The US didn't *open* the pandora's box, everyone is using "cyber" and everyone knows it.
Of course the U.S. opened the box - and everyone knows it. Just as the U.S. was the first to use nuclear weapons, develop ICBM's, and use drones for mass assassination campaigns, the U.S. (along with Israel) were the first to make a serious "cyber attack" on another nation.
An attack, if done on the U.S., would be used as instant grounds to declare war.
You mean like when they tried to kill diplomats on US soil? Or do you mean like when their guys in Lebanon attacked the barracks and killed a couple hundred marines? Or like when their soldiers launch rockets into Israel every day hoping to cause loss of life and significant property damage? Or like the constant supply of IEDs and training to their soldiers in Iraq to kill our soldiers? Or something else, like blowing up buildings, cars, transport, ships, people on the street and on military bases? (Other recent terrorist attack examples, which I don't intend to blame on Iran.)
Or the retarded shit you just pulled out of Hannity's ass?
Or do you mean like when they kidnapped the US embassy staff in '80? (was that 1980?)
We only overthrew their democratically elected government with Britain, which was almost certainly conducted with the U.S. embassy in Iran. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Like subjecting whistleblowers to psychological torture.
Like holding more prisoners than any other country in the world, most for petty drug offenses.
Like assassinating American citizens, including 16 year old teenagers.
Like holding people we know to be innocent in gulags, using faux evidence gained through torture, etc.
Like starting wars of choice based on lies - whereas Iran hasn't attacked another country in 200 years.
No, that's called bullshit propaganda. Unless you have inside information that we're about to invade Israel to put an end to that belligerent state and it's 200+ nuclear weapons, and that's what you mean by "proportionate response".
Iran pretends that its "peaceful" nuclear program isn't producing weapons-grade materiel
Top U.S. and Israeli officials say Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Maybe you should stop pretending that you know differently.
And Iran wants nuclear energy for the same reason the U.S. encouraged the Shah to develop it when he was in power: so oil-rich Iran can export more of it's oil.
Think Pearl Harbor and the response. Or 9/11 and what's happened to the leadership of al Qaeda.
Think: it's been 200 years since Iran attacked another country - compared to dozens of wars of choice and first-strikes waged by Israel and the United States. Get over your Reaganite jingoism and realize that far more often than not, we ARE the baddies.
I don't know about the GP but first off, I don't call border guards luring tourists to come closer & then when they do imprisoning them & theratening them with 25 year sentences for spying normal relations.
The United States has done worse to it's own citizens, many of whom were on it's own soil. Really don't want to be throwing stones on this one.
Secondly, while I won't cry over dead Iranian nuclear scientists
What would be the U.S. response if Iran was assassinating scientists at Los Alamos. Yes, that's a rhetorical question.
helping to build a bomb for a country that regularly threatens them with extermination.
Repeating a Big Lie doesn't make it true. It just makes you a bigger liar.
Any bombing of the Pentagon, Whitehouse, etc that was traced back to Iran would get the US to respond making Preying Mantis look like a sideshow.
The US unemployment in March, April, and May was 8.2, 8.1, and 8.2% respectively. Although that is certainly way too high, is is by far not the highest in the last six months. In fact, it's the lowest since January 2009.
Because those are the cooked U3 numbers that just forget about workers if they've been unemployed long enough. The more realistic - and honest - U6 unemployment rate has never dropped below 14% since Obama took office.
The other fact usually left out of the storyline: anything less than 200,000 new jobs a month is an increase in the unemployment rate - because we need that many new jobs just to keep up with population increases.
The one that top Israeli and American officials say doesn't exist? Other problems with the Iran-as-boogyman storyline:
The U.S. encouraged Iran to develop nuclear energy when the Shah was in power. For the obvious reason that it would leave Iran free to sell more of it's oil. Modern, puppet-government free Iran has the same motivation.
Israel has 200+ nuclear weapons. And unlike Iran, has started wars and launched dozens of first strikes on it's neighbors.
A story in the Washington Post is hardly an admission by the country
It is in the age of "Officials say" journalism. And the president using one side of his mouth to say that the very existence of his drone war is classified information, while using the other side of his mouth to brag about it's supposed effectiveness.
Any particular reason why this was left out of the storyline? From your link:
The deal lifts the cap on saved vacation, meaning prison guards will be able to stash away an unlimited number of vacation days and get a lump sum payout when they quit or retire. Normally state workers can accrue up to 80 days of vacation for payouts.
They aren't getting crazy super vacations. They're getting compensated for the time off they've accumulated.
Because in that region...it usually is. You should know this, since you mentioned the coup against Iran's government in '53. There's also Israel's wars of choice and first strikes on its neighbors, the U.S. supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, selling weapons to brutal dictators while at the same making war on Libya to remove that country's brutal dictator....
that only tells us about your psychological biases rather that about your perception.
Own a mirror?
All kinds of people think they can see 120fps, can hear the difference between normal audio cables and $10,000 gold-plated audio cables, etc.
False equivalency. Particularly with digital, there is literally no difference between a $5 audio cable and a $5000 audio cable. As opposed to a difference between 30, 60 and 120 frames per second - and yes, some people can tell the difference.
To believe such claims when they directly contradict all science
Yes, you keep going on about science, but haven't cited any yet. Where are your double blind studies on 24 fps film vs 48 fps (or higher) film?
Becomes "acceptable" when you need that paycheck to keep a roof over your head/feed your family/keep you alive with an illness/pay child support/student loans. Etc.
That's why we have labor laws.....
UTAH PHILLIPS: 'Kids don't have a little brother working in the coal mine, they don't have a little sister coughing her lungs out in the looms of the big mill towns of the Northeast. Why? Because we organized; we broke the back of the sweatshops in this country; we have child labor laws. Those were not benevolent gifts from enlightened management. They were fought for, they were bled for, they were died for by working people, people like us. Kids ought to know that.
Youre getting paid to do a job. Your "corporate overlord" has agreed to provide you with a substantial sum of money for doing a job that blah blah fascism fuck yeah blah blah blah
Yes, you're getting paid by a company to do a job. Not for the company to own your life for 9 hours a day. If you are:
a) Getting your work done b) Not being a disruption c) Not hurting the company
then it's really none of the company's business if you check your bank account, Gmail, or order something from Amazon.
You really do have a sense of entitlement, and you really need to get over it. If these "corporate overlords" are so onerous, you can always quit and earn your living elsewhere.
With the gross imbalance of power between companies and workers made far worse by a long term 20% underemployment rate? You really need to cram that faux reasonableness crap back up your ass. The only way a worker has a remotely equal relationship with an employer is if he has a powerful union at his back - but of course, good corporate bootlickers hate unions as well.
Hey, look, there are some kids over there on the Koch brothers lawn. Why don't you be a dear and go chase them off.....
Oh, but they do. Companies cannot intercept your telephone conversations, no matter that they own the phones and the lines. But those laws were established when we weren't wading into the fascist, authoritarian kiddie pool.
Of course they are, as a Google search not based on the fallacy of anecdotes will quickly determine. First world nations don't forcibly remove people and place them in another country's custody for shits and giggles.
As far as the crime, I take it you are an expert in Swedish law?
I take it you're still ignoring the fact that he was questioned and released, and then granted permission to leave the country? And that charges were already dismissed before being brought by another prosecutor? Or that one of the witnesses has possibly recanted and left the country? Wouldn't want inconvenient parts of the storyline to interfere with the witch hunt....
Cue the conspiracy theorists who don't realize you don't have to be
Cue the police state apologist bullshit. How does your authoritarian mind grapple with the dichotomy of:
1) This person may have committed a serious crime so we want him extradited 2) But so unimportant that we haven't bothered to charge him
You must be a fan of the Obama Administration throwing Americans onto assassination lists, because they were horrible people who needed a good killing. But not so horrible that the DOJ bothered to indict them or try them in absentee. Who's still ignoring the fact that Assange was questioned by Swedish authorities at the time, released, and then got permission from Swedish authorities to leave the country.
You realize they questioned Assange at the time and released him, right? You realize he asked for permission to leave the country and it was granted, right? You realize that it's extremely rare for people to be deported without even being charged, right?
There are also more US Army, Air Force, and Navy bases in the US than in the rest of the world combined.
How many are engaged in domestic surveillance.
Many of them have tanks, warplanes, aircraft carriers, howitzers, and many other weapons
How many of those tanks, warplanes, aircraft carriers, howitzers, and many other weapons are used to spy on people?
this is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
This is the stupidest apologism for police state tactics yet. And before you or another Authoribot whines about how this wouldn't be used on Americans, the NSA started mass warrantless wiretapping Americans a good ten years ago, and a Democratic President just signed a law allowing military detention of American citizens on American soil.
We're so far down Orwell's rabbit hole it's not even funny.
And you know quite well how the police state likes to wedge it's foot in the door. The FBI needs to be able to tap any phone and get into any computer - to crack down on child porn, donchaknow.
And now you're defending the use of military drones because other drones are used for weather monitoring. But that's how the rationalization, foot-in-the-door process works. Get more power where no one will complain (busting kiddie porn, tracking weather), then ad those tools to your regular arsenal to be used against anyone you want to.
Like how home file sharers are hit with laws meant for those engaging in the sale of forged goods. Or how laws against terrorism are used for anything a DA thinks will stick. Etc.
Yes, what about the obvious rationalizations for a police state? Drones are going to be for the US what CCTV cameras were for England. Except the cameras weren't able to be mounted with missiles.....
The US has an extradition treaty with the UK too, so I wonder why they are taking such an indirect route.
To give them time to break Bradley Manning. To either cast Assange as the bad guy outright, or to get Manning to cop a plea in return for a reduced sentence - in return for throwing Assange under the bus.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the U.S. opened the box - and everyone knows it. Just as the U.S. was the first to use nuclear weapons, develop ICBM's, and use drones for mass assassination campaigns, the U.S. (along with Israel) were the first to make a serious "cyber attack" on another nation.
An attack, if done on the U.S., would be used as instant grounds to declare war.
Or the retarded shit you just pulled out of Hannity's ass?
We only overthrew their democratically elected government with Britain, which was almost certainly conducted with the U.S. embassy in Iran. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Like subjecting whistleblowers to psychological torture.
Like holding more prisoners than any other country in the world, most for petty drug offenses.
Like assassinating American citizens, including 16 year old teenagers.
Like holding people we know to be innocent in gulags, using faux evidence gained through torture, etc.
Like starting wars of choice based on lies - whereas Iran hasn't attacked another country in 200 years.
Buy a mirror, asshole.
No, that's called bullshit propaganda. Unless you have inside information that we're about to invade Israel to put an end to that belligerent state and it's 200+ nuclear weapons, and that's what you mean by "proportionate response".
Top U.S. and Israeli officials say Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Maybe you should stop pretending that you know differently.
And Iran wants nuclear energy for the same reason the U.S. encouraged the Shah to develop it when he was in power: so oil-rich Iran can export more of it's oil.
Think: it's been 200 years since Iran attacked another country - compared to dozens of wars of choice and first-strikes waged by Israel and the United States. Get over your Reaganite jingoism and realize that far more often than not, we ARE the baddies.
The United States has done worse to it's own citizens, many of whom were on it's own soil. Really don't want to be throwing stones on this one.
What would be the U.S. response if Iran was assassinating scientists at Los Alamos. Yes, that's a rhetorical question.
Repeating a Big Lie doesn't make it true. It just makes you a bigger liar.
Another rhetorical question: what would be the response if Iran overthrew the U.S. government? Stones, glass houses.
So only the rich and middle-middle class are allowed to have families now? Aren't you guys just a bushel of peaches.
Because those are the cooked U3 numbers that just forget about workers if they've been unemployed long enough. The more realistic - and honest - U6 unemployment rate has never dropped below 14% since Obama took office.
The other fact usually left out of the storyline: anything less than 200,000 new jobs a month is an increase in the unemployment rate - because we need that many new jobs just to keep up with population increases.
The one that top Israeli and American officials say doesn't exist? Other problems with the Iran-as-boogyman storyline:
The U.S. encouraged Iran to develop nuclear energy when the Shah was in power. For the obvious reason that it would leave Iran free to sell more of it's oil. Modern, puppet-government free Iran has the same motivation.
Israel has 200+ nuclear weapons. And unlike Iran, has started wars and launched dozens of first strikes on it's neighbors.
It is in the age of "Officials say" journalism. And the president using one side of his mouth to say that the very existence of his drone war is classified information, while using the other side of his mouth to brag about it's supposed effectiveness.
Any particular reason why this was left out of the storyline? From your link:
They aren't getting crazy super vacations. They're getting compensated for the time off they've accumulated.
Shorter version of your post: get back in that bucket, retail crabs.
Because in that region...it usually is. You should know this, since you mentioned the coup against Iran's government in '53. There's also Israel's wars of choice and first strikes on its neighbors, the U.S. supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, selling weapons to brutal dictators while at the same making war on Libya to remove that country's brutal dictator....
Own a mirror?
False equivalency. Particularly with digital, there is literally no difference between a $5 audio cable and a $5000 audio cable. As opposed to a difference between 30, 60 and 120 frames per second - and yes, some people can tell the difference.
Yes, you keep going on about science, but haven't cited any yet. Where are your double blind studies on 24 fps film vs 48 fps (or higher) film?
As opposed to shitty movies with surround sound, shitty color movies, or shitty talkie movies, which are still awesome because they aren't 3D.
Becomes "acceptable" when you need that paycheck to keep a roof over your head/feed your family/keep you alive with an illness/pay child support/student loans. Etc.
That's why we have labor laws.....
Yes, you're getting paid by a company to do a job. Not for the company to own your life for 9 hours a day. If you are:
a) Getting your work done
b) Not being a disruption
c) Not hurting the company
then it's really none of the company's business if you check your bank account, Gmail, or order something from Amazon.
With the gross imbalance of power between companies and workers made far worse by a long term 20% underemployment rate? You really need to cram that faux reasonableness crap back up your ass. The only way a worker has a remotely equal relationship with an employer is if he has a powerful union at his back - but of course, good corporate bootlickers hate unions as well.
Hey, look, there are some kids over there on the Koch brothers lawn. Why don't you be a dear and go chase them off.....
So the answer is "yes", then.
Whoop de do. That there are jobs around in western North Dakota doesn't change the fact that it's a right to work for less state.
Oh, but they do. Companies cannot intercept your telephone conversations, no matter that they own the phones and the lines. But those laws were established when we weren't wading into the fascist, authoritarian kiddie pool.
Of course they are, as a Google search not based on the fallacy of anecdotes will quickly determine. First world nations don't forcibly remove people and place them in another country's custody for shits and giggles.
I take it you're still ignoring the fact that he was questioned and released, and then granted permission to leave the country? And that charges were already dismissed before being brought by another prosecutor? Or that one of the witnesses has possibly recanted and left the country? Wouldn't want inconvenient parts of the storyline to interfere with the witch hunt....
Cue the police state apologist bullshit. How does your authoritarian mind grapple with the dichotomy of:
1) This person may have committed a serious crime so we want him extradited
2) But so unimportant that we haven't bothered to charge him
You must be a fan of the Obama Administration throwing Americans onto assassination lists, because they were horrible people who needed a good killing. But not so horrible that the DOJ bothered to indict them or try them in absentee. Who's still ignoring the fact that Assange was questioned by Swedish authorities at the time, released, and then got permission from Swedish authorities to leave the country.
You realize they questioned Assange at the time and released him, right? You realize he asked for permission to leave the country and it was granted, right? You realize that it's extremely rare for people to be deported without even being charged, right?
Right?
How many are engaged in domestic surveillance.
How many of those tanks, warplanes, aircraft carriers, howitzers, and many other weapons are used to spy on people?
This is the stupidest apologism for police state tactics yet. And before you or another Authoribot whines about how this wouldn't be used on Americans, the NSA started mass warrantless wiretapping Americans a good ten years ago, and a Democratic President just signed a law allowing military detention of American citizens on American soil.
We're so far down Orwell's rabbit hole it's not even funny.
F-16's and ICBM's aren't used for mass surveillance. Drones are.
Did you think that mass wiretapping from the NSA was cool because the FBI has done wiretaps in the past?
And you know quite well how the police state likes to wedge it's foot in the door. The FBI needs to be able to tap any phone and get into any computer - to crack down on child porn, donchaknow.
And now you're defending the use of military drones because other drones are used for weather monitoring. But that's how the rationalization, foot-in-the-door process works. Get more power where no one will complain (busting kiddie porn, tracking weather), then ad those tools to your regular arsenal to be used against anyone you want to.
Like how home file sharers are hit with laws meant for those engaging in the sale of forged goods. Or how laws against terrorism are used for anything a DA thinks will stick. Etc.
Yes, what about the obvious rationalizations for a police state? Drones are going to be for the US what CCTV cameras were for England. Except the cameras weren't able to be mounted with missiles.....
To give them time to break Bradley Manning. To either cast Assange as the bad guy outright, or to get Manning to cop a plea in return for a reduced sentence - in return for throwing Assange under the bus.