Snowdon is a dummy

@Moment-in-Time,

Have you tried option C: "A wise man beyond his years, who lives beyond mere social shadows, within the eyes of the Universe via an inter-reflection pattern between his experience and the Universe's experience sharing the same faculties."

I could ask you to define "life", and you'd say the stupidest closed-in social **** imaginable.

And I would write a profound literary art through poetry, which is a sign of intelligence and wisdom.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
A report in The Intercept is being used to demonstrate that "terrorist orgnaizations have not benefited from the NSA revelations, nor have they substantially altered their behavior in response to them."

OBVIOUSLY YOU DIDN'T READ WHAT I POSTED.

It cannot be that obvious, Walter...because I did read it. Read it twice, in fact.

Quote:

Quote:
From my link:

Quote:
As reported by NBC:

“.…Flashpoint Global Partners, a private security firm, examined the frequency of releases and updates of encryption software by jihadi groups….. It found no correlation in either measure to Snowden’s leaks about the NSA’s surveillance techniques, which became public beginning June 5, 2013.”

And if you had looked at what I wrote, you would have noticed the link to the original survey by Flashpoint Partners: Measuring the Impact of the Snowden Leaks on the Use of Encryption by Online Jihadists

Sorry, Frank, but sometimes I really think you are an a**hole.

I will take that as a momentary lapse in your usual decorum, Walter.

I am not an asshole.

I knew that the report was generated by work done by Flashpoint Global Partners.

What difference does that make?

It is a single source saying that "terrorist orgnaizations have not benefited from the NSA revelations, nor have they substantially altered their behavior in response to them"...while there are a legion of other sources that claim the opposite.

Frankly, I do not trust either side...as I noted.

I seriously doubt ANYONE knows whether or not the revelations have helped any terrorists or not...and the survey by FGP is no more reliable than comments made by detractors of Snowden.

Which is what I said...if you had taken the time to read what I wrote.

But the Intercept is essentially Greenwald...and if you haven't noticed, he has an interest in who is perceived positively and who is perceived negatively.

He is not unbiased.

Carry on.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Moment-in-Time wrote:

Quote:

Sorry, Frank, but sometimes I really think you are an a**hole.

So why do you resort to this type of obscene name calling, Walter? I honestly thought you had more discipline than that, one of the reasons I admired your posts because of your civilized demeanor. I do not see Frank Apisa as an A-hole, but an accomplished debater. I've often thought of you this way.

Thank you, MiT.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

If that is true, then it is equally true, we didn't learn anything we didn't already know.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

I was speaking of since the stolen Snowden revelations, not back through the years under a different administration.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Sounds like faulty logic... Jihadists had good reasons to think they were monitored. We didn't.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

I was speaking of since the stolen Snowden revelations, not back through the years under a different administration.

You mean only the very newest lies to congress matter and not the fact that had been proven over decades that the intelligence agencies are very willing to lied to congress?

Perhaps you would care to explain your logic here.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

If that is true, then it is equally true, we didn't learn anything we didn't already know.

We knew that the American people was being spy on in bulk using billions of our own tax dollars to do so?

0 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

Just picking out one of the (now) many news-sites which report about and which he doesn't like at all, I think it is dishonest to give the survey by such a negative impression.

Without doubt, you can criticise the survey/original report.

And without doubt, I was too harsh and too quick with my response.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

As said, many media reported about it.
But since at that time (yesterday here) only the Intercept had it with linked sources (and in English) I've used it. Biased or not.

I agree that that Greenwald is biased. But I don't know of an unbiased source who stores Snowden's data.

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

As said, many media reported about it.
But since at that time (yesterday here) only the Intercept had it with linked sources (and in English) I've used it. Biased or not.

I agree that that Greenwald is biased. But I don't know of an unbiased source who stores Snowden's data.

I understand, Walter. Truly.

But even if you could find an unbiased source...the fact remains that Snowden is accused of stealing classified government documents and releasing them to people unauthorized to receive them.

Whether they helped enemies of our country (or the extent of that help) MAY never be determined. Fact is, whether it helped them or not is not really a significant factor...because they MIGHT have, even if they didn't. Fact is, whether any terrorists changed methods of operations because of the revelations or not...is not significant.

(Stealing $10,000 from Bill Gates would not significantly impact him...or cause him to change his lifestyle, but the crime of theft of $10,000 would still stand. )

Bottom line: Snowden is charged with stealing classified government documents and releasing them to people unauthorized to receive them...and he should stand trial on those charges. If he remains in asylum there is no way to do that...and that is the way things stand.

Whether or not it aided terrorists is a side-bar. The revelations could have (and maybe have)...so I challenged the posting you made on it.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

There's no such thing as an unbiased source, Walter. Frank is a liar. It is obvious he misunderstood the source of the info, but is too proud to admit it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

There's no such thing as an unbiased source, Walter. Frank is a liar. It is obvious he misunderstood the source of the info, but is too proud to admit it.

No, Olivier...I am not a liar.

I did understand...and I actually visited the site of everything that was posted to check.

Smart move directing your comment to Walter...so you get to think you won't go through what you went through the last time you started something with me. I suspect you may pretend to have me on ignore...but that is laughable.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-with-laughter.gif

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

@Moment-in-Time,
Just picking out one of the (now) many news-sites which report about and which he doesn't like at all, I think it is dishonest to give the survey by such a negative impression.

Without doubt, you can criticise the survey/original report.

And without doubt, I was too harsh and too quick with my response.

__________
Happy Wednesday morning, Walter Hinteler.

Thank you so much for your post. I, too, am many times too hasty in criticism. I have often felt you were a remarkable poster, despite our being at opposite ends of the spectrum regarding this Edward Snowden thread, and I still do. Each of us possess human flaws, and none more so than I. Your patient board posting manner, with the exception of yesterday, IMO, is practically unblemished. I remain one of your strongest admirers.

Have good posting day.
Marla

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You should be less suspecting of others, and more suspecting of yourself. No way you could have checked the source and then misrepresent it as being the Intercept... Keep lying.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You should be less suspecting of others, and more suspecting of yourself. No way you could have checked the source and then misrepresent it as being the Intercept... Keep lying.

I am not a liar, Olivier. (Good to see you back, by the way. I enjoy what I do to you.)

I checked the sources...and I did not misrepresent it as being The Intercept.

When you click on the link Walter furnished...it brings you to The Intercept.

In my comments, I mentioned the NBC report (which was of a study by Flashpoint Global Partners)...so obviously I had read what Walter had written...and read the linked source...which was The Intercept.

At that point, I even went to the Flashpoint Global Partners website (very little there.)

Sorry your uncontrolled anger requires you to call me a liar...but it it helps you feel better about yourself and the life you are living...continue to do so.

Actually I get a laugh out of it...and lots of fun contradicting it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Bottom line: Snowden is charged with stealing classified government documents and releasing them to people unauthorized to receive them...and he should stand trial on those charges. If he remains in asylum there is no way to do that...and that is the way things stand.

Agreed ... from the US point of view.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Whether or not it aided terrorists is a side-bar. The revelations could have (and maybe have)...so I challenged the posting you made on it.

Actually it could be a kind of side-bar. But it was the topic of the quotation I had posted.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

At that point, I even went to the Flashpoint Global Partners website (very little there.)

Depends on what you call "very little": 10 pages really aren'ttoo much - but more then 10 pages seems not too bad at all.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
At that point, I even went to the Flashpoint Global Partners website (very little there.)

Depends on what you call "very little": 10 pages really aren'ttoo much - but more then 10 pages seems not too bad at all.

Apparently you have more experience than I in browsing in sites like that. I came away with much fewer than 10 pages...but in any case, there was nothing there to indicate the reliability of their conclusions.

I know The Intercept is not especially reliable when reporting on Snowden because of agenda bias...and Flashpoint may have an agenda bias also, which may account for The Intercept reporting that supposed Flashpoint survey.

In any case, I very definitely visited Flashpoint and The Intercept...and I did read your comments, Walter.

Lastly, I am not a liar Walter...as Olivier has twice asserted here today.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

I agree that that Greenwald is biased. But I don't know of an unbiased source who stores Snowden's data

.

The Washington Post and the New York Times since those news sources are not so heavily invested with Greenwald.

On the survey, I don't doubt it. What I do think is that they may not privy to all the information in which US intelligence would be privy too so they may not be able make a complete survey. In other words, pretty well all they would naturally be able to do is get all the information that is out there already, not information which may be classified and/or kept secret in the US intelligence agencies.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know