Snowdon is a dummy

Malay Mail Online mentions that in its report, Walter.

Quote:

In an interview with Italy's La Nazione daily this week, Iraq's ambassador to the Holy See, Habib Al Sadr, said "what has been declared by the self-declared Islamic State is clear. They want to kill the pope. The threats against the pope are credible."

Quote:

Frankly, I hope the current and former U.S. officials are lying.

Don't worry Frank, I am sure Bill and/or others will come along soon and say with absolute certainty "they are lying."

Frank Apisa wrote:

Malay Mail Online mentions that in its report, Walter.

Quote:

In an interview with Italy's La Nazione daily this week, Iraq's ambassador to the Holy See, Habib Al Sadr, said "what has been declared by the self-declared Islamic State is clear. They want to kill the pope. The threats against the pope are credible."

I referred to the report in Il Messaggero, not the later interview in La Nazione.

Yesterday's (the above linked report is updated today) Il Messaggero report is just about the Italian security due to a "bomb alarm". It doesn't mention what is done in Vatican City by the Corps of Gendarmerie of Vatican City.

European (and especially German) media are relating the AP-report to what Clapper said this week: he said the agencies under his command, including the National Security Agency, had to "throttle back" on some intelligence collection "because we need to recover foreign intelligence partnerships and commercial partnerships."

Jeepers, I did not realize President Obama were himself spying on Merkel. I knew at one time NSA was involved but had not revealed this to the President. I realize Obama had apologized to Chancellor Angela Merkel for what NSA did. Are you inferring Obama is involved with this still?!

Countries spying on each other is a fact of life! It is reality. Personally, Oliver5, I don't think you have the capability to change this.

Let's look at it this way, what you imply is a remote possibility, but in practice, I just don't believe such will occur simply because presidential elections are scrutinized too closely for any formal malapropos!

Personally I hope that if they are really not going to do it or have been doing it, they would just not say anything about it to start with rather than just announcing a big lie which could be found out at a later date and just make everything much worse.

I am saying this spying on allies damages the relationship with allies...

revelette2 wrote:

Personally I hope that if they are really not going to do it or have been doing it, they would just not say anything about it to start with rather than just announcing a big lie which could be found out at a later date and just make everything much worse.

Agreed. It would be a huge damage to what is left of the USA's reputation.

Don't worry Frank, I am sure Bill and/or others will come along soon and say with absolute certainty "they are lying."

Quote:

Don't worry Frank, I am sure Bill and/or others will come along soon and say with absolute certainty "they are lying."

Odd that you wish to overlook constant lying and still grant the intelligence community the benefit of the doubt over and over and over.

There is a very old saying that go "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me".

Quote:

I am saying this spying on allies damages the relationship with allies...

"Getting caught spying on allies" occasionally damages the relationships. But even on those occasions, it really has more to do with the general publicity given the "getting caught."

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

I am saying this spying on allies damages the relationship with allies...

"Getting caught spying on allies" occasionally damages the relationships. But even on those occasions, it really has more to do with the general publicity given the "getting caught."

Since for any crime, the chances of getting caught are proportional to the intensity of the frequency of the act, mass spying implied massive chances of being leaked at one point or another to the press, and to damage the relationship with allies. Which is where we are now...

Actually, it doesn't, Olivier.

"Getting caught spying on allies" occasionally damages the relationships. But even on those occasions, it really has more to do with the general publicity given the "getting caught."

If the CIA catches an ally spying on us...no big deal. My guess is that every ally we have spies on us in one way or another. But if the newspapers get hold of the story, because someone spills the beans...well then there can be a problem.

Then the country being spied on has to perform for its citizens, let out a cry, such as Chancellor Angela Merkel did....

Quote:Moment-in-Time wrote:

Let's look at it this way, what you imply is a remote possibility, but in practice, I just don't believe such will occur simply because presidential elections are scrutinized too closely for any formal malapropos!

Quote:

You mean, like the 2000 election was scrutinized to avoid any malapropos?

You have misinterpreted my post. Presidential election 2000 has no bearing on what Edward Snowden has done. What occurred in 2000 was not acted out in secrecy. The American people were glued to their TVs waiting for results. Initially, Gore was called the winner, only a few minutes later, they rescinded that information. Thus began the hand count, which was later interrupted as GWB's lead began to fade. In jumps the former Secretary of State, James Baker, who refuses to see the hand count process through. Americans were watching this scenario unfold. This wasn't something done furtively, surreptitiously behind closed doors! This was done in full glare of the media!

Baker takes the unresolved election results to a PARTISAN United States Supreme Court! SCOTUS then gave the United States Presidency to the most UNQUALIFIED candidate in American history, GEORGE W BUSH!

I still agonize at the developments of the 2000 election!