people, armed, and descending on seats of government with the intent to kill treasonous legislators, judges, and executives, after deciding that no other recourse for their grievances was possible
So true. This one time when I tried to rob a bank, I asked the cops for help so that I could do it safely without hurting anyone. But the fucking pigs just wanted to stop me. Clearly it wasn't my fault that people died.
"This one time when I wanted to reveal that the cops had shot up a bunch of hostages I asked the cop to tell me who were the robbers and who were the hostages so I could blur out the innocent faces in the video, but the cops refused to help and when I revealed their deadly mishap they said more hostages would be shot because of me."
This is the honest version of your allegory. The way you say it you've conflated Wikileaks and the Taliban, because you're biased against wikileaks and are actively trying to smear them, apparently.
No matter whether this is a Just War being conducted as honorably as is possible in war or if this war is merely cruel and arbitrary: there is zero culpability on the part of the Pentagon in this matter.
WHAT? "If this war is cruel and arbitrary there is zero culpability on the part of the people who are waging this war?" That's... that's stupid!
And you think that because they didn't want any of those documents released (because it makes them look bad) they are morally justified in refusing to participate in harm-reduction and then turnind around and saying that Wikileaks didn't do any harm reduction? Those documents were going to be released with or without their help, the pentagon has plenty of blame to bear, in their actions and in their inactions.
Oh, you've gleaned my lack of support of Wikileaks because I called Assange a narcissistic jerk? Overextrapolating a bit there, eh?
No, not even a little bit. Your base comment on wikileaks is calling its public face names. If someone goes around calling the pope a child-raping nazi, it wouldn't be "overextrapolating" to deduce that they don't like the catholic church.
An Amnesty official replied to say that while the group has limited resources, it wouldn't rule out the idea of helping, according to people familiar with the reply. The official suggested that Mr. Assange and the human-rights groups hold a conference call to discuss the matter.
Mr. Assange then replied: "I'm very busy and have no time to deal with people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses. If Amnesty does nothing I shall issue a press release highlighting its refusal," according to people familiar with the exchange.
The people behind Nixon were the same people behind Reagan, and Bush1, and Bush2. You can look at group pictures and litterally see these same people standing behind the frontman.
And?
And Nixon went from frontman to fallguy, and the same people who had been running Vietnam went on to arm Saddam and Iran and the Taliban while Reagan was smiling at the cameras and so on and so forth. Scandals mean nothing if all that results is a change in frontman.
Obama has Clinton carry-overs. Clinton had Carter carry-overs. Carter had LBJ carry-overs. JFK/LBJ had FDR carry-overs. And some of those administrations had guys that had White House time going back 40 years.
Indeed, Obama is also a frontman. Notice how I'm talking about the reality of power and not the partisan bickering. There might be two groups pulling the blanket to their side of the bed, but they're in the same bed.
>>>The people behind Nixon were the same people behind Reagan, and Bush1, and Bush2. You can look at group pictures and litterally see these same people standing behind the frontman.
That's interesting. Republicans are all the same puppets. Wow. I guess that's why the mods gave you a +1 insightful mod.
I had taken one example centered around one specific individual, but go ahead and make zany generalizations if that makes you feel better.
The majority of the Democrats (like KKK Wizard Robert Byrd) voted against the 1950s and 60s Civil Rights Legislation. They don't teach you that in history books, do they?
Fascinating. WTF does that have to do about the distribution of power between the private and public sector?
Oh, it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand? You're just spouting partisan bullshit? I see...
I do sometimes wonder if the internet was better off as a geek thing and not something the main stream adopted.
It's becoming more and more about exploitation of the user.
Well, the endless september has its drawbacks (so many trolls and noisy children), and the new "lets take freedom away" trend in international internet laws suck, but the bandwidth and breadth of new info that the masses brought sure are nice.
Positive rights define two classes of people: people who are entitled to receive something from someone else, and another class of people who are required to produce a surplus in order to satisfy the first group. There's a name for this kind of arrangement but I'll let you figure that out on your own.
but honestly, the guy is a fame whore who really doesn't care who dies just as long as he has fame. He wants his time in the sun. Even after seeing other press stories about Taliban acting on namesof informants and such he doesn't really seem to care.
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, we’ve got to be careful, Amy. Mullen actually was quite crafty in his words. He said "might already have" blood on my hands. But the media has gone and turned that into a concrete definition. There is, as far as we can tell, no incident of that. So it is a speculative charge. Of course, we are treating any possible revelation of the names of innocents seriously. That is why we held back 15,000 of these documents, to review that.
Now, some names may have crept into others and may be unfortunate, may not be. But you must understand that we contacted the White House about that issue and asked for their assistance in vetting to see whether there would be any exposure of innocents and to identify those names accordingly. Of course, we would never accept any other kind of veto, but in relation to that matter, we requested their assistance via the New York Times, who the four media partners involved—us, Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the Times—agreed would be the conduit to the White House so we wouldn’t step on each other’s toes. Now, the White House issued a flat denial that that had ever happened. And we see, however, that in an interview with CBS News, Eric Schmidt, who was our contact for that, quoted from the email that I had relayed to the White House, and that quote is precisely what I had been saying all along and completely contradicts the White House statement.
I certainly think Clinton would have made a vastly better president than Obama
Took me a while to get that you meant Hillary. I don't know what your definition of "better" is, but I'm glad the list of presidents doesn't read bush-clinton-clinton-bush-bush-clinton. That would have been depressing.
It's not the US Military that drives the decisions of the US Government. It's the military contractors that drive the decisions of the US Government.
Military-industrial-congress complex: The same people go through a revolving door and alternate between military, government and private enterprise. Perfect example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
You see, term limits only mean that the people in power have a rotation. They go from being in control of the government to running newspapers and contractors when the other team is in government and then they come back to power with a new frontman.
The people behind Nixon were the same people behind Reagan, and Bush1, and Bush2. You can look at group pictures and litterally see these same people standing behind the frontman.
Could you point out what documents show a smoking gun of governments lying in the textual documents?
Pretty sure he can't. Everyone says it's mostly examples of stuff that people who pay attention already knew. They show a lot of lies by omission, but there's not big new news.
Considering they've already shared the unedited files with at least three other news agencies.. yeah, this is just the beginning.
Newspapers have sat on much bigger stories just because the government said "please". Multiple newspapers sat on or killed stories because, then Director of National Intelligence, Negroponte asked them to. Telecom spying anyone?
When we say military-industrial-congress complex, you have to remember that the media is part of that industry.
I don't know where that meme got seeded, but since it is oft repeated and obviously isn't based on reality, I figure it's the "discredit their reputation and motives" part of the retaliation.
The public relations industry is very adept at propaganda.
Slashdot Mirror
people, armed, and descending on seats of government with the intent to kill treasonous legislators, judges, and executives, after deciding that no other recourse for their grievances was possible
Helicopter flying high,
the sound of gunfire;
falling leaves.
So true. This one time when I tried to rob a bank, I asked the cops for help so that I could do it safely without hurting anyone. But the fucking pigs just wanted to stop me. Clearly it wasn't my fault that people died.
"This one time when I wanted to reveal that the cops had shot up a bunch of hostages I asked the cop to tell me who were the robbers and who were the hostages so I could blur out the innocent faces in the video, but the cops refused to help and when I revealed their deadly mishap they said more hostages would be shot because of me."
This is the honest version of your allegory. The way you say it you've conflated Wikileaks and the Taliban, because you're biased against wikileaks and are actively trying to smear them, apparently.
No matter whether this is a Just War being conducted as honorably as is possible in war or if this war is merely cruel and arbitrary: there is zero culpability on the part of the Pentagon in this matter.
WHAT? "If this war is cruel and arbitrary there is zero culpability on the part of the people who are waging this war?" That's... that's stupid!
And you think that because they didn't want any of those documents released (because it makes them look bad) they are morally justified in refusing to participate in harm-reduction and then turnind around and saying that Wikileaks didn't do any harm reduction? Those documents were going to be released with or without their help, the pentagon has plenty of blame to bear, in their actions and in their inactions.
Oh, you've gleaned my lack of support of Wikileaks because I called Assange a narcissistic jerk? Overextrapolating a bit there, eh?
No, not even a little bit. Your base comment on wikileaks is calling its public face names. If someone goes around calling the pope a child-raping nazi, it wouldn't be "overextrapolating" to deduce that they don't like the catholic church.
An Amnesty official replied to say that while the group has limited resources, it wouldn't rule out the idea of helping, according to people familiar with the reply. The official suggested that Mr. Assange and the human-rights groups hold a conference call to discuss the matter.
Mr. Assange then replied: "I'm very busy and have no time to deal with people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses. If Amnesty does nothing I shall issue a press release highlighting its refusal," according to people familiar with the exchange.
Kind of comes off as a narcissistic jerk here.
Way to catapult the propaganda.
The people behind Nixon were the same people behind Reagan, and Bush1, and Bush2. You can look at group pictures and litterally see these same people standing behind the frontman.
And?
And Nixon went from frontman to fallguy, and the same people who had been running Vietnam went on to arm Saddam and Iran and the Taliban while Reagan was smiling at the cameras and so on and so forth. Scandals mean nothing if all that results is a change in frontman.
Obama has Clinton carry-overs. Clinton had Carter carry-overs. Carter had LBJ carry-overs. JFK/LBJ had FDR carry-overs. And some of those administrations had guys that had White House time going back 40 years.
Indeed, Obama is also a frontman. Notice how I'm talking about the reality of power and not the partisan bickering. There might be two groups pulling the blanket to their side of the bed, but they're in the same bed.
An arrangement into which the mother entered voluntarily.
Nice try.
Rape?
>>>The people behind Nixon were the same people behind Reagan, and Bush1, and Bush2. You can look at group pictures and litterally see these same people standing behind the frontman.
That's interesting. Republicans are all the same puppets. Wow. I guess that's why the mods gave you a +1 insightful mod.
I had taken one example centered around one specific individual, but go ahead and make zany generalizations if that makes you feel better.
The majority of the Democrats (like KKK Wizard Robert Byrd) voted against the 1950s and 60s Civil Rights Legislation. They don't teach you that in history books, do they?
Fascinating. WTF does that have to do about the distribution of power between the private and public sector?
Oh, it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand? You're just spouting partisan bullshit? I see...
public library or Internet cafe
Which will be required to record your photo ID before you can use the internet. I've been to countries that were already like that.
I do sometimes wonder if the internet was better off as a geek thing and not something the main stream adopted.
It's becoming more and more about exploitation of the user.
Well, the endless september has its drawbacks (so many trolls and noisy children), and the new "lets take freedom away" trend in international internet laws suck, but the bandwidth and breadth of new info that the masses brought sure are nice.
you can still be tagged by name in photos even if there's no profile to link to.
Better yet: You can link an email address to that name and photo.
Positive rights define two classes of people: people who are entitled to receive something from someone else, and another class of people who are required to produce a surplus in order to satisfy the first group. There's a name for this kind of arrangement but I'll let you figure that out on your own.
Mother and child?
Who DOESNT set their facebook as friends-only?
Attention whores and people who realize that Zuckerberg is simply going to make those public without your authorization in 3 months or so.
but honestly, the guy is a fame whore who really doesn't care who dies just as long as he has fame. He wants his time in the sun. Even after seeing other press stories about Taliban acting on namesof informants and such he doesn't really seem to care.
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, we’ve got to be careful, Amy. Mullen actually was quite crafty in his words. He said "might already have" blood on my hands. But the media has gone and turned that into a concrete definition. There is, as far as we can tell, no incident of that. So it is a speculative charge. Of course, we are treating any possible revelation of the names of innocents seriously. That is why we held back 15,000 of these documents, to review that.
Now, some names may have crept into others and may be unfortunate, may not be. But you must understand that we contacted the White House about that issue and asked for their assistance in vetting to see whether there would be any exposure of innocents and to identify those names accordingly. Of course, we would never accept any other kind of veto, but in relation to that matter, we requested their assistance via the New York Times, who the four media partners involved—us, Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the Times—agreed would be the conduit to the White House so we wouldn’t step on each other’s toes. Now, the White House issued a flat denial that that had ever happened. And we see, however, that in an interview with CBS News, Eric Schmidt, who was our contact for that, quoted from the email that I had relayed to the White House, and that quote is precisely what I had been saying all along and completely contradicts the White House statement.
Bush KNEW this would be folly
Maybe he really -=believed=- that the Russians couldn't take Afghanistan because the US were arming and training the Taliban.
Or that Rambo did it, and James Bond helped...
I certainly think Clinton would have made a vastly better president than Obama
Took me a while to get that you meant Hillary. I don't know what your definition of "better" is, but I'm glad the list of presidents doesn't read bush-clinton-clinton-bush-bush-clinton. That would have been depressing.
even if there were, it would not make one iota of difference. Choosing the lesser of two evils sometimes means you're left with a really evil choice.
All we are saying is: Give peace a chance.
It's not the US Military that drives the decisions of the US Government. It's the military contractors that drive the decisions of the US Government.
Military-industrial-congress complex: The same people go through a revolving door and alternate between military, government and private enterprise. Perfect example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
You see, term limits only mean that the people in power have a rotation. They go from being in control of the government to running newspapers and contractors when the other team is in government and then they come back to power with a new frontman.
The people behind Nixon were the same people behind Reagan, and Bush1, and Bush2. You can look at group pictures and litterally see these same people standing behind the frontman.
Could you point out what documents show a smoking gun of governments lying in the textual documents?
Pretty sure he can't. Everyone says it's mostly examples of stuff that people who pay attention already knew. They show a lot of lies by omission, but there's not big new news.
Telling a court, "here's a file I downloaded from bittorrent, and it looks pretty legit" isn't going to cut it.
I dunno, it seems too work for the MPAA and RIAA...
Considering they've already shared the unedited files with at least three other news agencies.. yeah, this is just the beginning.
Newspapers have sat on much bigger stories just because the government said "please".
Multiple newspapers sat on or killed stories because, then Director of National Intelligence, Negroponte asked them to.
Telecom spying anyone?
When we say military-industrial-congress complex, you have to remember that the media is part of that industry.
isn't a media whore.
I don't know where that meme got seeded, but since it is oft repeated and obviously isn't based on reality, I figure it's the "discredit their reputation and motives" part of the retaliation.
The public relations industry is very adept at propaganda.
What happens after that is no longer an societal imperative? I'll tell you what; explorers, teachers, and observers.
I think it's more likely to end in holodeck orgies.
Hopefully someone will crack that Ancient code any time now, and we can finally find Destiny!
Makes you wonder... Did the foldit guys borrow the idea off TV, or did the TV writers borrow it off them?
The Last Starfighter, and get off my lawn.
How in the world could anyone say with a straight face that this would not happen with the full body scans at airports?
With a lot of experience lying to people's faces. It's a marketable skill!