.
Don't ask it to make sense, politically manipulative rhetoric doesn't always make sense.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Oh, my. Your post has been up for more than a minute, and not down modded to hell? Wow.
Must be upvotes from Civilization players, we've known the real Gandhi for some time.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Your single example isn't proving much.
The fact of the matter is that atheist killer regimes need to base their killing in reason. Of course even atheists can be assholes and say 'kill em all because they are enemies', but they cannot resort to 'they must die because it is the will of [deity] and we must obey if we want to go to [good afterlife]'.
Notice how even your Wikipedia-link says this: "it led a concerted effort telling Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and "harmful", and that "good" citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview" (my emphasis)
Religion can make a plethora of irrational 'reasons' for wishing other people dead perfectly valid to its followers. It also has pretty effective fear-mongering strategies: eternal burning and suffering sounds pretty uncomfortable. If you can avoid that by torching a few heretics, why even think twice? Atheists can only make you fear things that could actually exist and even then, they have to work to make you believe that those things have a non-negligible chance of happening.
Single example? There was a list of multiple regimes. I stopped reading your message at that point. You never bothered to follow the links so why should any more bother to read what you say?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
You mean "I HATE CHINA"? That's what the Chinese thought after a man they consider a criminal got it. They were wrong too.
But eh, I think that prize has outplayed its use. Not just with the Obama prize. These days, government-awarded prizes aren't worth much - it was already a greater honor to Snowden that he got the Sam Adams award, IMO.
Nah... no agenda there.
We were involved in the Fauklands war?
You notion of a lack of internal consideration within theism of the case for "justified war" is ludicrous, as is your hyperbole regarding "torching a few heretics". We have billions of Christians right now. State your statistically-meaningful evidence that burning people is representatively commonplace.
And, in fact, atheists can and do have no problem with making people fear things that could actually exist, like large groups of people considered "opposing" for any manufactured reason. Stalin killed 50 million such people, theist and atheist alike, by pointing to people who unquestionably existed and ordering them killed, because, because fuck them.
And a Darwinian worldview has not the slightest objection it can raise to this.
There's one major problem with that site: God told me it's all wrong.
See what I did there?
Maybe she was a grammar nazi?
They're VS their, and all that. :D
Atheism is another religion, IMO. They strongly believe that there are no gods; without evidence (which is likely impossible to achieve) to prove it. Agnostics are willing to accept that they will probably never know what is beyond our very limited ability to perceive the workings of the universe. Maybe there is a supreme being. Maybe there are lots of them. Maybe the universe is a cold, calculating machine with no creator. We may never know for sure, and that just makes the universe all the more mysterious and exciting. So, if the choice of leader is going to be based on religion in this world of many religions, I'd prefer a leader who is agnostic. having said that, I'm sure that agnostics are just as capable of governing badly as anyone else. What I would like to see is that religion and state continue to separate from each other. If there is one thing that this great big Western democratic experiment has shown us, it's that the more tolerant we are of our neighbors' differences, the happier everyone is.
What if Snowden had evidence of NSA resources being used for child sex-trafficking, and that his direct chain of command was involved (you know, the people to whom such crimes should be reported)?
What if Snowden knows, as do most of us, that America has a Jewish shadow government that would quash any exposure of their techniques of soft dictatorship, such as omni-surveillance?
Religions always devolve into violence. Always.
Yeah, that Mother Theresa, I'd hate to have ever run into her in a dark alley.
Religious *zealots* *sometimes* devolve into violence.
Religion, when practiced as intended, and as practiced by the overwhelming majority of religious people, is all about peace, tolerance, understanding, and love of your fellow man.
You're allowing your perception to be skewed by the few nutjobs who have managed to grab a wildly disproportionate share of media coverage.
And I say this as a non-religious person myself.
I have to disagree. I think there's a big difference between "I hate America" and "I hate what America's government is doing".
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Yeah but the US president deserves a nobel peace prize just because he's black? What an achievement!
To be fair, I think it was actually because he isn't Bush.
That assessment turned out to be somewhat incorrect.
Mod way up.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
In the past century (excluding the world wars), not in any particular order:
Korean war
Vietnam war
Cold War (Including all the BS associated, like the Bay of Pigs scandal)
1st Iraq war. ("operation desert shield, then Operation desert freedom, and pals)
Ephemeral "War on Drugs" (cough)
Afghanistan war
Second Iraq war (to depose Houssain)
Ephemeral "War on Terror" (cough)
*IF* those were evenly divided up for time, that is 1 war every 10 years.
And I am SURE I left out all kinds of shenanigans by my country that doesn't get such big press.
The reason for this is pretty simple: Our constitution makes it REALLY hard to justify having a standing, 24/7 military force without a formal declaration of war in effect. That is why our government keeps declaring war, OFFICIALLY, on things you can't really make war on. Like drugs, and terror.
The US's economic infrastructure is built around warfare, and has been since the restructure from the great depression, when we entered the second world war. Aircraft industry? Offshoot of military aircraft expenditures. (In fact, military contracts are more lucrative, and are what drive down costs for consumer craft) Automotive is the same--- And, anymore, it is getting that way with software too. Even Hollywood has deep roots with the US wartime propaganda machine.
I live in the USA, but I am not so deluded to believe that this is a "Peaceful nation". The residents may be more or less peaceful, but the nation is certainly anything but.
NSA/IRS = gov't. employees, (servants not masters) albeit, employees that *think* they can just "do what they want". I'll let THEM speak via their actions/reactions: They're telling us all "fuck you, we will do what we want, and if you get outta line, we will sick our IRS attack dogs on you or dig for dirt and 'reinterpret' laws to get you for opening your mouth against us" or did the IRS not abuse their powers in that very capacity and get caught in it? Yes, they did. Did Keith Alexander or James Clapper lie to Congress?? Absolutely. Can anyone trust a known liar? No. Are they out of a job or in jail for it??? HELL NO. Now, if it was you or me, we would be. That tell you anything???? The problem is giving ANYONE that much power. It goes to people's heads. Even the "good guys" (who are showing you they are NOT 'so good' even outright LYING about it, twisting words/terms to do so, & using "secret courts" in a presidency that CLAIMED 'transparency'? The only transparency I see, is corruption being transparently obvious, doing what THEY want, not what you or I wanted). In fact, I think it goes MUCH HIGHER than the boys @ the NSA, right up into the presidency - which is WHY nobody is out of a job or in jail - they probably said "IF I go down? So will those of you that gave the orders for me to do such a thing: You are going down with me - so try it: I'll bury you along with me!" (By turning 'whistleblower' on their TRUE masters too - it's in a rat's character to do so, and to even work for people like that, means you ARE such a RAT - which IS exactly what will happen. I know that type unfortunately.). Bottom line is the NSA is not supposed to surveil US citizens by their very charter's original parameters/limitations/scope. Changing the rules? What is the POINT of rules & law then? Zero. When those that supposedly enforce them change them to THEIR liking? They're not rules or laws. They're bullshit. The FBI is legally granted such powers, not the NSA! They are though, with impunity. It is not in their charter to do so, we had NO say in this change. It was done in secret. No secret anymore though and people do not like it. Is anything being done to correct it? Again, no. We are fucked. We have no control anymore, as "We the People". Period. They don't obey their employers (us), and don't even consult us. Change the rules?? That's BULLSHIT! That is exactly what it is telling me. How about you? If you give any man nigh unlimited power, he'll abuse it (or hasn't THAT already been shown as the case here? IRS anyone?? The fact nothing's been done about it is just another...). Nobody in their right minds would agree to this horsecrap, which is WHY it was done "in secret" and they tip their hand how they use it and things like it (especially the IRS shenanigan, & the head of the IRS didn't even lose her job over it either... wtf!). This is pure common-sense and it is obvious they are out of control. When employees start that up, the "boss" is no longer in charge. Changing the rules and not consulting "we the people" those civil servants work for shows you just what is what/going on. Period. We the people are being told "shut up slaves, we do what WE want to" and we can even LIE TO CONGRESS and get away with it. We the "elite" are above puny laws meant for you puny SLAVES! Even the "special license plates" scam came out yesterday too proving that, all the more http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/07/14/1553218/database-loophole-lets-legislators-avoid-photo-radar-tickets Better wise up AMERIKA, before it's too late. The more "the powers that be" REACT (especially bogusly like the IRS deal), they more they tip their hands as to who really runs the show (and it's NOT "We the People") and how they TRULY operate. We are in the clutches of the biggest clique of criminals there's ever been (most = masons or religious
Wikipedia lists 31 wars. The US was involved in two of them, Iraq and Somalia. We had major combat involvement in Somalia long after it had been started by others.
You could use the time to check out the Wikipedia entry on irony.
Single example? There was a list of multiple regimes. I stopped reading your message at that point. You never bothered to follow the links so why should any more bother to read what you say?
I did follow the links, and the key thing to understand is the role of the word 'atheist'. If the killing does not take place because of the atheist nature of the regime, the addition is meaningless. Recall that the statement I was replying to was trying to refute this: 'The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion.'
The League of Militant Atheists did actually persecute religious people and thus was a (single) valid example of people murdering because they were atheists. For the other regimes linked, the atheist nature was largely irrelevant, i.e. they would very probably have been as (or more) menacing were they of some religious denomination.
Nobody in their right mind would try to defend the position that if somebody is an atheist, that he/she is incapable of murder or other horrible things. The key point is that explicitly religious motives have on their own caused much more death and suffering than explicitly atheist motives in our history.
I'll add this, though: I believe the main cause for war is the greed for power or resources. Religious 'reasons' are just very effective in mobilizing the people for that end.
This seems a perfect article to get lots of heated posts.
It makes Snowden seem larger than life, and disses Obama all at the same time. It's almost equal opportunity outrage.
If it had something about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin it'd be perfect.
it was on NPR this morning that Snowden has a lot more critical information than has been released. Now, why do you think government goons would mention that in the mainstream media, while he is in Russia?
It's clear from the mass coverage that Snowden is a plant, and now Obama promotes him even more... Trying to get the east to nibble on the bait.
I like the part where you back-peddle halfway through your single sentence response. :) All joking aside, I simply do not believe that eliminating religion will eliminate war and bring about this enlightened society where everybody just likes each other. Just as religion has incited some people to war, it also incites people to love. Many charitable organizations, hospitals, and orphanages are run by religious people - far more than ones ran by non religious organizations.
Furthermore, I think blaming all of our woes on any people group (religious people, people of a certain race, people of a certain sexuality, etc...) is dangerous. I'd hope we would have learned our lesson in the 20th century by the atrocities committed by various leaders during the many wars that occurred during that era.
Let me look at your list:
Korean War: North Korea backed by the Soviet Union and China invaded South Korea. The US intervened to defend South Korea.
Vietnam War: North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. France initiated the defense of South Vietnam and the US took over.
Cold War: Was not an actual war.
1st Iraq War: Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US intervened on Kuwait's behalf and pushed Iraq back to its original border.
"War on Drugs": Is not an actual war. It is political rhetoric
Afghanistan War: Response to Afghanistan (Taliban in particular) complacency in if not sponsoring of the terrorist attack by Al Queda.
2nd Iraq War: Deposed Hussein under the auspices of the existence of WMDs and his desire to use them against the US. Later found untrue.
"War on Terror": Is not an actual war. It is political rhetoric. At best it is related to the actions in Afghanistan and defense at home.
Your list only includes 2 real wars where the US initiated the formal conflict. Afghanistan was in response to their role in providing Al Queda a safe haven to base their attacks on the US, and Iraq based on an erroneous (possibly fraudulent) premise that Hussein had WMDs and posed a threat serious enough to warrant immediate action.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Cause Atheist Russia and Atheist China have had no conflicts or negativity on the world.
Please tell me atheists aren't that DUMB?
I would encourage you to look up people like William Lane Craig or Hugh Ross. You may change your mind that religion necessitates logical fallacies. And I would encourage you to look them up from their point of view rather than the opposing side of view. Craig's organization is called "Reasonable Faith". Ross's organization is called "Reasons To Believe".
"Atheism is another religion, IMO. They strongly believe that there are no gods"
Yeah, atheism is a religion. Just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
And wasn't there a recent scientific journal publication that linked wars and conflicts largely to famines and food shortages.
God, I'm hungry....kill, kill, kill. But I don't believe in you. You're just a figment, brought on by my starving state. Hey look, that guy has a chicken and some eggs. Kill. Kill. Kill.
Yes, why isn't this modded to a +5 yet?
Money is power, greed is power, religion is power. Politicians become corrupt because they are above everyone else and can usually get away with breaking laws. They can change the rules and that kind of power could be addictive. The side-money they make probably helps too.
Once you use the cheat codes, it's hard to take things seriously :P
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
But I love the idea.
And you get a positive.
And actually, two wrongs do often make a right. It's all in the eyes of the beholder as to who or what was wrong. Our Founding Father's were considered by the British to be acting upon wrong, by engaging in wrong.
We exist today as a nation for that reason.
If you think what he did was bad, then he's a traitor to his country. If you think what he did was good, then he's a traitor to his government and a hero to his country. I think a lot of peoples' opinions on the good/bad question are going to correspond with their opinion about whether or not the country and the government are on the same side.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible?" - Frank Zappa
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
I predict he will win the Nobel Peace Prize.
I also predict that for the first time ever, the awards ceremony will be held on U.S. soil, and they will be enforcing the 'winners must be present to claim prize' clause.
If the killing does not take place because of the atheist nature of the regime, the addition is meaningless.
Here you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
Yes, it is precisely because of the core explicitly-defined atheist nature of the country that mass-killings were claimed to be justified.
I could see how you might think your characterization game would work if it were merely an abstract question of "When religion is associatable with a country's action, it isn't really caused by politics or money or land, it's the religion" and "When atheism is associatable, it's not really the fault of atheism at all, it's really the fault of politics or money or land".
Wrong. The case you are being presented with is one of an explicitly-atheist political system, pursuing explicitly-atheist policies, and people dying specifically because of that, by the millions.
Out of the 124 individuals or institutions awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, 23 of them have been from the United States. That is nearly 1/5th of all Nobel Peace Prizes. So, to state that the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize is staggeringly idiotic on its face. I am not able to comprehend what could lead you to state such an ill-informed opinion in public, in front of everyone. Please try to do better with your future forum posting.
The answer is obvious: they awarded it to Obama :D Nothing says "I hate you" like awarding a prize to your newly elected President because of his election platform of peace, cooperation and tolerance.
As in the case with the warrantless surveillance, Snowden could have seeked the help of a NSA agency ombudsman. There are procedures in place that allow illegal activity to be reported especially if it's being done by his chain of command. His employer should have made this information available to him. It's supposed to be included in the hiring documents and given during the annual HR mandated refresher courses. All contract employees of the federal government should be informed about the ombudsman program within their agency.
Belgium has a gay prime minister who is the son of two Italian immigrants. - 1st
Germany has a female chancellor. - 1st, more important really that she's from the East though
Great Britain had a female prime minister decades ago. -1st and only
Not to mention that Prime Ministers are not elected by the population at large which makes it far more likely that an individual who may fail to garner votes on her own could lead through strength in the party.
Really though I think what you failed to miss and are not moronically turning into an argument against Americans is that no one thinks he deserves it regardless of what motivations the committee had. My personal vote would be his band standing about hope and that positive changes are possible. I'm sure the Nobel Committee lapped that up with a spoon.
Not familiar with Hugh Ross but William Lane Craig is a dishonest douche. No doubt about that.
This is major reason why the NSAs unchecked power is so dangerous. Who have more secrets, dirt, and skeletons than US politicians? IMHO, this is why both parties and the White House so understatedly acknowledged they knew about the unconstitutional actions; they had no choice but to go along.
Tinfoilism perhaps, but it seems like quite a few senior pols are retiring for not much of a stated reason - perhap they've tired of being a puppet.
I would blame Iraq on the British and the League of Nations**. There was no Iraq prior to WWI until the British created it to expand their area of influence (kind like how Yugoslavia was created). Also later, the British were opposed to granting the area where Kuwait sits to the fledgling Iraqi/Syria Arab Union. W/o a country called Iraq and a country called Kuwait, there is likely no war.
**I would probably originally blame the Ottoman empire for forcing together Mosul, Bahdad, and Basra, but the Ottoman empire doesn't exist anymore
At least Snowden is a human; they violated the whole thing (Obama was just a disgrace) by awarding the EU the Nobel prize. They could only go lower by awarding MONSANTO the Nobel prize next.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
This is the standard answer given by his opponents and the various atheism websites. The reason why they say this is that he's a well prepared masterful debater who points out every. single. logical fallacy in his opponents' arguments. I would agree that he can come off as a jerk, but that doesn't necessarily make his arguments logically fallacious or dishonest. In order to demonstrate that Dr. Craig is dishonest, you would have to provide evidence where Dr. Craig gets up and says something that he simply doesn't believe is true.
Recent Nobel Prize winners have been a rouge's gallery of scumbags. Giving Snowden the prize would be a HUGE insult.
Giving him the cash award would be cool, though.
Obama is a criminal. He broke the law by authorizing widespread violation of the 4th amendment. In doing so he also violated his oath of office. This does make him a traitor.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Peace prize, he's the leader of the god damn warm mongering nation that is the embarrassing shit-hole below Canada. What kind of fucking moron would nominate the head of the nation that's murdered somewhere in the area of 8 million+ people for a peace prize, unless he dismantled the american war machine I cant possibly see what he would have done to have earned that
snowden however did do something to deserve it.
So you believe returning to the barter system would increase general quality of life for humanity?
Nowhere near as much as you believe in putting random words in my mouth based, perhaps, on which way the wind is blowing.
But no, to answer your question. I think that people could do with a bit more thinking about morals and ethics before only thinking about how much (more) money they can make regardless of the human cost.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
That already happened, do you want to see it again? Stalin was an atheist but it did not make world safer. Certainly not for the 10s of millions that perished in soviet gulag.
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's greed.
FTFY.
FTFY.
Semantics, the result is the same.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
"A man's faults are those of his generation, his geniuses his own." --Goethe.
If you are waiting for a perfect man to give the prize to, you will never find one. Gandhi, for all his faults, still implemented the ideas of peaceful protests in ways that were later followed by the civil rights protests. He put his life on the line to defend the principles of peace, which is more than I've ever done. It's easy to sit here and criticize from the comfortable view of perspective, but if you were in Gandhi's time, living where he grew up, would you have any of his good traits?
Great men, like Thomas Jefferson, are rarely great because they are flawless. Jefferson owned slaves, was a coward, slept with his slave, was sometimes clueless; yet given all his weaknesses, look what he accomplished! It is inspiring that men with such weaknesses can accomplish so much, because surely we are all full of weaknesses. But we don't have to be limited by them, it is up to us.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Or, as someone has said before, the problem isn't white, black or brown, it's green.
Nice one :-)
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
There are three reasons for war, greed, fear, and ideology. Claiming any one of those is the cause of all wars is to be ignorant of history.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Talk about having an ax to grind!
Just admit that religion is, in fact, not the source of all world evils. This rather outs you as one of those militant atheists the OP referred to.
Ghandi was a pacifist, in both action and principle. Saying anything else on that subject is simply astroturf.
posthumously. Else the might give it to Hitler. For his contribution to the unification of the world.
He may be remembered as the USA's Alberto Fujimori.
In the Snowden mould, I would nominate Guy Fawkes. He betrayed his lawful government, maybe or maybe not with good reason, but it didn't work and he paid the (rather nasty) price. Plus ca change, as our last invaders would say..
Wow, was that really the only item in the list?
HINT: it wasn't a list of major conflicts. It is a list of conflicts, some of which might be major.
Here you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
Most of the things mentioned there are relatively small.
- Albania: "More than 200 clerics of various faiths were imprisoned, others were forced to seek work in either industry or agriculture, and some were executed or starved to death. The cloister of the Franciscan order in Shkodër was set on fire, which resulted in the death of four elderly monks."
- Mexico: "Calles, however, did not abide by the terms of the truce – in violation of its terms, he had approximately 500 Cristero leaders and 5,000 other Cristeros shot, frequently in their homes in front of their spouses and children"
- Cuba and China: no deaths are even mentioned.
- France: Technically, here, the larger part of the violence was sparked by a rebellion against anti-religious repression.
- The Soviet Union: Sure, people were killed because of anti-religious sentiments, but most of them were killed for being deserters, dissenters or just for looking funny.
Governments violently repressing religion in their countries is a terrible thing, obviously, but it is markedly different from the imperialism of religious wars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
When atheism is associatable, it's not really the fault of atheism at all, it's really the fault of politics or money or land".
You're attacking a straw man. I already validated the example of the League of Militant Atheists and I'll gladly accept any examples of killing out of explicit atheist motives (like the above, where applicable).
Wrong. The case you are being presented with is one of an explicitly-atheist political system, pursuing explicitly-atheist policies, and people dying specifically because of that, by the millions.
You're exaggerating wildly. See above.
You just don't get it, do you? ... But political correctness tells us otherwise...
It's ok to discriminate in favour of non-white, bot not the other way around.
No different to feminist vs chauvinist - other than gender, there's no difference
Yes, Obama deserved a Nobel because he was a non-white president. That's all you need to know.
If Bradley Manning wins 2013 Nobel Peace Prize and Snowden wins the 2014 one it should give a clear message to the US. Anyway, this is happening in Sweden and they are very friendly with the NSA, i doubt that it happens.
"Initiated formal conflict" is actually a nebulous condition to employ.
Take for instance, the US' involvement in the second world war. Prior to any formal induction into the war, the US was actively engaged in sending supplies, munitions, and other sundries to the UK and "her" allies, by misusing merchant and civilain transport vessels. The Lucitania was NOT an innocent casualty mistakenly sunk by the germans. There were weapons intended for europe on board, and it was clandestine.
Prior to the, the US was isolationist, and was not involved politically with europe in any really major fashion.
This passive aggressivenesds was likewise carried out in the pacific, which is why the japanese bombed pearl harbor. While not "formal conflict", the US was up to its eyeballs in informal conflict, and willfully was engaging in such.
Similar to today, where the BS of our NSA and our various corporate interests are influecing foriegn politics, causing issues with how we deal with diplomatic issues, and even how we go about humaitarian aid operations. The continued "interest seeking" in the middle east is another ripe example of these "informal conflicts" that predate the formal hostilities. Al queda itself has roots in such "informal" conflicts, having been created by actions by the US CIA during the cold war (which you blithely write off) to obstruct soviet expansion into the middle east. Similar to therecent bengazi scandal, we, the US, actually created and trained al queda. We only now are going after them, since they have gone rouge against us. The US is responsible for the Taliban.
As such, I find the "Formal conflict" requirement to be diversionary. The US is openly hostile to many governments without official declarations of hostility. That hostility and the bullying tactics employed, are why the USA has a reputation synonymous with mud (or dung, depending on whom you ask.)
"Protecting our interests" is not suitable grounds to interfere with a soveriegn government. The damned Nazi's used the same line of reasoning when they invaded poland.
+1
I am an atheist - but religion is not the root of war, it's just a tool.
Think of the Mongols. I highly respect their achievements, at the same time I condemn their barbarity. It was not religion that drove their mass slaughters. Wealth and power would be closer to the mark.
"Approved by Congress" is entirely orthogonal to "Constitutional".
(The fact that this approval is done in secret and without the informed consent of the people doesn't help your case, either.)
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Exactly the kind of psychotic extrapolations my ex used to make. How did you find me on slashdot?
Actually, yes I have been to several American public schools lately, and they don't resemble what you've described in any way.
They do, however, resemble a prison. Armed uniformed men on duty, chained doors and locked windows, rigid scheduling, total surveillance, bad food, lots of corporate sponsor logos, etc.
I've always felt pride topped them all. People want power to feel better than the next guy.
Actually the condition was set by DogDude:
You seem to be moving the goalposts. Let's try to keep the rhetoric to actual hostile acts of war.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Lets put it another way, if you banned religion and people accepted it, humanity would find another reason and vehicle, such as nationality.
As a staunch atheist, I agree that religion is -a- tool to war, but it's because the people are easily manipulated by faith. It's a path of least resistance for a warmonger... Gullibility, commonality and large numbers... Its a hat-trick for warmongers.
The Prizes were intended to be his atonement for that.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
you'll never seen someone of Algerian descent as their prime minister.
Really ? See this potential candidate for the job in four years. Algerian Jewish, though. But also of Romanian descent, which is not especially attracting to the average right wing voter.
And I was asking the original poster to clarify what he considered "major". The list is what I got in return. I picked one at random that shows the list has very little to do with what the post was responding to.
No need in turning this into some partisan debate especially with the opposing party being supportive of the program.
Anyway technically speaking, Obama authorized the continued warrantless surveillance under new FISA rules. This was after Federal Judge Walker ruled that mass warrantless wiretapping was illegal. The question that Snowden's disclosure creates is "Is the NSA still following FISA rules when it monitors internet traffic, email, etc.?"
No. The program may be unconstitutional but Obama is not betraying our government for a foreign power. A case can be made that Snowden's actions after his public disclosure made him a traitor, since he disclosed state's secrets beyond the surveillance program or allowed himself to be used for the benefit of a foreign power in exchange for possible asylum. Snowden has denied that he disclosed any new information despite reports by some news organizations last week. Besides it's a weak argument, you'd think that motive will play a factor. Snowden's motive appears to be disclosing what he viewed as wrong not betraying his country.
Personally, I think Snowden should return to the US to face charges of improperly disclosing classified information. I do not think his actions rises to the level of treason and think such rhetoric isn't beneficial, since Snowden's exile will serve as a warning to others who may feel trapped in a similar situation. I think we should find out the details of his training while employed as a contractor. Did he know how to report actions he deemed unconstitutional or illegal? Does such a report mechanism exist in his firm/agency? If that mechanism exists, does it really achieve its goal?
I'd like to think that people are still innocent until proven guilty. Yes Snowden admitted to breaking confidentiality laws, but it is still up to the courts to determine what crime (if any) he is guilty of. I still believe he over-stated the value of his information, and permanent exile is a little harsh for being boastful.
Of course, the mystique surrounding Snowden is strengthen by his exile and with it his notoriety. In the end, I think he would like to come home more than being (in)famous.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Religion, when practiced as intended? Is that a joke.
Every single major religion has as their cornerstones violence, genocide, misogyny and racism. Its not an unfortunate occasional side effect. Its codified in their texts. The texts are the intent, those who deviate avoid those things are simply demonstrating the innate reaction most humans have to such behavior. They do so in defiance of the intent of religion.
Their texts are their DNA, and you will not win this argument.
Does Obummer's cum taste like Kool-Aid?
Read them. They are nonsense. Logical contortions desperately attempting to rationalize the demonstrably insane.
Communism was its own religion, it just wasn't honest about it.
I don't know. Does it?
In the ancient world. religious leaders occupied roles closer to what economists do today.
Well, everyone thought he wasn't Bush, but we're not so sure now.
Hitchens trounced him, and repeatedly demonstrated that he was willfully twisting the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8
America the military-industrial complex or America the noble idealism? It can't be both because those are opposites.
...and overthrew the actual legitimate government.
Yup, american aint any equal until this president is selected,
A 18-30 year, woman, native american, openly atheist. And she takes zero money to avoid becoming corrupt.
Then i'll happily stand up and sing ...land of the freeeee.
No need in turning this into some partisan debate especially with the opposing party being supportive of the program.
Who said anything partisan? He's the chief executive, the buck stops with Obama. He's also Commander in Chief, and the NSA is an arm of the military. Obama is responsible for these crimes, just as Romney, McCain, or Bush would have been if they were president.
The program may be unconstitutional but Obama is not betraying our government for a foreign power.
The president is sworn to defend our constitution against its enemies, foreign and domestic. Those who support this program are domestic enemies of the constitution.
Personally, I think Snowden should return to the US to face charges of improperly disclosing classified information.
In an ideal world, yes he should. But in that ideal world, Obama would be impeached and imprisoned along with hundreds of civil servants who aided and abetted him. Until that happens, I don't see how you can blame Snowden for escaping from our oppressors.
If that mechanism exists, does it really achieve its goal?
Of course it doesn't. We're still violating the 4th amendment rights of every American. Obama has shown absolutely no remorse for his crimes. If being shamed publically can't convince Obama to obey the law, why would you think he would respond to secret complaints?
In the end, I think he would like to come home more than being (in)famous.
I agree with you here. If he thought there was a chance of him getting a fair trial, I bet he would come back. If you want to convince Snowden that he'll get a fair trial, make sure Obama gets a fair trial too.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Go educate yourself then come back and try again.
You don't even realize what an idiot you sound like to people who are actually informed, do you?
If you ever get a chance, I'd suggest reading any of the large historical volumes written on Southeast Asia during the postwar period.
The United States' involvement in that war, while easy to look down on now, is easier to understand when you realize the large amount of changes occurring there during that time period. Toss in Soviet Expansion, and it makes for some frightening times.
It's interesting history, and gives a good perspective on today's problems and how we should be dealing with them. I see Syria in a similar fashion, except both sides there look even LESS friendly than the South Vietnamese.
My god, you've completely changed my mind! We should NOT have become involved in WW2. Lindbergh was right!
You're exaggerating wildly. See above.
Clearly, we're not going to reach agreement on this, largely because unless the leaders said directly, "we are killing you because that's what atheists do", you won't accept it had anything to do with atheism.
When you get past this, and understand that "atheistic and scientific" meant "anti-bourgeois", which was a handy code encompassing "the religious" and "the rich", and that is the entirely of the conceptual wedge that enabled them to stage a revolution--the public's credulity toward the "better" so-called "scientific" system, combined with old-fashioned human resentment.
Then, naturally, the leaders did the very scientific thing, and massacred the fellow atheists that put them in power, while referring to them with the quite-well-known moniker "useful idiots". Until you understand that science has no basis for objection to that sequence of events whatsoever, you'll simply be signing up to be another useful idiot furthering the goals of those who do not have any concern for you, nor should have any reason to have any concern for you, according to either Darwin or you yourself.
There are plenty of haters of Gandhi in India, who want to discredit him for being in favor of minorities (like Muslims, Christians, untouchables etc). In fact he was killed by such people. There is to this day a sizeable cultural supremacist fraction who believe in using every forum and medium to reduce the respect and effect of Gandhi. Never knew it gained enough international traction to mod the parent a +5 it got. Truly a sad state of affairs.
How the leader of one of the most warmongering nations on Earth got awarded a Nobel Peace Prize is beyond me.
He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in part, for campaigning on the promise of Not Being Bush.
It's a low bar he set for himself that he's consistently failed to reach.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I think Snowden is well worth one Nobel Peace Prize.
Unfortunately, a Nobel Peace Prize isn't worth a Nobel Peace Prize these days...Snowden deserves better.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Why can't it be equal to saying that 'we're against unauthorized intrusive spying on you're own citizens'?
Why can't it be equal to saying that 'we're against unauthorized intrusive spying on innocent people'?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-28-2004/bootstrap-story
I've actually read at least some of the them. Yes it's complicated. No, we had no business being there in the capacity that we were. Yes, it 'made sense' at the time but that's the pull of history. We get the luxury of looking back (somewhat) dispassionately and figuring out what worked or didn't.
And I agree, the Middle East in general, Syria in particular, is much more complicated and much more fraught with existential danger. We shouldn't intervene there either unless we are prepared to take the ME back to pre WWI geopolitical boundaries and figure out what to do with Israel (give them NYC and maybe Miami - they can take the first Temple and reconstruct it next to Disneyland. Oh, I guess we have to give them Orlando. No great loss.)
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Asking a question isn't putting words in your mouth. There is an implied 'is that what you mean?' in this common usage of the question format. Thanks for clarifying your point.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Instigation does not require the US to be the first to officially delcare. For instance, the US's involvement with the kurds in iraq, prior to declaring war on that country. It could have been just as likely that saddam would have filed first; doesn't mean the US didn't instigate the problem by passing out guns and missiles like icecream on a hot day.
First to officially declare != instigation. Insighting an upset in political circles that sews unrest and causes political upheval? Instigation.
By your metric, Eris didn't instigate anything by tossing her golden apples.
There is a bit of a difference between Israeli and Americanized Jewish people.
I presume you mean this.
The US would definately have gotten involved sooner or later, as hitler's ambitions were global in scope. Rather, my objection is that the US chose to do lipservice to the problem, claim neutrality and isolationism in one breath, and crank out weapons and goods for europe in the the next, when nobody was looking. If the USA was really as highminded in its ideals as it claims, it would have joined immediately, but as lindbergh points out, the UK and France knew full well that the US didn't care what their political predicaments were, and wanted to avoid involvement in yet another world war caused by political provacatures in europe. So, instead of preparing for a deadly battle of attrition, it chose to gear up in secret, and engage i n guerilla tactics, using uninvolvement as a smokescreen.
A tradition that has endured ever since.
These days, any peek behind that smokescreen at the real dirty deaing of american politicians and their interest groups, or the engines with whic they condct those affairs, such as the recent IRS and NSA scandals, is met with the harshest of resistences, and with outright smear campaigns, ad hominem attacks, and worse.
Note how the snowden incident's fallout has NOT been about what was revealed, but instead become a mockery of investigative jouralism, as story after story emerges about how snowden is holed up in a russian airport, and or, about how big of a traitor he is for making those dirty dealings known without room for denial.
Note also how the bengazi scandal has completely evaporated from the mainstream press. You know, the one where we knowingly sold anti-aircraft and other heavy weapons to "resistance fighters", who turned out to be terrorists?
Let's not forget how we practically dump AK47s into south america where they get sucked up by local drug lords and crime bosses like water into sponges.
The big thing that lindbergh was angry about was that the US govt was acting contrary to the people's will, was doing so in secret, and was openly abusing its powers in response to the upset caused by the war.
Whatever reasons the US may have had to do that in WW2, no longer matters. What matters now is the legacy created by that kind of disregard for the will of the american public, and the lessons about propoganda and seditious activities it taught to our government. Lessons further amplified by the cold war, and its ilk.
If the US govt wants to be an imperialist thug, I say they should be open and unabashed about it, rather than talking out their asses about how peace loving and compassionate they are about other cultures and the soveriegnty of other nations, because it gives truly peace loving nations a bad name.
Calling ourselves defenders of the free world, while simultaneously fomenting rebellion, attempting to assasinate foriegn officials, abusing our economic dominance to force one sided trade agreements, and systemically using "extraordinary rendition" tactics, is quite possibly the ultimate in hipocrisy.
I don't say these things because I hate america. I say it because I hate what america has become.
I perused your site and I gave it actual intellectual consideration, that is until nearly every reference to scientific works that I read was taken out of context. I have no problems with listening to actual well thought out arguments, based in facts, of creation vs evolution. However, when the evidence is taken out of context and misconstrued, it makes it difficult to take it seriously.
... That an award meant to promote the cause of nobility and peace has been used to create such strife and division.
So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.
Not really. It's meant to be a prize for making the world more peaceful. Giving it to Obama was nuts, and it's now not clear if this prize has any point any more.
Obama is hardly the most "nuts" of all of them. They gave it to him basically because they didn't like Bush. Obama, of course, immediately proceeded to escalate the War on Terror.
Most recently, they awarded it to the European Union, apparently to show that they still have a sense of humor. This award was, of course, presented right after Greece went bankrupt, the Euro became more and more devalued & Brits began clamoring more and more for their promised EU referendum and UKIP, the 3rd party, center-right, Euro-secessionist, "British Tea Party" won a huge number of seats on British local governments. Like the Tories in the UK, Germany's Angela Merkel may very well have her own "UKIP problem" since a center-right Euroskeptic party seems to be making a bid to peel off enough votes from her center-right coalition in the upcoming election to deny her a majority. We'll see how that turns out.
Of course, the Nobel Prize committee also famously opted to give Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize for his movie about his book about his slideshow. The alternative was to give it to a lady who smuggled Jewish kids out of a Nazi camp but who cares about that?
Former President Carter was given a prize. Apparently his anti-Semitic comments about Israel didn't bother the committee, nor did his disastrous foreign policy record as President.
Kofi Annan was given a prize whilst his son was stealing from the UN's oil for food program. I guess crime does pay.
Perhaps the most "interesting" choice for a Peace Prize was Yasser Arafat, a terrorist who organized numerous attacks and bombings against Israel. He briefly agreed to a ceasefire. He was given the prize. Attacks resumed shortly after.
Also of note, who has not received a Peace Prize. No doubt, in the second half of the 20th century there was no greater threat to peace than the USSR. Nobody contributed more to the downfall of the USSR than Pope John Paul II, US President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margret Thatcher. With Mrs. Thatcher's death earlier this year, all three of them have died without receiving a Nobel Prize for their great contributions to peace. JFK never was awarded a prize for negotiating a peaceful resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Winston Churchill never received a Prize for preserving democracy and standing (at first, largely alone) against Hitler's forces. FDR or the French Resistance would've also made good candidates for their actions during WWII.
Edward Snowden has done nothing but cause international tension, precisely the opposite of what a recipient of the prize should be. I have a better alternative: Malala Yousafzai. She is a 16 year old Pashton girl who has been campaigning in Pakistan and Afghanistan for the right of girls to attend school and to learn to read. She has also been a vocal advocate for the rights of women and children around the world. The Taliban nearly killed her a while back but she has continued to speak out for the rights of the oppressed. By contrast, Snowden handed over American military secrets to China and Russia.
The Gospel according to lolcat
Edward Snowden is already a great hero in the hearts and minds of many. Awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize only serves to repair the badly damaged reputation of the award itself.
Also, it's not as if one can just mail him a check. The man's life is in grave danger.
You completely missed the point that was made.
When you persecute people and infringe upon them, it is necessary for their own good and their own existence to push back. Do you think gay people like spending so much of their life fighting for gay rights and equal treatment under the Constitution and the safety of not being beat to death on the street for simply being gay? Or do you think they would rather just have the equality and the safety of every other human being and carry on with the rest of their life?
Those "uppity gays" and "uppity negroes" and "militant atheists" that religious people usually say "should just shut the fuck up if they don't believe, because then it doesn't concern them" are "uppity" and "militant" precisely because they have to be active in fighting against the way they are treated, dismissed, and impacted by those who are intolerant.
Of course, not everyone can afford the time or personal/professional risk of being militant. Thankfully, there are those that make it their life-long cause to do that for the rest of them.
It is also hypocritical to call people "militant" who are just standing up for their rights and pushing back against your imposition upon society. I would say the "militant" ones are those who are using law and mob-rule to impose their religion upon politics, government, education, law, and all of society. Making comments about people being "animals" based on the tone of their skin or suggesting we should murder them so they "can meet their maker and find out how wrong they are about religion". THAT is militant.
It's a rather perverse and sick tactic to push and bully someone pretty much forever and then, when they stand up for themselves, shout "he's being intolerant of me!" (or, in some cases, trying to discredit lack of belief by claiming it is as much a religion as belief -- when it is the non-existence of belief and nothing more).
I imagine there were a lot of dudes, like yourself, back in the 1960s talking about how "all them negroes are actin' like nutjobs with all that marchin' and militant sitting in the front of the bus and drinking from white fountains and shit". (I am not trying to implicate you as a racist or anything, but am just drawing parallels between the attitude and terms exhibited by those in multiple situations to dismiss, diminish, and denigrate other segments of society who are actively demanding fair treatment).
The root cause of every war ever fought has been the same: land, the finite supply thereof. Who gets to live where?
The American Revolution was about whether the King had the right to restrain colonists from manifesting their destiny to conquer the whole of North America. The Civil War was about whether the South should remain the exclusive preserve of gentleman-farmers, or whether it should be opened to northern-style industrialisation. World War One was about control of European colonies, i.e. which European countries should be allowed to export their ambitious young people to where. World War Two was about Germany getting the short end of World War One. The Crusades were about whether non-Christians should be allowed to live on Christian land. The Thirty Years' War was about whether rulers should have to put up with dissidents in their own countries, or whether they should be able to drive them out and make them someone else's problem. And so it goes on.
He's not the first Look up, "Obama, Sweden called, they want their Nobel back, they're transferring it to Snowden" or similar. Been out there for months. See something, say something. Folks in glass empires shouldn't fly drones
It was given to Henry Kissinger, Barrack Obama, the European Union. Obviously the Nobel peace price need to recover from the disrepute where it was fallen, and it needs Edward Snowden for that. But does Edward Snowden needs it?
How about tht premed student on th bus, in India, for one?
He has my vote. :)
http://nyewin.org http://nyexug.com http://nycsqlusergroup.com http://nylug.org
Who is this 'everyone'? Because it sure didn't include me. I had no idea the NSA was trolling the whole internet or had cooperation from major IT giants. I didn't know they were spying on their own allies and friends.
Because you're either 16, or you're a fucking moron.
While there's no denying that many wars have been fought under the guise of religion; I'm sure people can make war just fine (and they have in the past) without religion.
You can try and lesson the position of religion within warfare here, but the facts will call you a liar. And your examples that you can find are few and far between all the other fucking wars we have waged in the name of opposing beliefs, so best just to stop now with this bullshit.
Simple fact. Religion has created far more bloodshed on this earth than we will ever care to admit. One cannot even sanely explain the irony of two people trying to kill each other, arguing over what happens when you die.
You might like to take a closer look at our recently deposed PM & self-confessed atheist here down under to see that religious views have little to do with competency, character or moral fibre, especially when it comes to politicians. Me, personally - I'd prefer a leader who I know doesn't think they're God, make of that what you will. :)
Thank you for sharing this, I enjoyed watching it. I will say that Hitchens debated much better than others who have debated Craig. However, I wouldn't say that he "trounced him" or demonstrated that he was "willfully twisting the truth". I would call it a tie as far as debating goes. Hitchens could have tried to offer evidence affirming naturalism. Craig should have understood what Hitchens means by atheism. But what this debate shows is that there are in fact people who build a case for theism not on faith alone or logical fallacies. So the phrase "religion's inherent necessity for irrational belief in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary" isn't perfectly accurate.
Dr. Ross is demonstrates this a lot better (and he doesn't come off as a jerk like Craig does). Dr. Ross is an astrophysicists who runs an organization called "Reasons to Believe". In one of the podcasts that his organization produces, they look at various "empirical evidence" seriously. For example, you don't often hear about Christians discussing things like whether or not humans interbred with Denisovans like you would with RTB. Most Christians would discuss why they haven't interbred. Hitchens in this debate called people like Ross and Craig, "evidentialists".
Basically, I'm saying in a roundabout way that rational thinking and religion are not mutually exclusive. This doesn't prove or disprove a God, but demonstrates that blanket statements about the irrationality of religious people is untenable.
Nice goalpost-move!
As it happens, I agree with you. Religion has been a convenient excuse for war, but as a simple matter of history, any "good" belief will do. The war in Iraq was fought on the pretext of "freedom" and "security" and "democracy". Only an idiot would think that this means that freedom, security, and democracy "cause" wars.
The flip side is that, as Steven Pinker pointed out in his recent book, the world today is a less violent place than it's ever been (on a per capita basis), and it's only improving.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Oh, you insular Americans, thinking that the only kind of "religion" in the world is US-style evangelical protestantism.
You do know that among the minority of the world's two billion odd Christians who have actually heard of William Lane Craig, most think he's a joke? Only US fundamentalists and "new" atheists seem to take him seriously.
The same may be true of Hugh Ross, but I honestly don't know. I hadn't heard of him before you mentioned him. I wouldn't have heard of Craig if it wasn't for reading American blogs making fun of him. Hell, the fact that you have to point people to them says quite a lot about their prominence in, and level of influence on, the major world religions.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
If a non-stamp collect goes to not-collecting stamps conventions and loves to talk about not-collecting stamps with their peers in their spare time, then yes I'd qualify that as a hobby.
Many atheists love to talk about atheism, go to speakers to hear them talk about atheism, etc. It does have some of the same markers as religion.
Obama was an ideomotor response. Let's face it, any black president would have sufficed given he who preceded... Anything resembling the opposite of what was, came to pass, and the heavy gears of fate continued undisturbed whence from before.
Dude, the name and methods of the organization reveal that they reasoning is inherently flawed. They started with a conclusion that they want to rationalize, and then work backwards trying to "prove" it. Thats not empiricism.
Also, the fact that you didn't notice the multiple occasions when Craig was intellectual dishonest in that debate pretty clearly demonstrates that you too have a conclusion you prefer, and are now working backwards to justify it.
Oh and if you have any doubt at all that Craig is working backwards from his own preferred conclusion, consider his words:
"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost is the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit.""
He has not made anything safer.
Because you're either 16, or you're a fucking moron.
Because you think spending billions on looking for ghosts when your national debt is way out of control makes sense?
No, religion just provides the labels. The cause of wars, and much other fighting (gangs, football hooligans, etc.) is TRIBALISM. In Northern Ireland Catholics and Protestants are fighting again, but those are just convenient labels for "native" Irish and people descended from English invaders. Much of the fighting in in the middle east is between people with different tribal allegiances, the media just finds it easier to say Sunni and Shi'a.
Just to be clear, I am an atheist and know that a lot of terrible things have been done in the name of religion but I think if we took religion away altogether, certain groups of people will still see "them" and "us" and start fighting.
Art is the mathematics of emotion
Going to an atheist president won't help either. Officially atheist regimes were some of the biggest killers in the last century.
League of Militant Atheists The Black Book of Communism The Black Book of Communism - (book review) by Daniel J. Mahoney
The Black Book of Communism is one of those rare books that really matters. It is the first systematic and comparative analysis of the "crimes, terror and repression" that accompanied Communism everywhere and that seemed to define its "genetic code." The book's centerpiece is a relentlessly documented narrative of political violence and repression in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, drawing on extensive archival materials made available to researchers since the collapse of Communist rule in 1991. But The Black Book also contains absorbing accounts of Communist repression in Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Third World.
The Soviet Story (2008)
That's why it must be explained to everyone the DIFFERENCE between ATHEIST AND FREETHINKER.
The strict definition of atheism, only imply you must not believe in god. That's why you can find atheist that are superstitious and/or irrational, atheist who believe in homeopathy, or in Bach flowers, in gods. that's why Stalin is a good example of an irrational, superstitious&cruel atheist.
OTOH, a freethinker rejects irrationality and dogma by principle. A freethinker doesn't believe in god, because of its irrationality needed to believe the absurd religious scenarios, but he also can't be superstitious or irrational at all, in any other area, not only in subjects regarding to religion.
Can we really call it "defense" any more? With a straight face?
I guess that's why it is impossible for a US president to be elected who doesn't first declare his undying love and fealty to Israel.
Only I can judge you.
But the color of your skin DOES MATTER, and we shouldn't pretend that a black president isn't a big deal just to make you feel better.
Has he really done that? What do we want from our govt? We failed to act on "secret knowledge" that existed prior to 9/11 - and then it happened. We then put into play capabilities and allowed actions to occur at high levels, in an effort to prevent another attack from happening. Through two administrations now and two wars - we've not seen another attack on US soil and Bin Laden and many others like him are dead. This is precisely what we asked our govt and the soldiers fighting for our country to do. Do we really expect to read about what secret activities our nation is mixed in, spread across the media pages? for the sake of transparency? NO!!! WHY? CONTEXT - if the average citizen really thinks that only knowing half the story is ALL they need to make any informed decision, then we're all screwed. Personally, I say classify every damn thing there is - because treasonous jerks like Snowden just don't get it, especially in this day and age of giving every little piece of data you can muster. What he did was treason against the USA and as such, should be punishable under all the applicable laws on our books. If a soldier had done this - they'd be in jail If a politician had done this - they'd be investigated Flooding the worlds data wires with the intent of our military and armed forces is TREASON - it isn't FREEDOM of information, it's classified and highly sensitive info, that for all we know - will cost us more American lives today, tomorrow or down the road. End of the story
Beginning with Obama, that prize is seriously a joke -- worthless.
Allow me to dissect your argument and prove why it is entirely irrelevant.
I understand that many might not approve of spying and the NSA, but Snowden was a professional working for them via the contractor Booz Allen.
Who else would know the facts of the program? Who else could provide this information? It had to be somebody "inside". Had these accusations come from some guy on the street they would have been ignored as yet another crackpot conspiracy theory. Whistle-blowing on illegal activities always comes from a man on the inside.
Everyone knows what the NSA is about,
There were long suspicions of "what the NSA is about" but no proof, and the rule of law is that proof is necessary to convict. Prior to Snowden's release, any accusations of mass surveillance of US citizens leveled at the NSA were scoffingly disregarded and without evidence it was impossible to proceed. Thanks to Snowden, these accusations can no longer ignore the accusations (they may ignore the orders to stop, sadly).
but Snowden takes the operational details of the programs and gives them the Russians and Chinese.
Snowden released the details of the illegal and un-Constitutional programs to the /press/. You make it sound as if he snuck up to the Russian ambassador and passed secrets on to only them, which is hardly the case. Yes, the Russians now are aware of the program (most likely, the ones in power who actually worried about such things probably had a good idea of the capability of those programs already anyway, but that's beside the point). But more importantly, the US citizenry know about it as well. Ultimately, they are the only ones who can legally force a change. That other nations may now know of these programs is a side effect and - idealistically - irrelevant anyway. After all, illegal programs should be stopped so any intelligence gained about them becomes useless.
Snowden may be a "traitor" to the /people/ in the NSA, but our loyalty should not lie towards individuals but to the law and ideals that define our nation. Snowden obeyed those principles while other agents turned a blind eye or actively pursued these unconstitutional activities. He's far more a patriot than they.
My gawd .... finally, a post in this forum that's worthy of being read. Very nice .... very nice indeed. Kudos!
He just wanted fame.
I wonder if the Committee will deliver to the Moscow airport?
I sick and twisted idea. But after the award to Obama, it would be difficult to sink much lower.
He has caused a stir that's for sure.
Better than giving it to Linus Torvald. That man is not about peace.
First Obama, now Snowden...confirmation the Nobel Peace Prize is now officially a joke.
Impetuous! Homeric!
I think Edward Snowden deserves the award if his whistle blowing leads to radical changes and a more transparent global system. Right now the global system is operated as if an inordinately large group of internal people, contractors, vendors, stakeholders and select members if the general public all have the easy-to-guess Enterprise Administrator password and the security log has been disabled /metaphor ...
I think Obama would have deserved the award had he actually done something to bring about peace.
This discussion was derailed by race and religion. The point was missed.
"Many atheists love to talk about atheism,"
There are also many atheists who don't. You don't notice them because they're not saying anything.
Everyone forgets that Snowden planned this data theft before he had the job. That alone changes the narrative, since he pitched his "story idea" to Greenwald in Feb of 2013. Snowden didn't get hired by BAH for the Threat Operations Center until March 2013, which is the compartment he needed access to in order to lift the data he'd promised to the reporter. If ol' Ed was really the purist other people make him out to be (that he wasn't), wouldn't he have not made arrangements to leak the data before he even had his hands on it?
A longstanding tradition in international relations, is that every nation spies upon each other, your allies more so than your enemies. Snowden's running to China, and then tattling "the US is spying on you!" shows either wanton ignorance, or more proof that he wasn't doing this "great act of self sacrifice" to wake up the American people. China's been a frequent home country to spies caught in the US over the past 10-15 years. Operation Aurora, Ghostnet, and a flurry of other incidences that corporate network guys could lay out show that China's been getting taint deep in our electronic networks for a while.
Snowden: so concerned about America and the people that lived here, that he stole documentation allegedly outlining foreign spying programs to nations he planned fleeing to. Because that protects our privacy.
gosgog:
1st, Spying, don't y'all be so bloody naive, spying has gone since tribal days. It doesn't matter whether you are friendly or or not!
2nd. The Muslim world, mainly at the instigation of the 'mullahs', have created worldwide problems of terrorism & in particular, agin the NON- MUSLIM folks who live in Europe, the U.K.,U.S., etc.
3/.Snowden is Highly Moral & a Peace lover....BULLSHIT, he's in it for the fame and hoping for the Money.
It's sad that I feel so wary in replying to this non-anonymously with a positive viewpoint, even though posting from a society with free speech on a global service.
We shall slowly realize that politics and business in globalization are nothing but giant ponzi/pyramid scams.
Casteism
Fasting/roaming half-naked in streets and NOT peaceful protests. They're cheap tools/tricks used by Gandhi to INSULT (not defeat British)
Unlike British generosity, protesters in Independent India are thrashed and thrown in jail by Indian regime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharmila_Chanu
A Brahmin killed Bania Gandhi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathuram_Godse
A Brahmin lady (Savita Kabir) killed Untouchable Ambedkar.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/may/29mai.htm
Which is exactly why you /must/ reply non-anonymously. These extra-legal activities only work because people are afraid of the agencies behind them. "I must comply or bad things will happen!" Except if people force these agencies to follow through on their threats, it will push them out of the shadow and into the light, where they are weakest. Their demands are /not/ legal and will not stand up to scrutiny. They know this, which is why they try to work around the system.
(yes, I see the irony in an AC making this comment...)
You're WRONG and MISLEADING.
Bania Gandhi BETRAYED the Independence of Muslims, Christians and Untouchables.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_Award
Casteism
I think it stopped having a point at Reagan and Gorbachev.
As a CON a Atheist president wouldn't represent most of the people who do believe in God in one fashion or another.
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
As if that mattered in the least. Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss. The only "Change" brought about by Obama is the change in whose boot is on your neck.
This really peeves me... *rant* First off quit calling Snowden 'NSA'... he was a contractor...anyone else in IT know the *stigma* involved with the difference between contractor and employee? Second let's start calling him what he is.. a MOLE, and a bad one at that. This press blitz is clearly just an exit strategy that's getting too big. So who's he working for??? Third I *heard* the intelligence community in EUROPE (EU) has some beat read faces these days... just a rumor, But hey this guy nominating is a professor in SOCIOLOGY Fourth and foremost... Let face it people... PRISM is obsolete already *end rant* So, now, I'm going to lock down my firewall, and TOR all my guacamole recipe searches....cuz, who's really mad? Us or them ... which is what kind of attitude this propaganda is producing.
Maybe. I agree the US could have waited to invade Iraq. Of course, Saddam Hussein didn't do himself any favors when he continued to openly defy UN nuclear inspectors and made public threats about his desires to become a nuclear power. Any sane person would have STFU after the 9-11 attacks. Unfortunately Hussein was not known for his sanity and over played his hand. His public statements gave credibility to false reports of weapons of mass destruction and the rest is history... It was still just a matter of time.
Bush-II and Cheney had already decided, long *before* 9/11, that they wanted to attack Iraq. 9/11 just gave them the 'excuse' to do it via trumped up lies.
Snowden deserves a beating, not any prize. What has he done that's "wrong"?: 1) Theft 2) False credentials 3) Tampering with national security 4) Placing all Americans at risk 5) International flight 6) Traveling on a voided passport 7) Bartering with items/information he doesn't legally own nor has personally created 8) Terroristic threats 9) Unethical treatment toward his employer 10) Misrepresentation 11) Perjury/breach of oath 12) Dereliction of duty 13) Failure to follow orders. He's also flirting with, in fact, trying to set up the two main offenses: A) Assisting foreign powers B) Aiding the enemy. Sure, the Constitution guarantees our freedom to share more information with the public, and the right to free speech is great... but NOT when it will cause a danger to National Security. The info Snowden likely possesses is probably EXACTLY the kind of stuff al Qaeda wants leaked out so they can learn better of how to successfully find ways to kill Americans at will. Not to mention, maybe names and locations of counter-terrorism spies that the U.S. has out in the field infiltrating the ranks of those would-be murderers.
What has Snowjob done that's "wrong"?: 1) Theft 2) False credentials 3) Tampering with national security 4) Placing all Americans at risk 5) International flight 6) Traveling on a voided passport 7) Bartering with items/information he doesn't legally own nor has personally created 8) Terroristic threats 9) Unethical treatment toward his employer 10) Misrepresentation 11) Perjury/breach of oath 12) Dereliction of duty 13) Failure to follow orders. He's also flirting with, in fact, trying to set up the two main offenses: A) Assisting foreign powers B) Aiding the enemy! So sure, the Constitution guarantees our freedom to share more information with the public, and the right to free speech is great... but NOT when it will cause a danger to National Security. The info Snowden likely possesses is probably EXACTLY the kind of stuff al Qaeda wants leaked out so they can learn better of how to successfully find ways to kill Americans at will. Not to mention, maybe names and locations of counter-terrorism spies that the U.S. has out in the field infiltrating the ranks of those would-be murderers. He deserves a whipping, not any kind of a prize!
"now"......."NOW"?????????????
Kissinger, Arafat, Peres, and Rabin among others won Nobel Peace Prizes.
The Nobels should get less respect than an Emmy award.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."