I believe that your position reduces to saying that information is at least partially responsible for peoples behavior. Are you denying that?
Yes, I am denying that. Information is not "responsible" for peoples' actions. I never said it was. Information does influence peoples' actions, by every definition of the word. It is intellectually dishonest to say that information does not influence peoples' actions. If you perceive that provides censorship arguments with ammunition, so be it. We're splitting semantic hairs, here. Information DOES influence peoples' actions; it is NOT responsible for those actions. The two are mutually exclusive, and does not imply that information is somehow "responsible" for those actions. Information exists. The nature and context in which it is presented can influence and inform peoples' actions. It is not responsible for those actions. Might someone take a certain action in absence of, or because of, certain information? Absolutely. But that still does not mean the information is responsible for the action; the individual is responsible for the action. Even if a case can be made that a particular individual wouldn't have done X without information Y, the information is still not "responsible" for the action.
I think we're kind of talking past each other, here. If you want to do mental gymnastics to claim that information doesn't influence people (or shouldn't be considered as such) simply to prevent any censorship arguments based on that premise, be my guest. Information having influence also does not preclude the concept or notion of personal responsibility. But information, and access to it, will only become more influential as the "information revolution" continues to take hold. That's why governments and businesses are investing increasing amounts of time into managing, manipulating, controlling, and analyzing information. Information is an undeniable influence. That some will use this fundamental truth to argue for censorship is misguided, and is another issue altogether. There is no need to use sophistry or intellectual dishonesty in terms of information's influential capacity simply to argue against censorship. There are many honest and logical means to achieve that goal.
This comment pretty much sums it up. That's not good or bad; it just "is".
And your Bible analogy is remarkably spot on: the contents of the Bible (or the text of any other religion) has created a lot of ill, and a lot of good, depending on your perspective, that may not otherwise have existed.
The point is that information in its many forms influences people. That the extensive and more comprehensive access to information of all kinds provided by the internet can act as an even greater/broader influence should come as no surprise.
Couldn't this very likely be true? And, more importantly, if it is, so what?
The internet is an enabling technology for an awful lot of things, and the information easily available via the internet has, I'm sure, acted as a catalyst or even an initiator for all sorts of interests, even interests some may consider distasteful or even illegal. Fortunately, the positive aspects of this information tool are viewed by the vast majority of people to outweigh its negatives.
This submitter appears eager to dismiss something that is probably quite accurate; namely, that the internet can catalyze or even create an interest in a predisposed person, who might not have had the opportunity, inclination, will, or knowledge to pursue it otherwise, absent this tool. Why don't we instead simply agree that while this state of affairs may be the case, it isn't the "fault" of the internet?
The internet is a tool for access to information. That tool allows someone who may not have explored their pedophilia 50 years ago to do it now, simply because of the privacy and ease, and may even catalyze it or allow it to grow. That is, essentially, creating -- or at least solidifying -- "pedophiles", and I am not making any value judgment whatsoever. Just as the internet "creates" people who enjoy online games, or who have discovered and embraced any of a number of other topics they otherwise might not have without the unique and easy exposure the internet can provide in the comforts and privacy of one's home 24 hours a day, it is so for this as well.
And why can't it follow that however small an increased number of people -- however small -- may act on those feelings of "pedophilia" who wouldn't ever have gotten to that point before because of their own inhibitions or any number of other reasons, jumping the gap to what the rule of law in many societies currently defines as illegal in the form of either child pornography or child sexual abuse, regardless of consent? (Whether pedophilia does not always equal child sexual abuse and vice versa is irrelevant.)
The internet makes a great deal of things much easier. As such, it is going to support much easier access to information -- text, images, video -- and like-minded individuals that can undoubtedly support or encourage interest in just about any topic one can imagine.
But here's the problem: the implication here -- namely, the "US is trying to stop the Iranian Oil Bourse to protect the fragile dollar" theory vs the "US is secretly planning to invade Iran" theory -- falls apart of the expected action doesn't occur.
If the Iranian Oil Bourse opens this week or next as planned, then the theory that this was designed to "stop" that is incorrect, isn't it? Iran doesn't need undersea cable connectivity to conduct this business, and further, any and all damage to these undersea cables will be examined and repaired. In other words, the theory that believes that this is somehow related to the bourse is going to break down at some point, because Iran cannot be surgically removed from all communications, and even if it could be via undersea cables, it can still have ample connectivity to conduct the operations of the bourse. In fact, some might say Iran would be sufficiently emboldened to do just that.
So that's where these arguments kind of break down. If there isn't any large, defined benefit, and indeed, if Iran isn't even disconnected from the net as these theories assert, then are these theories even correct? They might be interesting, but I'm sure the conspiracy theories will now take on a life of their own. Even after the cables are raised and the damage examined and repaired, some will still believe that any type of evidence that might indicate sabotage will be concealed by the cable operators, who are somehow complicit with the US government. Unfortunately, this detracts from any actual meaningful discussion and public policy debate, as it concentrates a very vocal group of people on conspiracy theories.
One router in Iran -- the one that happens to be used by Internet Traffic Report -- is unreachable. As are dozens of single points on the internet in many states in the region.
A quick perusal of, e.g., newspaper web sites in Iran finds every one I have tried working fine, including all state-run media. As is the web site of the Government of Iran and numerous other government and press web sites physically located in Iran. See for yourself. (And yes, I am aware that simply ending in.ir does not mean the site is necessarily physically in Iran, but you can easily verify that nearly all of them are.)
I know all of you are just itching to believe it's a US information operation (I love some of the articles..."a secret Pentagon strategy called 'information warfare'" -- uh, guys, I hate to break this to you, but it's not a secret) to cut Iran off from the internet in advance of the secret Iran invasion that Bush -- er, Cheney -- is oh-so-obviously planning.
No one ever said that one ship damaged all the cables. What was said was that a single ship probably cut two cables in a particular area off Egypt. But that has been called into doubt in that location. Unfortunately, it isn't clear exactly where some of the cables have been damaged, so simply because one area didn't have a ship doesn't mean it wasn't possible for it to be damaged elsewhere.
Even if someone is cutting the cables, as telecom and undersea cable experts believe is unlikely, it would be better to actually consider the facts of the situation, instead of feeing the conspiracy mill with garbage like "Iran is offline" when it clearly isn't? How about waiting until the cables are raised to see what kind of damage has been caused?
But if you want to believe one guy's blog post that "Iran is offline", which ends with:
this author actually dug a bit deeper and found a trail that leads from the owners of most of these internet cables all the way back to some very, very large companies in the U.S. and in the U.K. Which companies you ask? Who is behind this?
Well, that's the topic for my next post. You'll have to subscribe to my RSS feed and stay tuned for my findings. Don't worry, the wait will be short.
...then be my guest. How convenient! If we want to learn "which" big evil companies are behind what is obviously a US operation to cut Iran off from the internet, all we have to do is subscribe to his ad-laden blog!
Or, we could perhaps believe the facts, which is that Iran is not "offline", as I have illustrated above.
It seems that the premise to this story -- namely, that Iran is "offline" -- is patently incorrect. So, since that is untrue, what are the motivations of people who want to believe this is a prelude to war?
That lying about it somehow serves a greater purpose?
Oh, and by the way, for all you pushers of the Information Warfare theory, keep in mind that it runs both ways. I wouldn't be surprised before Iran picks up on the conspiracy stories and starts promoting that itself. What a great way to detract attention from its continuing defiance of the world community -- no, not just the US -- on its nuclear processing.
Apple has already departed from its normal policy of not discussing future products and explicitly stated a 3G iPhone is coming. In fact, they stated that during the iPhone's introduction. And Jobs articulated several times why he felt that not having 3G in the first generation of the iPhone was a good decision. It boiled down to:
- AT&T didn't have enough 3G coverage yet in the US to make it worthwhile - Then-current 3G chipsets consumed too much power and were too large - The inclusion of Wi-Fi mitigated the omission of 3G for many people - The 3G technology patent conflict at the time was a complicating factor - All of these things would be changing in the future, and 3G will be added
So Apple knows 3G is important, and has already confirmed at least twice that a 3G iPhone is coming. There's nothing "inexplicable" about why the iPhone is currently EDGE; they've explained it several times for anyone who is willing to listen, and we already know a 3G iPhone is on the way.
Also, your assertions are pretty much incorrect. I use the iPhone via EDGE a lot, and, while slow, it serves its purpose. I'm also one of those people who lives in an AT&T service area with NO 3G service of any kind...until later this year.
"Seamlessly"? You have to have a computer connected to the Internet just to activate your phone? That is so lame. There's a huge population of people, especially outside the US, who have mobile phones but not computers. I wonder what percentage of those un-activated iPhones were bought by people who didn't realize they had to mess with a PC just to turn the phone on.
The iPhone requires iTunes for activation and OS updates (which sometimes will bring significant new features, unlike nearly all other handsets), which, in turn, requires a computer, or access to one, period.
And, uh, I don't think people without computers are really the target market for the iPhone. The iPhone is part of Apple's iTunes/iPod/iTunes Store ecosystem.
(And activation via iTunes is a hell of a lot more "seamless" than the crap hassle of most activation processes, in which many people don't always understand exactly what they're getting, either, because the sales rep does this sort of thing all the time (or is clueless), and the customer doesn't. Here, see for yourself.)
And you still can't download music over the air link, can you?
And the Apple TV, with the new firmware, will also now download things directly from the iTunes Store without a computer being involved.
So while the iPhone isn't really meant to be a standalone item, Apple is indeed moving things in the direction of these sorts of devices being able to work more independent of a computer.
It's not just visual voicemail, people. Jeez, if I had a dime for every time I heard that used as the only putative reason that Apple is tied to AT&T...
It's also having structured, simple unlimited data plans, which is really what makes the iPhone shine.
It's about doing things like setting your voicemail greeting all through a GUI on the phone, without having to call into some number and follow prompts. (Simple? Sure. Not a big deal? Sure. But still, one little detail among many.)
It's being able to walk out of a retailer with the iPhone sealed in a box (which itself probably has more attention to design than most handsets do), and then the ability to seamlessly activate via iTunes, with a simple selection of choices, in the comfort of one's own home in a fashion fully supported by Apple and the carrier.
It's about expanding the iTunes/iPod/iPhone/iTunes Store ecosystem with a carefully planned strategy.
It's the user experience from end-to-end (peoples' own individual gripes with AT&T or any other carrier aside).
That's the issue, and all of those things take a lot of backend work and cooperation between Apple and the carrier. It's not just a handset; it's a complete end-user experience from purchase, to activation, to use.
And yes, some customers might not "care" about all of these things. The power users, the hackers, the cutting edge geeks. But normal customers are a much larger target, and those are the people reading reviews, and those are the people who will drive to Apple's goal of 10 million iPhones. With wildly varying user experience and differences from carrier to carrier, how will the iPhone be viewed in the eyes of the iPod-buying populace?
And remember, contrary to the article's assertion, since owning an iPhone isn't mandatory, and we presumably have free will, no one is "forced" to do anything.
What about this is so difficult to comprehend?
That, and the fact that AT&T may be giving Apple as much as $200 per activated iPhone, and then 3%/month for existing customers and a staggering 9%/month for new customers on top of it, so that the end-user cost when people buy one in a store is manageable? Yeah, the iPhone might not be "subsidized" in wireless industry parlance, but you bet your ass it's "subsidized".
There's more going on here than "evil Apple" wanting "lock in". Like all products with Apple, it's about more than just buying a commodity...it's getting a pleasant experience along with it, from end-to-end. (Yeah, yeah, insert a billion gripes about how the iPhone sucks for one reason or another here. Go tell that to Google's CEO, who says the iPhone is the first of an entire new generation of products. Yes, this platform really is that special, no matter how much you, personally, might hate Apple, the iPhone, or both.)
Apple has also shown it does these sorts of things -- and going into the mobile handset business is a HUGE foray -- in baby steps. Is it any surprise that the stage we're at now has carrier exclusivity for a variety of reasons, even beyond what I've already articulated above? Just because YOU don't like it or some IT rag pundit waxes philosophic about it doesn't mean it's not the right business decision for Apple at the present juncture. It doesn't matter how many people buy iPhones to unlock them. There is a vibrant unlocking and hacking community for just about any desirable phone, including ones not available in particular markets, etc.
It may be that someday, Apple really can't "afford" carrier exclusivity. And you know what? I'd imagine we'll see a change, then, won't we?
If someone wants to tap a communication line, there are a hell of a lot of easier ways to doing it -- above water, no less -- than by having a single ship drop anchor off Egypt in bad weather, destroying precisely the two needed cables, drawing the attention of the entire world via both technical and mainstream press, and then sending a flotilla of repair vessels which are really part of a secret mission to tap the cables, while numerous non-US personnel involved in the cable raising, repair, and testing process all maintain complete secrecy.
Wow, the conspiracy loons are really out for this one. Your "9/11 Truth" action meetings are starting to miss you, guys.
SELinux consists of modifications to Linux operating systems to conform to certain guidelines.
But yes, the government has a history of willing participation in open source software and open standards. Today, it's even more defined. That much of the government involved in routine business and administrative operations still can't break away from the Windows paradigm isn't an indictment of open source software.
The US government makes quite extensive use of open source software. In the Intelligence Community alone, some of the examples of open source software in use on Intelink, the IC's three networks that run at UNCLASSIFIED, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SCI levels:
- LAMP (Linux, apache, PHP, MySQL) stacks to support a wide variety of applications, such as some below - MediaWiki powers Intellipedia, the highly successful wikis that run on the three iterations of Intelink - phpBB powers Intelink Forums - WordPress MU enables the current generation of Intelink Blogs - Jabber provides the IC-wide Intelink Instant Messaging - tag|Connect is a social bookmarking tool based on del.icio.us - Zimbra powers the uGov Collaboration Suite - RSS, XML, and other open standards are used extensively -...and much more
These services are run in robust, highly available environments, and have gotten great support within various IC components. In fact, much of the social software movement within the IC is reliant on open source software and open standards, and they have been embraced. For a great overview of what the IC is doing with social software, see:
Some of the articles are a little over-simplified, but the reality is that social software running on open source platforms and environments is taking off in the Intelligence Community.
The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand make up the "UKUSA Community", which has been sharing information and intelligence in cooperative programs since World War II.
There are three categories of individuals proposed for this initiative:
- internationally recognised terrorists and felons - major felons and suspected terrorists - subjects of terrorist investigations or criminals with international links
Categorization makes sense, and information sharing between allies for individuals suspected to travel internationally and who may want to actively target Western nations makes sense.
Every new database or mechanism for tracking or identifying individuals has privacy implications. Those implications must be managed by the laws of each respective nation. But increased information sharing will, by nature, almost always decrease "privacy".
As a DNI official recently noted, "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"
Keep in mind, though, that this data is data that the respective nations already gather via law enforcement and investigative means. It is in databases that are already maintained. The proposal is to collectively share the information in these databases. Any argument that there might be privacy implications to voluntarily sharing data between allies, or that simply building the infrastructure and capability to do so creates an opportunity for abuse (with the implication that it should therefore not be done) are very weak arguments. The merits or drawbacks of the proposed program itself are what is at issue; not the technology. Arguing that technology shouldn't be used for the purpose is the same as arguing that law enforcement shouldn't be able to use, say, computers, databases, telephones, cameras, or vehicles because they "enhance" their abilities, and "could be abused". So, when arguing for or against this initiative, please concentrate on the actual initiative itself, not the unsurprising fact that long-time allies are cooperating with one another electronically.
If Northrop Grumman did as well with IDENT1 as it did on Grants.gov in the early stages, we can expect it to not be very functional.;-) (General Dynamics now holds the Grants.gov contract.)
You only ever comment on certain types of stories, and only to defend the US government or the status quo. Can you point me to a post where you've done anything else? And the way that you argue is a prime example of sophistry: truth and consistency mean nothing, winning the argument by convincing enough people you are right means everything. Maybe you aren't paid for what you do, which would be a pity because you do it well. If your opinions are your own, it says a lot about the type of people that are drawn to your profession.
You only comment on certain types of stories, and only to argue against the US government or the status quo. Can you point me to a post where you've done anything else? (And actually I have at times derided some decisions and situations.)
Seriously, is it any surprise I comment on things that personally interest me, as opposed to crap I don't care about?
And argument IS about convincing people that your position is "right", especially when the "truth" isn't so easily laid at one's feet. It's easy to say "there is a link", "there is no link", "it wasn't enough of a link", "he's lying", etc. When you're talking about international politics and foreign policy, there is little that can be summed up by saying someone is lying.
In this case, it may be that the staffer was voicing his own opinions. But he used weasel words where none were needed. And he did it from a government IP address. That makes it our business: he used OUR TAXPAYER FUNDED EQUIPMENT to make VERY PARTISAN and VERY MISLEADING changes. Let's analyze the changes, then we're going to analyze your post, m'kay?
The person in qiestion used weasel words because weasel words are the quickest way to change that section to actually represent reality without sitting down and rewriting it completely. They are partisan in YOUR OPINION.
1.) Alleged link/link: There was no viable link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, they were not working together, Saddam hated religion in general and Osama in particular. This has been proven again and again, yet this guy has to make it seem an open question.
What's "viable"? I already said numerous times in my other posts on this story that any link that did exist wasn't substantive. But to say there is no link is untrue. And you're doing it again. How do you explain this, under Clinton?
The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.
2.) Evidence/Claims of evidence: Again, the original was sourced. The evidence of a connection was manufactured, and it came from questionable sources. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Changing that to the weaker "some claim that..." is disingenuous. Sure, people claim the evidence was manufactured, because it was. That's fact.
No. Some people claim the evidence was manufactured. It wasn't. There were collections of "evidence" both for and against various links at various levels between Al Qaeda and Iraq. It was handled how ALL intelligence is handled by policy makers. Intelligence does not exist in a vacuum. Its only purpose is to inform policy. Policy makers, by necessity and by nature in our nation, are political. It was accurate to say there was evidence of ties just as accurate as it would be to say there was evidence AGAINST ties. At best, it was ambiguous.
3.) Not credible/Some claim that: Come on, who claims he is credible? Anyone? You? Look at the quote, look at what he said, is this man credible by any stretch of the imagination?
Again, it's questionable. That's why weasel words suck for this sort of thing, and the entire section deserves rewriting. Unfortunately, weasel words are the quickest (and ugliest) way to fix it.
4.) Eventually shown/Alleged by some: They source where this was shown, a British intelligence repor
No. That's my point. The statements WITHOUT the modifiers ARE NOT factually accurate. That is the entire point I was making and I'm surprised you could have missed it.
The older edit makes it appear that Al Qaeda never had any ties with Iraq, any suspected ties were disproved. The End. That's not true, at all. Al Qaeda -- even specifically bin Laden himself -- had reported ties with Iraq as early as 1996, which were variously reported in the late 1990s. This shouldn't really be surprising. What is surprising is pretending as if this never occurred, which was what the older revision in this example did. The newer revision MAKES it accurate by saying that "some believe" Al Qaeda never had any Iraq ties.
Adding all the weasel words makes the article suck, but, as I said in another post, the entire section should really be rewritten to accurately represent the whole Al Qaeda-Iraq tie situation. No, it wasn't a substantive tie in 2003, but it is also flatly untrue to act is if there was no tie, ever, and it was all just invented.
The whole reason those were inserted is because the statements they were inserted into are NOT TRUE. There are disagreements and debate -- valid ones -- around every single one of those issues, and to just state them as unequivocal truth is at mot dishonest and at least disingenuous. That's why the edits were made. Not to make absolute facts seem uncertain. But to make it clear that uncertain issues are exactly that: uncertain.
The fact that you think the previous, unmodified comments are unmitigated truth only serves to show your bias.
I'm not sure why I'm even responding to you given the tone you've taken with me lately.
1. My views are my own.
2. I am not paid, by anyone, for any reason, at any time, to post comments on slashdot on articles such as this.
3. The fact that I am actually open about my identity, interests, and affiliations is seen by you as an indictment of anything I say, whereas somehow your thoughts are inexplicably pure with you being completely anonymous. Curious. By your logic, you could just as easily be running an information campaign for Leftist causes, or possibly even for a US adversary. I mean, after all, anyone could just look at your prior posts, to confirm that, right?
I find it funny - perhaps "telling" would be a more accurate word - that you don't seem to address the actual content of my comments here any longer. Instead, you just accuse me of spewing propaganda and direct people to my home page to somehow "prove" that anything I say can't be trusted. The other thing I find amusing is that you feel that somehow invalidates anything I say. How is any correct statement or compelling argument any less respectively correct or compelling on that basis?
Would it make you feel better if I was completely anonymous? Or is your sense of balance in the universe preserved by the belief that I must be a paid propaganda mouthpiece on slashdot, instead of a living, breathing, thinking person with views that differ from your own?
It's pretty sad, spun. From our previous conversations, you seem like a pretty nice person. But the fact that you are behaving the way you have been toward me recently makes me reconsider that assumption.
First, it is factually correct to say "some say" instead of "it is so" in so many of those places. Because the article's older edit makes it appear as if it was unequivocally correct that any such links had been disproved, when that is simply not the case at all.
Substantive links that would justify an invasion on their own with no other reason or purpose were disproved. But various links existed nonetheless.
I included a link that showed the government found Al Qaeda ties in Iraq years before Bush took office. Just because someone doesn't source and cite everything with endless streams of URLs from people who have nothing better to do than construct their own perfect view of the world on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not still true. If there are no sources AND is not true, it will most certainly be reversed in short order.
Unfortunately, the simple fact is that most people who regularly edit Wikipedia are very likely to prefer the article's older form, which ignores the nuance and difficulties of acknowledging there actually were ties, since it doesn't fit into the neat little box of "everything the administration says or does is a lie". Don't get me wrong: I think Wikipedia does a fairly good job. Damned good, in fact. But there is a LOT of bias in a lot of articles, and it's no surprise that bias tilts toward the views of majority of the demographic doing most of the edits.
Just because a little number isn't floating in the air next to one of the edits doesn't make it untrue. The fact of the matter is that all of these edits were actually increasing the accuracy of the article, weasel words and all. Using weasel words is sometimes the only way to quickly update an article where people are making sweeping statements and conclusions that are, quite simply, incorrect. So yes, "some people" believe that any ties to Al Qaeda were disproved. But that's not correct. At all. By all rights, that entire section should be rewritten to accurately represent the situation.
I think the last edit sums it up:
Such a link was never suggested by President Bush or the Bush administration as a justification for the invasion[emphasis mine]; rather, that such a relationship existed at all is seen as compelling.
Yeah, they are lapping it up. And you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about: something you disagree with (or, probably more accurately, don't understand)? It's then a "shrill, idiotic right-wing troll".
And yes, hordes of people who are criticizing the CIA for destroying the interrogation tapes, after even the White House told them not too, can't get enough of the November Iran NIE, which was largely produced by HUMINT from that very same CIA, as probably the largest contributor to the relevant information in this NIE.
Also, I have no idea, at all, where you get out of anything that I said that any of this argues for an invasion of Iran to kill "another half million people". (Where was the first half million? In Iraq, where even when you take literally everyone who died for any reason, related to the invasion or no, it's even hard to have that kind of number stand up to any kind of scrutiny? Or perhaps we should look at the figures from human rights organizations, who said that about 50,000 Iraqis died each year as a direct result of Saddam's corruption of the UN programs meant to help his people? Or maybe we should just pull the wool over our eyes and pretend that the US wanted to indiscriminately kill as many innocent Iraqis as possible, since that, you know helps our mission oh-so-much? Anything but the truth.)
I imagine the recent stories about Iraq being significantly calmer on the whole, with progress being made in formerly-troubled areas, and a marked uptick in indicators of progress really get under your skin. That's the really disturbing part: you'd probably prefer that Iraq completely collapse on itself, with no care or regard for the Iraqi people, just so you can feel comfortable in your smug and arrogant beliefs, in which you selectively pick anything that supports your view and discount anything that doesn't as lies, instead of realizing the world is a hell of a lot more complex.
And keep in mind that whether Iran is currently actively pursuing nuclear weapons development is separate from Iran's continuing enrichment activities, and being in continuing violation of NPT and UN provisions. There are few logical reasons for Iran, given its own easy, local access to cheap energy sources, to continue its nuclear research, with its comparatively high associated costs and difficulty, for supposedly "peaceful purposes".
Even if it is presently accurate that Iran is not currently involved in a major project to specifically produce a nuclear weapon, it does not mean that Iran doesn't still represent a danger on that front. Indeed, some are asking why Iran is viewing this NIE as a "victory". I think the answer is clear: this will be trumpeted by many as proof that some in the US were "wrong" on Iran, leaving Iran more free than ever to continue its nuclear research, which will - no matter its ostensible purpose - bring Iran closer to a nuclear weapon.
Looking at the examples of the edits shown for the summary, I don't see anything that is inaccurate, much less partisan. I do see things that people who don't agree with OIF and/or the current administration, especially the sort of folks who think literally everything that supports their position is true and everything else is a trumped up "lie", won't like, though.
In fact, every single edit I see on that page, save for perhaps the one in the first paragraph which is a little over the top, makes the article more factually accurate, if that's what we're interested in.
You mean individuals within the government can edit "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", too?
*Pause for stunned silence*
Or do we only let people not affiliated with governments edit Wikipedia? Or perhaps only from home?
Or perhaps we'd prefer that governments edit Wikipedia from unattributable IP addresses...?
Or could it be that a person with a "House of Representatives IP address" is actually acting of his or her own will, making what they feel are appropriate changes to a Wikipedia article, which can be vetted, reversed, modified, and discussed, as can any change on Wikipedia?
How does one person with a House IP equate to "US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia"? The biggest surprise about this story is that it didn't read "Posted by kdawson". Seriously, is this the kind of politically-charged meaningless garbage that passes for front-page material on slashdot now?
Oh, wait, I guess I must speaking for the government now, and not myself. Perhaps this post is even propaganda...after all, anyone who works for "the government" can't possibly have their own views and beliefs, some of which might even differ from others. Oh, it's the Weekly Standard, so it doesn't count? This whole article is couched in assertions such as it being "bizarre" to make a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.Except that such a connection was explored in various ways for a decade, long before Bush was in office.
John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News, reported the story on August 25, 1998:
Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas.
Then, the connection:
The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.
Oops.
No link was ever really substantive, but there were links, and that shouldn't be surprising in the region. But that isn't even the point.
Those who want to paint all these issues as black and white, or say that some official or another "lied" about complex issues related to WMD in Iraq, OIF, etc., are the ones who are effectively the liars -- by ignoring everything that doesn't neatly support their own political positions. They lap up the new Iran NIE like it's gospel, while simultaneously writing off anything else that doesn't support their own views as lies. How convenient...and disgusting, for people who fancy themselves as enlightened intellectuals.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that your position reduces to saying that information is at least partially responsible for peoples behavior. Are you denying that?
Yes, I am denying that. Information is not "responsible" for peoples' actions. I never said it was. Information does influence peoples' actions, by every definition of the word. It is intellectually dishonest to say that information does not influence peoples' actions. If you perceive that provides censorship arguments with ammunition, so be it. We're splitting semantic hairs, here. Information DOES influence peoples' actions; it is NOT responsible for those actions. The two are mutually exclusive, and does not imply that information is somehow "responsible" for those actions. Information exists. The nature and context in which it is presented can influence and inform peoples' actions. It is not responsible for those actions. Might someone take a certain action in absence of, or because of, certain information? Absolutely. But that still does not mean the information is responsible for the action; the individual is responsible for the action. Even if a case can be made that a particular individual wouldn't have done X without information Y, the information is still not "responsible" for the action.
I think we're kind of talking past each other, here. If you want to do mental gymnastics to claim that information doesn't influence people (or shouldn't be considered as such) simply to prevent any censorship arguments based on that premise, be my guest. Information having influence also does not preclude the concept or notion of personal responsibility. But information, and access to it, will only become more influential as the "information revolution" continues to take hold. That's why governments and businesses are investing increasing amounts of time into managing, manipulating, controlling, and analyzing information. Information is an undeniable influence. That some will use this fundamental truth to argue for censorship is misguided, and is another issue altogether. There is no need to use sophistry or intellectual dishonesty in terms of information's influential capacity simply to argue against censorship. There are many honest and logical means to achieve that goal.
This comment pretty much sums it up. That's not good or bad; it just "is".
And your Bible analogy is remarkably spot on: the contents of the Bible (or the text of any other religion) has created a lot of ill, and a lot of good, depending on your perspective, that may not otherwise have existed.
The point is that information in its many forms influences people. That the extensive and more comprehensive access to information of all kinds provided by the internet can act as an even greater/broader influence should come as no surprise.
Couldn't this very likely be true? And, more importantly, if it is, so what?
The internet is an enabling technology for an awful lot of things, and the information easily available via the internet has, I'm sure, acted as a catalyst or even an initiator for all sorts of interests, even interests some may consider distasteful or even illegal. Fortunately, the positive aspects of this information tool are viewed by the vast majority of people to outweigh its negatives.
This submitter appears eager to dismiss something that is probably quite accurate; namely, that the internet can catalyze or even create an interest in a predisposed person, who might not have had the opportunity, inclination, will, or knowledge to pursue it otherwise, absent this tool. Why don't we instead simply agree that while this state of affairs may be the case, it isn't the "fault" of the internet?
The internet is a tool for access to information. That tool allows someone who may not have explored their pedophilia 50 years ago to do it now, simply because of the privacy and ease, and may even catalyze it or allow it to grow. That is, essentially, creating -- or at least solidifying -- "pedophiles", and I am not making any value judgment whatsoever. Just as the internet "creates" people who enjoy online games, or who have discovered and embraced any of a number of other topics they otherwise might not have without the unique and easy exposure the internet can provide in the comforts and privacy of one's home 24 hours a day, it is so for this as well.
And why can't it follow that however small an increased number of people -- however small -- may act on those feelings of "pedophilia" who wouldn't ever have gotten to that point before because of their own inhibitions or any number of other reasons, jumping the gap to what the rule of law in many societies currently defines as illegal in the form of either child pornography or child sexual abuse, regardless of consent? (Whether pedophilia does not always equal child sexual abuse and vice versa is irrelevant.)
The internet makes a great deal of things much easier. As such, it is going to support much easier access to information -- text, images, video -- and like-minded individuals that can undoubtedly support or encourage interest in just about any topic one can imagine.
What is so hard to believe about that?
Hmm, I seem to recall this story from somewhere...it sounds somehow strangely familiar...almost as if this exact thing had occurred before...
Oh, that's right, this story was covered -- right here on slashdot, no less -- a year ago, complete with a link to the very same now-year-old blog post, which was significantly updated at the time, and caused Diebold to remove the photo in question! (A very generic key form was used.) Might want to update this post...
Archives - January 2007 should be a clue. Or at least one would hope.
While you guys are at it, can you fix your patently incorrect story about Iran being "offline", when it clearly and provably isn't, thereby negating the main premise of the story? You know, since no one seems to care about anything sent to the on-duty editor email.
Slashdot is really on fire today!
Yes, that may be true. (Some basic info for those who may not be familiar.)
But here's the problem: the implication here -- namely, the "US is trying to stop the Iranian Oil Bourse to protect the fragile dollar" theory vs the "US is secretly planning to invade Iran" theory -- falls apart of the expected action doesn't occur.
If the Iranian Oil Bourse opens this week or next as planned, then the theory that this was designed to "stop" that is incorrect, isn't it? Iran doesn't need undersea cable connectivity to conduct this business, and further, any and all damage to these undersea cables will be examined and repaired. In other words, the theory that believes that this is somehow related to the bourse is going to break down at some point, because Iran cannot be surgically removed from all communications, and even if it could be via undersea cables, it can still have ample connectivity to conduct the operations of the bourse. In fact, some might say Iran would be sufficiently emboldened to do just that.
So that's where these arguments kind of break down. If there isn't any large, defined benefit, and indeed, if Iran isn't even disconnected from the net as these theories assert, then are these theories even correct? They might be interesting, but I'm sure the conspiracy theories will now take on a life of their own. Even after the cables are raised and the damage examined and repaired, some will still believe that any type of evidence that might indicate sabotage will be concealed by the cable operators, who are somehow complicit with the US government. Unfortunately, this detracts from any actual meaningful discussion and public policy debate, as it concentrates a very vocal group of people on conspiracy theories.
Oops.
So when the basic, sole premise and of the story is wrong, and by extension the clear implication, where do we go from there?
One router in Iran -- the one that happens to be used by Internet Traffic Report -- is unreachable. As are dozens of single points on the internet in many states in the region.
A quick perusal of, e.g., newspaper web sites in Iran finds every one I have tried working fine, including all state-run media. As is the web site of the Government of Iran and numerous other government and press web sites physically located in Iran. See for yourself. (And yes, I am aware that simply ending in
I know all of you are just itching to believe it's a US information operation (I love some of the articles..."a secret Pentagon strategy called 'information warfare'" -- uh, guys, I hate to break this to you, but it's not a secret) to cut Iran off from the internet in advance of the secret Iran invasion that Bush -- er, Cheney -- is oh-so-obviously planning.
No one ever said that one ship damaged all the cables. What was said was that a single ship probably cut two cables in a particular area off Egypt. But that has been called into doubt in that location. Unfortunately, it isn't clear exactly where some of the cables have been damaged, so simply because one area didn't have a ship doesn't mean it wasn't possible for it to be damaged elsewhere.
Even if someone is cutting the cables, as telecom and undersea cable experts believe is unlikely, it would be better to actually consider the facts of the situation, instead of feeing the conspiracy mill with garbage like "Iran is offline" when it clearly isn't? How about waiting until the cables are raised to see what kind of damage has been caused?
But if you want to believe one guy's blog post that "Iran is offline", which ends with:
Or, we could perhaps consider that "[m]ost telecommunications experts and cable operators say that sabotage seems unlikely."
Or, we could perhaps believe the facts, which is that Iran is not "offline", as I have illustrated above.
It seems that the premise to this story -- namely, that Iran is "offline" -- is patently incorrect. So, since that is untrue, what are the motivations of people who want to believe this is a prelude to war?
That lying about it somehow serves a greater purpose?
Oh, and by the way, for all you pushers of the Information Warfare theory, keep in mind that it runs both ways. I wouldn't be surprised before Iran picks up on the conspiracy stories and starts promoting that itself. What a great way to detract attention from its continuing defiance of the world community -- no, not just the US -- on its nuclear processing.
Apple has already departed from its normal policy of not discussing future products and explicitly stated a 3G iPhone is coming. In fact, they stated that during the iPhone's introduction. And Jobs articulated several times why he felt that not having 3G in the first generation of the iPhone was a good decision. It boiled down to:
- AT&T didn't have enough 3G coverage yet in the US to make it worthwhile
- Then-current 3G chipsets consumed too much power and were too large
- The inclusion of Wi-Fi mitigated the omission of 3G for many people
- The 3G technology patent conflict at the time was a complicating factor
- All of these things would be changing in the future, and 3G will be added
So Apple knows 3G is important, and has already confirmed at least twice that a 3G iPhone is coming. There's nothing "inexplicable" about why the iPhone is currently EDGE; they've explained it several times for anyone who is willing to listen, and we already know a 3G iPhone is on the way.
Also, your assertions are pretty much incorrect. I use the iPhone via EDGE a lot, and, while slow, it serves its purpose. I'm also one of those people who lives in an AT&T service area with NO 3G service of any kind...until later this year.
"Seamlessly"? You have to have a computer connected to the Internet just to activate your phone? That is so lame. There's a huge population of people, especially outside the US, who have mobile phones but not computers. I wonder what percentage of those un-activated iPhones were bought by people who didn't realize they had to mess with a PC just to turn the phone on.
The iPhone requires iTunes for activation and OS updates (which sometimes will bring significant new features, unlike nearly all other handsets), which, in turn, requires a computer, or access to one, period.
And, uh, I don't think people without computers are really the target market for the iPhone. The iPhone is part of Apple's iTunes/iPod/iTunes Store ecosystem.
(And activation via iTunes is a hell of a lot more "seamless" than the crap hassle of most activation processes, in which many people don't always understand exactly what they're getting, either, because the sales rep does this sort of thing all the time (or is clueless), and the customer doesn't. Here, see for yourself.)
And you still can't download music over the air link, can you?
Um, yes, you can.
And the Apple TV, with the new firmware, will also now download things directly from the iTunes Store without a computer being involved.
So while the iPhone isn't really meant to be a standalone item, Apple is indeed moving things in the direction of these sorts of devices being able to work more independent of a computer.
It's not just visual voicemail, people. Jeez, if I had a dime for every time I heard that used as the only putative reason that Apple is tied to AT&T...
It's also having structured, simple unlimited data plans, which is really what makes the iPhone shine.
It's about doing things like setting your voicemail greeting all through a GUI on the phone, without having to call into some number and follow prompts. (Simple? Sure. Not a big deal? Sure. But still, one little detail among many.)
It's being able to walk out of a retailer with the iPhone sealed in a box (which itself probably has more attention to design than most handsets do), and then the ability to seamlessly activate via iTunes, with a simple selection of choices, in the comfort of one's own home in a fashion fully supported by Apple and the carrier.
It's about expanding the iTunes/iPod/iPhone/iTunes Store ecosystem with a carefully planned strategy.
It's the user experience from end-to-end (peoples' own individual gripes with AT&T or any other carrier aside).
That's the issue, and all of those things take a lot of backend work and cooperation between Apple and the carrier. It's not just a handset; it's a complete end-user experience from purchase, to activation, to use.
And yes, some customers might not "care" about all of these things. The power users, the hackers, the cutting edge geeks. But normal customers are a much larger target, and those are the people reading reviews, and those are the people who will drive to Apple's goal of 10 million iPhones. With wildly varying user experience and differences from carrier to carrier, how will the iPhone be viewed in the eyes of the iPod-buying populace?
And remember, contrary to the article's assertion, since owning an iPhone isn't mandatory, and we presumably have free will, no one is "forced" to do anything.
What about this is so difficult to comprehend?
That, and the fact that AT&T may be giving Apple as much as $200 per activated iPhone, and then 3%/month for existing customers and a staggering 9%/month for new customers on top of it, so that the end-user cost when people buy one in a store is manageable? Yeah, the iPhone might not be "subsidized" in wireless industry parlance, but you bet your ass it's "subsidized".
There's more going on here than "evil Apple" wanting "lock in". Like all products with Apple, it's about more than just buying a commodity...it's getting a pleasant experience along with it, from end-to-end. (Yeah, yeah, insert a billion gripes about how the iPhone sucks for one reason or another here. Go tell that to Google's CEO, who says the iPhone is the first of an entire new generation of products. Yes, this platform really is that special, no matter how much you, personally, might hate Apple, the iPhone, or both.)
Apple has also shown it does these sorts of things -- and going into the mobile handset business is a HUGE foray -- in baby steps. Is it any surprise that the stage we're at now has carrier exclusivity for a variety of reasons, even beyond what I've already articulated above? Just because YOU don't like it or some IT rag pundit waxes philosophic about it doesn't mean it's not the right business decision for Apple at the present juncture. It doesn't matter how many people buy iPhones to unlock them. There is a vibrant unlocking and hacking community for just about any desirable phone, including ones not available in particular markets, etc.
It may be that someday, Apple really can't "afford" carrier exclusivity. And you know what? I'd imagine we'll see a change, then, won't we?
If someone wants to tap a communication line, there are a hell of a lot of easier ways to doing it -- above water, no less -- than by having a single ship drop anchor off Egypt in bad weather, destroying precisely the two needed cables, drawing the attention of the entire world via both technical and mainstream press, and then sending a flotilla of repair vessels which are really part of a secret mission to tap the cables, while numerous non-US personnel involved in the cable raising, repair, and testing process all maintain complete secrecy.
Wow, the conspiracy loons are really out for this one. Your "9/11 Truth" action meetings are starting to miss you, guys.
So, to clarify, the White House ordered "a ship [...] to moor off the coast of Egypt in bad weather on Wednesday"?
Here's some more conspiracy fodder for you: a third cable, Falcon, is also damaged. Must be the White House!
Oh, wait...it's just the incredible fragility of our undersea cable network finally being embarrassingly exposed.
From what?
The already-confirmed fact that one clumsy ship can cut off internet access for 75 million people with one ill-advised drop of the anchor?
So if you're implying the US is somehow behind this with your cutesy little message feigning ignorance, get a life.
...in a story where an AT&T executive is asserting it "listens" to its customers, and no wisecracks about NSA wiretapping?
;-)
Come on, people, you disappoint me!
Perl was created by Larry Wall, who worked for NASA, not NSA. Specifically, the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Caltech.
SELinux consists of modifications to Linux operating systems to conform to certain guidelines.
But yes, the government has a history of willing participation in open source software and open standards. Today, it's even more defined. That much of the government involved in routine business and administrative operations still can't break away from the Windows paradigm isn't an indictment of open source software.
The US government makes quite extensive use of open source software. In the Intelligence Community alone, some of the examples of open source software in use on Intelink, the IC's three networks that run at UNCLASSIFIED, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SCI levels:
...and much more
- LAMP (Linux, apache, PHP, MySQL) stacks to support a wide variety of applications, such as some below
- MediaWiki powers Intellipedia, the highly successful wikis that run on the three iterations of Intelink
- phpBB powers Intelink Forums
- WordPress MU enables the current generation of Intelink Blogs
- Jabber provides the IC-wide Intelink Instant Messaging
- tag|Connect is a social bookmarking tool based on del.icio.us
- Zimbra powers the uGov Collaboration Suite
- RSS, XML, and other open standards are used extensively
-
These services are run in robust, highly available environments, and have gotten great support within various IC components. In fact, much of the social software movement within the IC is reliant on open source software and open standards, and they have been embraced. For a great overview of what the IC is doing with social software, see:
- 'The Intellipedians' The social software movement within the U.S. Intelligence Community, Federal Computer Week, 16 August 2007
And if you don't want to sit through the presentation (it is a bit long, though quite good), see:
- Open-Source Spying, New York Times Magazine, 3 December 2006
- A Wikipedia of Secrets, Washington Post, 5 November 2006
And on the newest initiative, A-Space:
- Logged In and Sharing Gossip, er, Intelligence, New York Times, 2 September 2007
- Classified social-networking system promises to help U.S. spies talk, collaborate, Associated Press, 5 September 2007
Some of the articles are a little over-simplified, but the reality is that social software running on open source platforms and environments is taking off in the Intelligence Community.
The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand make up the "UKUSA Community", which has been sharing information and intelligence in cooperative programs since World War II.
;-) (General Dynamics now holds the Grants.gov contract.)
There are three categories of individuals proposed for this initiative:
- internationally recognised terrorists and felons
- major felons and suspected terrorists
- subjects of terrorist investigations or criminals with international links
Categorization makes sense, and information sharing between allies for individuals suspected to travel internationally and who may want to actively target Western nations makes sense.
Every new database or mechanism for tracking or identifying individuals has privacy implications. Those implications must be managed by the laws of each respective nation. But increased information sharing will, by nature, almost always decrease "privacy".
As a DNI official recently noted, "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"
Keep in mind, though, that this data is data that the respective nations already gather via law enforcement and investigative means. It is in databases that are already maintained. The proposal is to collectively share the information in these databases. Any argument that there might be privacy implications to voluntarily sharing data between allies, or that simply building the infrastructure and capability to do so creates an opportunity for abuse (with the implication that it should therefore not be done) are very weak arguments. The merits or drawbacks of the proposed program itself are what is at issue; not the technology. Arguing that technology shouldn't be used for the purpose is the same as arguing that law enforcement shouldn't be able to use, say, computers, databases, telephones, cameras, or vehicles because they "enhance" their abilities, and "could be abused". So, when arguing for or against this initiative, please concentrate on the actual initiative itself, not the unsurprising fact that long-time allies are cooperating with one another electronically.
If Northrop Grumman did as well with IDENT1 as it did on Grants.gov in the early stages, we can expect it to not be very functional.
You only ever comment on certain types of stories, and only to defend the US government or the status quo. Can you point me to a post where you've done anything else? And the way that you argue is a prime example of sophistry: truth and consistency mean nothing, winning the argument by convincing enough people you are right means everything. Maybe you aren't paid for what you do, which would be a pity because you do it well. If your opinions are your own, it says a lot about the type of people that are drawn to your profession.
You only comment on certain types of stories, and only to argue against the US government or the status quo. Can you point me to a post where you've done anything else? (And actually I have at times derided some decisions and situations.)
Seriously, is it any surprise I comment on things that personally interest me, as opposed to crap I don't care about?
And argument IS about convincing people that your position is "right", especially when the "truth" isn't so easily laid at one's feet. It's easy to say "there is a link", "there is no link", "it wasn't enough of a link", "he's lying", etc. When you're talking about international politics and foreign policy, there is little that can be summed up by saying someone is lying.
In this case, it may be that the staffer was voicing his own opinions. But he used weasel words where none were needed. And he did it from a government IP address. That makes it our business: he used OUR TAXPAYER FUNDED EQUIPMENT to make VERY PARTISAN and VERY MISLEADING changes. Let's analyze the changes, then we're going to analyze your post, m'kay?
The person in qiestion used weasel words because weasel words are the quickest way to change that section to actually represent reality without sitting down and rewriting it completely. They are partisan in YOUR OPINION.
1.) Alleged link/link: There was no viable link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, they were not working together, Saddam hated religion in general and Osama in particular. This has been proven again and again, yet this guy has to make it seem an open question.
What's "viable"? I already said numerous times in my other posts on this story that any link that did exist wasn't substantive. But to say there is no link is untrue. And you're doing it again. How do you explain this, under Clinton?
The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.
2.) Evidence/Claims of evidence: Again, the original was sourced. The evidence of a connection was manufactured, and it came from questionable sources. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Changing that to the weaker "some claim that..." is disingenuous. Sure, people claim the evidence was manufactured, because it was. That's fact.
No. Some people claim the evidence was manufactured. It wasn't. There were collections of "evidence" both for and against various links at various levels between Al Qaeda and Iraq. It was handled how ALL intelligence is handled by policy makers. Intelligence does not exist in a vacuum. Its only purpose is to inform policy. Policy makers, by necessity and by nature in our nation, are political. It was accurate to say there was evidence of ties just as accurate as it would be to say there was evidence AGAINST ties. At best, it was ambiguous.
3.) Not credible/Some claim that: Come on, who claims he is credible? Anyone? You? Look at the quote, look at what he said, is this man credible by any stretch of the imagination?
Again, it's questionable. That's why weasel words suck for this sort of thing, and the entire section deserves rewriting. Unfortunately, weasel words are the quickest (and ugliest) way to fix it.
4.) Eventually shown/Alleged by some: They source where this was shown, a British intelligence repor
No. That's my point. The statements WITHOUT the modifiers ARE NOT factually accurate. That is the entire point I was making and I'm surprised you could have missed it.
The older edit makes it appear that Al Qaeda never had any ties with Iraq, any suspected ties were disproved. The End. That's not true, at all. Al Qaeda -- even specifically bin Laden himself -- had reported ties with Iraq as early as 1996, which were variously reported in the late 1990s. This shouldn't really be surprising. What is surprising is pretending as if this never occurred, which was what the older revision in this example did. The newer revision MAKES it accurate by saying that "some believe" Al Qaeda never had any Iraq ties.
Adding all the weasel words makes the article suck, but, as I said in another post, the entire section should really be rewritten to accurately represent the whole Al Qaeda-Iraq tie situation. No, it wasn't a substantive tie in 2003, but it is also flatly untrue to act is if there was no tie, ever, and it was all just invented.
The whole reason those were inserted is because the statements they were inserted into are NOT TRUE. There are disagreements and debate -- valid ones -- around every single one of those issues, and to just state them as unequivocal truth is at mot dishonest and at least disingenuous. That's why the edits were made. Not to make absolute facts seem uncertain. But to make it clear that uncertain issues are exactly that: uncertain.
The fact that you think the previous, unmodified comments are unmitigated truth only serves to show your bias.
I'm not sure why I'm even responding to you given the tone you've taken with me lately.
1. My views are my own.
2. I am not paid, by anyone, for any reason, at any time, to post comments on slashdot on articles such as this.
3. The fact that I am actually open about my identity, interests, and affiliations is seen by you as an indictment of anything I say, whereas somehow your thoughts are inexplicably pure with you being completely anonymous. Curious. By your logic, you could just as easily be running an information campaign for Leftist causes, or possibly even for a US adversary. I mean, after all, anyone could just look at your prior posts, to confirm that, right?
I find it funny - perhaps "telling" would be a more accurate word - that you don't seem to address the actual content of my comments here any longer. Instead, you just accuse me of spewing propaganda and direct people to my home page to somehow "prove" that anything I say can't be trusted. The other thing I find amusing is that you feel that somehow invalidates anything I say. How is any correct statement or compelling argument any less respectively correct or compelling on that basis?
Would it make you feel better if I was completely anonymous? Or is your sense of balance in the universe preserved by the belief that I must be a paid propaganda mouthpiece on slashdot, instead of a living, breathing, thinking person with views that differ from your own?
It's pretty sad, spun. From our previous conversations, you seem like a pretty nice person. But the fact that you are behaving the way you have been toward me recently makes me reconsider that assumption.
First, it is factually correct to say "some say" instead of "it is so" in so many of those places. Because the article's older edit makes it appear as if it was unequivocally correct that any such links had been disproved, when that is simply not the case at all.
Substantive links that would justify an invasion on their own with no other reason or purpose were disproved. But various links existed nonetheless.
I included a link that showed the government found Al Qaeda ties in Iraq years before Bush took office. Just because someone doesn't source and cite everything with endless streams of URLs from people who have nothing better to do than construct their own perfect view of the world on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not still true. If there are no sources AND is not true, it will most certainly be reversed in short order.
Unfortunately, the simple fact is that most people who regularly edit Wikipedia are very likely to prefer the article's older form, which ignores the nuance and difficulties of acknowledging there actually were ties, since it doesn't fit into the neat little box of "everything the administration says or does is a lie". Don't get me wrong: I think Wikipedia does a fairly good job. Damned good, in fact. But there is a LOT of bias in a lot of articles, and it's no surprise that bias tilts toward the views of majority of the demographic doing most of the edits.
Just because a little number isn't floating in the air next to one of the edits doesn't make it untrue. The fact of the matter is that all of these edits were actually increasing the accuracy of the article, weasel words and all. Using weasel words is sometimes the only way to quickly update an article where people are making sweeping statements and conclusions that are, quite simply, incorrect. So yes, "some people" believe that any ties to Al Qaeda were disproved. But that's not correct. At all. By all rights, that entire section should be rewritten to accurately represent the situation.
I think the last edit sums it up:
Such a link was never suggested by President Bush or the Bush administration as a justification for the invasion [emphasis mine]; rather, that such a relationship existed at all is seen as compelling.
And indeed it was.
Yeah, they are lapping it up. And you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about: something you disagree with (or, probably more accurately, don't understand)? It's then a "shrill, idiotic right-wing troll".
And yes, hordes of people who are criticizing the CIA for destroying the interrogation tapes, after even the White House told them not too, can't get enough of the November Iran NIE, which was largely produced by HUMINT from that very same CIA, as probably the largest contributor to the relevant information in this NIE.
Also, I have no idea, at all, where you get out of anything that I said that any of this argues for an invasion of Iran to kill "another half million people". (Where was the first half million? In Iraq, where even when you take literally everyone who died for any reason, related to the invasion or no, it's even hard to have that kind of number stand up to any kind of scrutiny? Or perhaps we should look at the figures from human rights organizations, who said that about 50,000 Iraqis died each year as a direct result of Saddam's corruption of the UN programs meant to help his people? Or maybe we should just pull the wool over our eyes and pretend that the US wanted to indiscriminately kill as many innocent Iraqis as possible, since that, you know helps our mission oh-so-much? Anything but the truth.)
I imagine the recent stories about Iraq being significantly calmer on the whole, with progress being made in formerly-troubled areas, and a marked uptick in indicators of progress really get under your skin. That's the really disturbing part: you'd probably prefer that Iraq completely collapse on itself, with no care or regard for the Iraqi people, just so you can feel comfortable in your smug and arrogant beliefs, in which you selectively pick anything that supports your view and discount anything that doesn't as lies, instead of realizing the world is a hell of a lot more complex.
And keep in mind that whether Iran is currently actively pursuing nuclear weapons development is separate from Iran's continuing enrichment activities, and being in continuing violation of NPT and UN provisions. There are few logical reasons for Iran, given its own easy, local access to cheap energy sources, to continue its nuclear research, with its comparatively high associated costs and difficulty, for supposedly "peaceful purposes".
Even if it is presently accurate that Iran is not currently involved in a major project to specifically produce a nuclear weapon, it does not mean that Iran doesn't still represent a danger on that front. Indeed, some are asking why Iran is viewing this NIE as a "victory". I think the answer is clear: this will be trumpeted by many as proof that some in the US were "wrong" on Iran, leaving Iran more free than ever to continue its nuclear research, which will - no matter its ostensible purpose - bring Iran closer to a nuclear weapon.
Looking at the examples of the edits shown for the summary, I don't see anything that is inaccurate, much less partisan. I do see things that people who don't agree with OIF and/or the current administration, especially the sort of folks who think literally everything that supports their position is true and everything else is a trumped up "lie", won't like, though.
In fact, every single edit I see on that page, save for perhaps the one in the first paragraph which is a little over the top, makes the article more factually accurate, if that's what we're interested in.
You mean individuals within the government can edit "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", too?
*Pause for stunned silence*
Or do we only let people not affiliated with governments edit Wikipedia? Or perhaps only from home?
Or perhaps we'd prefer that governments edit Wikipedia from unattributable IP addresses...?
Or could it be that a person with a "House of Representatives IP address" is actually acting of his or her own will, making what they feel are appropriate changes to a Wikipedia article, which can be vetted, reversed, modified, and discussed, as can any change on Wikipedia?
How does one person with a House IP equate to "US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia"? The biggest surprise about this story is that it didn't read "Posted by kdawson". Seriously, is this the kind of politically-charged meaningless garbage that passes for front-page material on slashdot now?
Oh, wait, I guess I must speaking for the government now, and not myself. Perhaps this post is even propaganda...after all, anyone who works for "the government" can't possibly have their own views and beliefs, some of which might even differ from others. Oh, it's the Weekly Standard, so it doesn't count? This whole article is couched in assertions such as it being "bizarre" to make a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.Except that such a connection was explored in various ways for a decade, long before Bush was in office.Oops.
No link was ever really substantive, but there were links, and that shouldn't be surprising in the region. But that isn't even the point.
Those who want to paint all these issues as black and white, or say that some official or another "lied" about complex issues related to WMD in Iraq, OIF, etc., are the ones who are effectively the liars -- by ignoring everything that doesn't neatly support their own political positions. They lap up the new Iran NIE like it's gospel, while simultaneously writing off anything else that doesn't support their own views as lies. How convenient...and disgusting, for people who fancy themselves as enlightened intellectuals.