But they're on the other side of the line, so nothing can go wrong.
Until somebody invents the tunneling robot catapult that sneaks up on them from underneath and then shoots them back to where they came from. "Hmm? I thought we sent X3003 over alreadyyyeeyeye Duck!"
The facts that I mention are straight from the papers, Russian involvement at various points is clear. The only real question is, was it planned ahead of time, or were the Russians simply nimble enough on their feet to exploit an incredible opportunity when it fell into their lap? Either is possible. For what it is worth, Russian spies are as active as they were during the Cold War.
So let me get this straight, if you use government resources to break the law or fail to deliver on large government projects then you will be barred from further federal work? I think all you need to do is rename the company, e.g. "Blackwater" to "Xe" (or whatever they are called) and re-apply, No big deal.
You didn't get it straight. Try this: A company stealing classified documents and selling them as a business strategy would be barred from federal work and prosecuted.
That is a different case than Blackwater, completely different. If you didn't have an axe to grind I'm not sure how you could confuse them given the prior messages.
That means he took the job under false pretenses, he both lied to get the job, and continued lying while he was working. He certainly wouldn't have gotten the job if he had told them he wanted it to steal secrets, would he? Nor would he have been granted the access he was given if he had told them he wanted to steal secrets.
And who was speaking for Snowden in Russia?
Russian attorney Anatoly Kucherena — who also happens to be the head of public council for the Federal Security Service (FSB)* — has announced that Edward Snowden may leave the Moscow airport on Wednesday. --...Russian Intelligence Speaks For Edward Snowden
Snowden had his birthday party at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong and made arrangements with them for his trip to Russia. This connection was lied about at multiple levels, and multiple times. Why?
So, I think the answer to your question (What is really going on? ) is pretty clear, but not one you or most people here will accept.
*Federal Security Service (FSB) took the place of the old KGB - Committee for State Security, the Soviet secret police that was responsible for keeping the Soviet Communist Party in power.
Booz Allen is a profit oriented consulting and services business. They know the value of information. What if they are tapping into the NSA data for commercial gain? Selling NSA data to other businesses . . . ?
If they know the value of information, then they also know what they would lose if they were caught and barred from further federal work.
Wild speculation is probably best vectored toward finding the aliens they are holding in Area 51. Or did you have either proof, or a guilty conscience?
It doesn't really matter. The Patriot Act had little effect on the freedom of individual Americans, and they still hate us and our freedoms either way.
Bin Laden didn't make that demand until well after the US was engaged in combat in Afghanistan, so no, it wasn't an attempt to manipulate the US. It is in fact consistent with al Qaida's overall goal of a world ruled by Muslims under Sharia law. You fundamentally misunderstand al Qaida's goals.
You are also mistaken about them only being interested in "low level mayhem," as al Qaida has experimented with biological agents, such as black plague (wiping out on of their own camps in the process), and chemical weapons. They also sought religious permission to use nuclear weapons, which they apparent have, so that they would be prepared in the event that they can make or obtain one. (I believe there were rumors about lost Soviet Army weapons going around during this time.... so who knows.) Apparently it is permissible for them to kill up to 4,000,000 people.
Bin Laden badly miscalculated, much of al Qaida was destroyed even if it keeps trying to rebuild. Perhaps their greatest mistake was going to Iraq to fight the US there. That cost them dearly in personnel, resources, finances, and support in the Arab world. Masterful? No, not even close. Just another fool that thought the West in general, and the US in particular, was soft, decadent, and would roll over. Many other fascists have made similar mistakes.
They hate us just as much. The US is still a nation that is primarily Christians living under the Constitution with very little imposition from the measures taken. Bin Laden's first demand was that the US convert to Islam, and also wanted the Constitutional form of government done away with to implement Sharia law of the flavor they favor. I'm 99.999% certain that hasn't happened yet.
Anyone engaged in critical thinking will be engaged in a futile pursuit if they don't have the correct set of facts to consider. Al Qaida is aggressive, expansionist, and imperialist in nature. They want to reestablish the Caliphate government that was dissolved in 1924 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, expand the areas under Muslim rule, reclaim lost lands, like Spain, and ultimately rule a world of countries under their form of Islamic Sharia law. US foreign policy has little to do with that. If you don't understand that, you need to continue further research since you fundamentally fail to understand their goals and motivation. They are taking the long term view.
These are not obscure facts if you bother to look.
The terrorist haven't won since they haven't achieved their goal: mass conversion to Islam and abandoning the Constitutional form of government for Sharia law. Bin Laden made that clear in his Letter to America.
The US didn't panic, but it became more serious about dealing with al Qaida after 9/11. There were nearly 3X the number killed in one day by al Qaida in the US as the 28 year campaign of the PIRA from 69-97. That escalation by the US was warranted.
In the past, has received aid from a variety of groups and countries and considerable training and arms from Libya and the PLO. Is suspected of receiving funds, arms, and other terrorist-related materiel from sympathizers in the United States. Similarities in operations suggest links to ETA and the FARC. In August 2002, three suspected IRA members were arrested in Colombia on charges of assisting the FARC to improve its explosives capabilities.
Obamacare will have a bigger effect on freedom than the Patriot Act.
In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:
If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.
Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.
Funny how they're all for freedom and following the constitution to the letter when there's a good chance the'll be unelectable in the next election, but they're willing to sell privacy and public rights to the highest bidder when they're the ones in power.
What do you think Obamacare is? Intrusive? Massive power grab? Enforced by the IRS? Plenty of other bad things?
Louisiana state Sen. Karen Carter Peterson last week took to the chamber’s floor to declare opponents of President Barack Obama’s “signature legislative achievement” are motivated by race.
“I have talked to so many members both in the House and the Senate, and you know what? You ready? You ready? What it comes down to? It’s not about how many federal dollars we can receive, it’s not about that. You ready? It’s about race,” Peterson said. “I know nobody wants to talk about that. It’s about the race of this African-American president.”
In the US for example, speech isn't 100% free. If something damages somebody's reputation, you better be able to show that you believed it was true or you're on the hook for libel or slander.
The speech is free, but not necessarily consequence free. It is very difficult to prevent something from being published or said, but there are circumstances in which you may face repercussions for what you have written or said.
Apparently it isn't just our appellate courts here in the States that have gone batshit crazy. The insanity seems to be spreading.
What do you mean by "spreading"? The US didn't start this. There tend to be multiple sources of crazy in every culture and country, always available to tap into, not the least of which is the fallen nature of humanity.
Your post doesn't really contradict mine. The US did little in the way of providing actual arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. It was a client state of the Soviet Union and most of its weapons were from the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact nations, or China - or licensed copies made in Iraq. It also had some South African artillery and some French weaponry.
The Weintraub article addressing the faulty claim by Pope that the US spent the 80s arming Iraq, and he doesn't address the 2003 war. I'm pretty sure that the US didn't arm Iraq between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion. The US has been helping arm Iraq since the change of government.
Haliburton doesn't have either the means or the influence to direct the election of the president of the US, and has very little influence over the direction of US foreign policy. The so called "military industrial complex" has represented a shrinking share of the economy for decades, and its potential for influence has shrunk with it. As it is it only represents about 4.5% of the economy which is far smaller than many other sectors, such as healthcare. Going into war just for the sake of some company in that small part of the economy is unthinkable since the potential consequences and disruption for the whole economy and country are far larger than any reasonably possible benefit. This is left-over thinking from the earliest days of the Cold War, and nonsense at that.
Slashdot Mirror
The US and UK would have been happy to let it die, but the Russians and Chinese won't let it.
China and Russia spying at Cold War levels : US spy chief
Number of Russian spies in the UK back to Cold War levels, say security services
But they're on the other side of the line, so nothing can go wrong.
Until somebody invents the tunneling robot catapult that sneaks up on them from underneath and then shoots them back to where they came from. "Hmm? I thought we sent X3003 over alreadyyyeeyeye Duck!"
The facts that I mention are straight from the papers, Russian involvement at various points is clear. The only real question is, was it planned ahead of time, or were the Russians simply nimble enough on their feet to exploit an incredible opportunity when it fell into their lap? Either is possible. For what it is worth, Russian spies are as active as they were during the Cold War.
China and Russia spying at Cold War levels : US spy chief
Number of Russian spies in the UK back to Cold War levels, say security services
So let me get this straight, if you use government resources to break the law or fail to deliver on large government projects then you will be barred from further federal work? I think all you need to do is rename the company, e.g. "Blackwater" to "Xe" (or whatever they are called) and re-apply, No big deal.
You didn't get it straight. Try this: A company stealing classified documents and selling them as a business strategy would be barred from federal work and prosecuted.
That is a different case than Blackwater, completely different. If you didn't have an axe to grind I'm not sure how you could confuse them given the prior messages.
I would expect these agencies to produce "evidence" that denigrates his position, and I would not at first glance accept it.
Do you take Snowden at his word? Snowden to newspaper: I took contractor job to gather evidence
That means he took the job under false pretenses, he both lied to get the job, and continued lying while he was working. He certainly wouldn't have gotten the job if he had told them he wanted it to steal secrets, would he? Nor would he have been granted the access he was given if he had told them he wanted to steal secrets.
And who was speaking for Snowden in Russia?
Russian attorney Anatoly Kucherena — who also happens to be the head of public council for the Federal Security Service (FSB)* — has announced that Edward Snowden may leave the Moscow airport on Wednesday. -- ...Russian Intelligence Speaks For Edward Snowden
Snowden had his birthday party at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong and made arrangements with them for his trip to Russia. This connection was lied about at multiple levels, and multiple times. Why?
I'm sure he'll enjoy his new homeland.
So, I think the answer to your question (What is really going on? ) is pretty clear, but not one you or most people here will accept.
*Federal Security Service (FSB) took the place of the old KGB - Committee for State Security, the Soviet secret police that was responsible for keeping the Soviet Communist Party in power.
Booz Allen is a profit oriented consulting and services business. They know the value of information. What if they are tapping into the NSA data for commercial gain? Selling NSA data to other businesses . . . ?
If they know the value of information, then they also know what they would lose if they were caught and barred from further federal work.
Wild speculation is probably best vectored toward finding the aliens they are holding in Area 51. Or did you have either proof, or a guilty conscience?
The Pentagon? No, but you're thinking is the right general direction: Another agency did it first.
It doesn't really matter. The Patriot Act had little effect on the freedom of individual Americans, and they still hate us and our freedoms either way.
The guy who created it, or the guy who didn't get rid of it? Yes, it's Bush's fault for giving Obama such a nasty toy to play with.
The Patriot Act would have gone away if it hadn't been reauthorized, so no. It is all Obama at this point.
Bin Laden didn't make that demand until well after the US was engaged in combat in Afghanistan, so no, it wasn't an attempt to manipulate the US. It is in fact consistent with al Qaida's overall goal of a world ruled by Muslims under Sharia law. You fundamentally misunderstand al Qaida's goals.
You are also mistaken about them only being interested in "low level mayhem," as al Qaida has experimented with biological agents, such as black plague (wiping out on of their own camps in the process), and chemical weapons. They also sought religious permission to use nuclear weapons, which they apparent have, so that they would be prepared in the event that they can make or obtain one. (I believe there were rumors about lost Soviet Army weapons going around during this time.... so who knows.) Apparently it is permissible for them to kill up to 4,000,000 people.
Bin Laden badly miscalculated, much of al Qaida was destroyed even if it keeps trying to rebuild. Perhaps their greatest mistake was going to Iraq to fight the US there. That cost them dearly in personnel, resources, finances, and support in the Arab world. Masterful? No, not even close. Just another fool that thought the West in general, and the US in particular, was soft, decadent, and would roll over. Many other fascists have made similar mistakes.
Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'
(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
They hate us just as much. The US is still a nation that is primarily Christians living under the Constitution with very little imposition from the measures taken. Bin Laden's first demand was that the US convert to Islam, and also wanted the Constitutional form of government done away with to implement Sharia law of the flavor they favor. I'm 99.999% certain that hasn't happened yet.
Anyone engaged in critical thinking will be engaged in a futile pursuit if they don't have the correct set of facts to consider. Al Qaida is aggressive, expansionist, and imperialist in nature. They want to reestablish the Caliphate government that was dissolved in 1924 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, expand the areas under Muslim rule, reclaim lost lands, like Spain, and ultimately rule a world of countries under their form of Islamic Sharia law. US foreign policy has little to do with that. If you don't understand that, you need to continue further research since you fundamentally fail to understand their goals and motivation. They are taking the long term view.
These are not obscure facts if you bother to look.
The terrorist haven't won since they haven't achieved their goal: mass conversion to Islam and abandoning the Constitutional form of government for Sharia law. Bin Laden made that clear in his Letter to America.
The US didn't panic, but it became more serious about dealing with al Qaida after 9/11. There were nearly 3X the number killed in one day by al Qaida in the US as the 28 year campaign of the PIRA from 69-97. That escalation by the US was warranted.
As to IRA funding.
Irish Republican Army (IRA) - External Aid
In the past, has received aid from a variety of groups and countries and considerable training and arms from Libya and the PLO. Is suspected of receiving funds, arms, and other terrorist-related materiel from sympathizers in the United States. Similarities in operations suggest links to ETA and the FARC. In August 2002, three suspected IRA members were arrested in Colombia on charges of assisting the FARC to improve its explosives capabilities.
Obamacare will have a bigger effect on freedom than the Patriot Act.
Heritage repudiated that plan long ago after rethinking it. They determined it was a bad idea. You should give them credit for being able to do so.
ObamaCare's Heritage
In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:
If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.
Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.
Funny how they're all for freedom and following the constitution to the letter when there's a good chance the'll be unelectable in the next election, but they're willing to sell privacy and public rights to the highest bidder when they're the ones in power.
What do you think Obamacare is? Intrusive? Massive power grab? Enforced by the IRS? Plenty of other bad things?
When in reality, they shouldn't have acted much at all.
Well, now I'm curious. What would your policy prescription be after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks? Do nothing?
Are you one of the "Americans should die bravely in shopping malls for our freedom because doing anything is tyranny" camp?
That is insightful.
I have a dream, that one day all the little factual posts on Slashdot will not be marked troll because of the color of the moderators politics.
Charge of racism offensive to Obamacare critics
Louisiana state Sen. Karen Carter Peterson last week took to the chamber’s floor to declare opponents of President Barack Obama’s “signature legislative achievement” are motivated by race.
“I have talked to so many members both in the House and the Senate, and you know what? You ready? You ready? What it comes down to? It’s not about how many federal dollars we can receive, it’s not about that. You ready? It’s about race,” Peterson said. “I know nobody wants to talk about that. It’s about the race of this African-American president.”
After Calling Obamacare Critics Racist, LA Legislator Says 'I Didn't Call Anyone a Racist'
Mainstream Scream: Martin Bashir accuses Obama scandal critics of racism
Are Obama's critics racist? Jimmy Carter thinks so
A Modern Timeline of Liberals Claiming That Opposition to Obama = Racism
There is plenty more that could be posted on this topic.
The Founding Fathers were rebels against the British Crown, not terrorists. There is a difference.
In the US for example, speech isn't 100% free. If something damages somebody's reputation, you better be able to show that you believed it was true or you're on the hook for libel or slander.
The speech is free, but not necessarily consequence free. It is very difficult to prevent something from being published or said, but there are circumstances in which you may face repercussions for what you have written or said.
Apparently it isn't just our appellate courts here in the States that have gone batshit crazy. The insanity seems to be spreading.
What do you mean by "spreading"? The US didn't start this. There tend to be multiple sources of crazy in every culture and country, always available to tap into, not the least of which is the fallen nature of humanity.
Just because calling opposition to President Obama's policies "racist" is a dishonest, failing tactic doesn't mean that it isn't in common use.
Your post doesn't really contradict mine. The US did little in the way of providing actual arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. It was a client state of the Soviet Union and most of its weapons were from the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact nations, or China - or licensed copies made in Iraq. It also had some South African artillery and some French weaponry.
The Weintraub article addressing the faulty claim by Pope that the US spent the 80s arming Iraq, and he doesn't address the 2003 war. I'm pretty sure that the US didn't arm Iraq between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion. The US has been helping arm Iraq since the change of government.
Haliburton doesn't have either the means or the influence to direct the election of the president of the US, and has very little influence over the direction of US foreign policy. The so called "military industrial complex" has represented a shrinking share of the economy for decades, and its potential for influence has shrunk with it. As it is it only represents about 4.5% of the economy which is far smaller than many other sectors, such as healthcare. Going into war just for the sake of some company in that small part of the economy is unthinkable since the potential consequences and disruption for the whole economy and country are far larger than any reasonably possible benefit. This is left-over thinking from the earliest days of the Cold War, and nonsense at that.