39
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 11:42 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank,

... why do you sneer at people, however colorful and flawed, who expose its [the US's] abuses?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 12:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

C'mon, Walter. You guys have had some bad times with your government...and now you seem to be trusting them more than is wise.
Just the opposite!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 12:52 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not accepting the governments explanations for why they are doing some of the things they are doing...I am part of the chorus demanding that they do it.
So you agree with the general presumption of guilt of any foreigner ...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 03:52 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not accepting the governments explanations for why they are doing some of the things they are doing...I am part of the chorus demanding that they do it.
So you agree with the general presumption of guilt of any foreigner ...


I do not think there is a general presumption of guilt of foreigners...and if there were, I would not agree with it. I do not see how you get that supposition from what I wrote, Walter.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 03:59 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
I do not see how you get that supposition from what I wrote, Walter.


I do. A lot of us were always under the assumption that America viewed us as allies, now we know that's definitely not the case.
Walter Hinteler
 
  6  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 04:14 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think there is a general presumption of guilt of foreigners...and if there were, I would not agree with it. I do not see how you get that supposition from what I wrote, Walter.
There has been espionage between contries.
And it has always been a criminal act ... in the country, where the spying went on.

Since everyone was doing, it has been a zero-sum situation, and international law neutral about it.

But now, it's something different, a totally new situation. It'snot that countries are spied at but citizens. And not just a certain "species of citizen" but all.
And the reason? Well, you want to fund out, if someone of us (= all but US-citizens) might consider something something bad which could perhaps be against the safety of the USA.

And that certainly is general presumption of guilt of foreigners.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 07:18 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Well, you want to fund out, if someone of us (= all but US-citizens) might consider something something bad which could perhaps be against the safety of the USA.


An the bad, knowing human nature and human history, will include kicking out the current party in power by legal means.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 07:35 am
@BillRM,
I don't think that is going to help in this particular instance as both are on the same side.
A-Neutral-Hue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 07:51 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:

I do. A lot of us were always under the assumption that America viewed us as allies, now we know that's definitely not the case.


Uh-uh! The US and Britain are the best of allies but that does not mean each does not spy on the other. Look at Israel, one of the closest allies of the US who is still trying to get American born Jonathan Pollard out of prison for spying for Israel.

Trust, but verify, is a well established axiom.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 08:17 am
@engineer,
Quote:
I don't think that is going to help in this particular instance as both are on the same side.


See Nixon, see Johnson and FBI Hoover for an indication of how this information is likely to be misused by the people in power to maintain themselves in power.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 08:21 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I do not see how you get that supposition from what I wrote, Walter.


I do. A lot of us were always under the assumption that America viewed us as allies, now we know that's definitely not the case.


I still do not see how you get at what Walter supposed from what I wrote...but I guess you and he are stuck where you are on that.

The UK and Germany are allies to us...and if you think anything that has happened recently suggests otherwise, I think you are just over-reacting.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 08:22 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think there is a general presumption of guilt of foreigners...and if there were, I would not agree with it. I do not see how you get that supposition from what I wrote, Walter.
There has been espionage between contries.
And it has always been a criminal act ... in the country, where the spying went on.

Since everyone was doing, it has been a zero-sum situation, and international law neutral about it.

But now, it's something different, a totally new situation. It'snot that countries are spied at but citizens. And not just a certain "species of citizen" but all.
And the reason? Well, you want to fund out, if someone of us (= all but US-citizens) might consider something something bad which could perhaps be against the safety of the USA.

And that certainly is general presumption of guilt of foreigners.


You are welcome to that interpretation, Walter, but there is absolutely no way that I think there is a general presumption of guilt of foreigners. I doubt I will be able to convince you of that...so...feel comfortable with it.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 08:24 am
@BillRM,
You don't need to go that far back. NSA employees admitted to listening to the phone calls of military personnel and aid workers back in 2008.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 09:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
The UK and Germany are allies to us...


You don't treat allies like that.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 09:54 am
@izzythepush,
Just appeared on The Guardian's website. Worth posting in full.

Quote:
In the case of Edward Snowden and the secret surveillance abuses that he has exposed, it's us against them. But who is "us" and who is "them?"

This started out as a story of government spying programs exposed by a daring whistleblower, akin to the famous Pentagon Papers of 1971. This clearly pitted "us", the citizens and residents of the United States, against "them", an abusive, unaccountable government violating our rights and our constitution in secret. The citizens of other countries who had their rights violated by NSA spying, such as in Europe and, now we learn, Brazil, also became part of that "us".

But over the last few weeks powerful media outlets, mirroring the efforts of the US government, have shifted the narrative to more convenient terrain. "Us" now means "America", led by our national security state, which – if possibly overzealous sometimes – is trying to protect "us". "Them" is our adversaries – terrorists, of course, but also any government that is independent enough to be branded as "anti-American". And Edward Snowden – the "fugitive leaker" at best, or "traitorous spy" at worst – has, in some unexplained manner, helped "them", and seems to be getting help from "them" (in this case, governments that are "anti-American"; that is, independent of Washington).

Never mind that even Russia didn't want to get involved in the whole thing, and insisted that Snowden could only stay there if he would "cease his work aimed at damaging our American partners", the cold war rhetoric is too irresistible for journalists steeped in its patriotic fervor. Like Mike Meyers' Austin Powers, who woke up after a decades' long nap and didn't know that the cold war was over, they are ready to do battle with America's "enemies".

One of the most influential human rights organizations in the world, Amnesty International, didn't buy this media narrative. Last Tuesday, it accused the US government of "gross violations of [Snowden's] human rights", for trying to block him from applying for political asylum. Amnesty declared:


"It appears he is being charged by the US government primarily for revealing its – and other governments' – unlawful actions that violate human rights …

"No one should be charged under any law for disclosing information of human rights violations … Snowden is a whistleblower. He has disclosed issues of enormous public interest in the US and around the world."

The leading media outlets virtually ignored this voice and the legal issues that it raised.

The media can often determine what most people think on most issues, if given enough time and insufficient opposition. So, it is not surprising that the number of people who think that Snowden "did the right thing" has fallen over the past few weeks.

At this point, there is only one person who can turn this around: that is Edward Snowden himself. He has recorded only one interview, the one with Glenn Greenwald in which he took responsibility for the disclosures. It was a brilliant interview: he was crystal clear – morally, politically, and rhetorically.


"I'm no different from anybody else. I don't have special skills. I'm just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watches what's happening and goes, 'This is something that's not our place to decide, the public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong.'"

The sincerity of his appeal convinced millions that he was "us" – and that the people who now want to put him behind bars for life are "them".

It is understandable why he hasn't given any media interviews since then. He didn't expose these programs, despite some ridiculous punditry to the contrary, to promote himself. He wants the focus to be on the crimes committed in secret by government, not on him. But sometimes, there is no avoiding center stage.

Snowden is the only person right now who can reach hundreds of millions of people with a truthful message. The media is currently hungry for his words; they are eager to ignore most of the other truth-tellers, like Amnesty International; or to disparage them. They have demonized Julian Assange, who has yet to be even charged with a single crime, not even a misdemeanor. They will eventually destroy Snowden if he does not forcefully speak out and defend himself.

This has practical, as well as political, consequences. On Friday, Venezuela and Nicaragua offered asylum to Snowden, followed by Bolivia on Saturday. And there are an unknown number of other countries – including Ecuador – that would almost certainly grant him asylum if he showed up there. There are a number of ways for him to fly to these places without passing over any country that takes orders from Washington. But will the US government violate international law again, and risk innocent lives, by trying to force down a plane in international air space?

This decision may depend on the Obama team's forecast of how the media would portray such a crime. If Snowden explains to the world why his actions were a legitimate and eminently justifiable exposure of government criminality, the White House may think twice about further illegal and possibly forceful efforts to block Snowden's right to political asylum.

The Obama team did not comment on the offers of asylum. This was very smart, since it was a safe bet that the media would respond for them, framing the issue not as one of independent governments exercising their right and obligation to offer political asylum to a whistleblower, but rather "them" trying to poke a finger in the eye of the United States.

But there are millions of Americans, and many more throughout the world, who can see through this crusty cold war retread. Snowden can reach many millions more with the truth. He needs to speak – not only to save himself, but also future whistleblowers whom the Obama administration wants to silence by punishing him. What is at stake is the whole cause of human rights, especially the right to asylum. The citizens of the world need to see that triumph over the intimidation from those who believe that raw power is all that counts.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/08/world-needs-edward-snowden-advocacy
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 10:49 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The UK and Germany are allies to us.


“To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal”
- Henry Kissinger

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.”
-Henry Kissinger
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 11:06 am
@Frank Apisa,
Does the archwar criminal, Henry Kissinger agree with Edward Snowden and what he has done to expose the crimes of the US?

“Any fact that needs to be disclosed should be put out now or as quickly as possible, because otherwise the bleeding will not end.”

-Henry Kissinger
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 11:17 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You don't treat allies like that.


Consider how the US has treated its neighbors in Central and South America for over a century. Consider how the US has treated the citizens of every country that the US has pretended to be helping save the "oppressed" from their oppression.

You're probably not going to really warm to the following.

But also, consider, Izzy and Walter, that what has happened to you is, on the scale of things, pretty much nothing.

And while this is a serious thing to be sure, and it should be exposed for what it is, a rogue nation acting as, well, a rogue nation, where's the indignation for the things that are so unbelievably serious?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 11:46 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Instead of posting such a long script which will put off a lot of people, why don't you just cut and paste the key points and post a link to the article?


So they can ignore it there instead of here, eh, Izzy? Smile
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 01:03 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
Your screeds have resulted in many of those dozen folks ignoring you.


Which are "screeds", JPB, my editorial comments or the voluminous sources which describe the war crimes and terrorism of the US?

Have you ever, ever come across anyone, not just USians, who has suggested,

"Gee, let's have a serious discussion about what Noam Chomsky or John Stockwell or Michael Parenti or ... are writing about. Let's consider that at least some of this has to be fact and if it is, then why isn't there more discussion about it?"

Quote:
You seem to be of the opinion that discussions on A2K matter or that they will somehow have some influence on how Americans see themselves in the world.


I think that these discussions, kind of a laughable term, isn't it, because, again, no one wants to discuss these things. You must note tho' that there are far fewer "USA rah rah rah" folks around. You should also note that the numbers of language pet peevists now approaches zero.

Funny how quickly the facts tend to shut up the purveyors of untruths, propagandists, the ignorant. Stay quiet and the opposite happens.

Quote:
You stated recently that you'd bet that none of the people I have regular contact with openly debate or discuss US foreign policy. I said you'd lose that bet. My discussions tend to be elsewhere, primarily because I think that discussions of this type are irrelevant here.

But you thought that these things that have an immediate impact upon Americans are worthy of discussion.

Quote:
There used to be a sizable group of folks here who were willing to debate subject of political and/or international interest. Most of those people have left.


The facts are such that they point up very very serious crimes. The facts are such that they are "indisputable", not because they are all indisputable, but because no one wants to dispute the facts just the messenger conveying those facts.

What more does one need to realize that these things do need to be discussed?

I have always been disappointed in Dys, at least a bit more so than others, because he knew full well about these issues, he, by his own admission, engaged in these "issues".

Why do people, honest people, stay silent about such serious issues?

Did these folks "debate" or "dance around the issues"?

Quote:
I've said this all before. The 10-12 people who will read this post have seen me say it here before. Saying it two, or ten or a hundred times won't influence the people who disagree with me and what's the point of preaching to the choir?


You've ended up with a +5, so considering the possible vote downs and those that don't vote, there may well be 20 people who read your post. Smile

But seriously, the A2K literati didn't address these issues any better than the A2K non-literati.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 29
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/16/2018 at 03:58:39