Snowdon is a dummy

@Frank Apisa,

For a young man to risk the remainder of his life span being spend in a small cell for principles alone is indeed a level on bravely that I find amazing.

I question if either one of us approach that level of courage of Snowden.

As far as hating the country, I know you going to have a hard time understanding the concept but the nation is not whoever happen to be in power at the moment and that go more when those in power are tearing up the constitution and thereby breaking their oaths to defend it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

To me, anyone who knowingly risks his security and life is brave, whatever the motive. To take an extreme example, to me the terrorists who killed 130 people in Paris last month were despicable but courageous. All the politicians who speak of a "cowardly attack" blah-blah-blah in such cases, they are just pissing in a violin, just like you are now. Guess it makes you and them feel better but it's ridiculous.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Benedict Arnold did what he did for his reasons.

Arnold did not act on principles but for a great deal of money for the times and for promises of high military positions in the British army and to get back at Congress for mistreating him at least in his opinion.

If Snowden had been acting for any of the above reasons I would not respect the man but both I and you Frank know that is not the case.

Hell Arnold row for a British warship leaving his wife to face the music alone and that is not an act of a brave man.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

For a young man to risk the remainder of his life span being spend in a small cell for principles alone is indeed a level on bravely that I find amazing.

I question if either one of us approach that level of courage of Snowden.

As far as hating the country, I know you going to have a hard time understanding the concept but the nation is not whoever happen to be in power at the moment and that go more when those in power are tearing up the constitution and thereby breaking their oaths to defend it.

I've followed your comments closely over the years, Bill...and in my opinion...you hate this country.

Nothing wrong with that. Do it if you want.

And you have not given a HINT of courage...other than the fact that you are brave enough to say the name Bill is part of your real name!!!

Edward Snowden showed that he is willing to take an oath...and then break it. You defend him...and castigate others whom you think may have broken their oaths.

You don't show me much...and your comment that you hope you could be as brave and patriotic as Edward Snowden is something for the comic section.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

To me, anyone who knowingly risks his security and life is brave, whatever the motive. To take an extreme example, to me the terrorists who killed 130 people in Paris last month were despicable but courageous. All the politicians who speak of a "cowardly attack" blah-blah-blah in such cases, they are just pissing in a violin, just like you are now. Guess it makes you and them feel better but it's ridiculous.

I have never called those terrorists cowards, Olivier. And I was one of the people who back during the 9/11 happenings mentioned that the perpetrators of that miserable deed were reprehensible...but to call them "cowards" is to misunderstand cowardice.

I have never called the terrorists cowards...that is something you invented.

I did not call Edward Snowden a coward either. I just said that I did not consider the acts of which he is charged...evidence of bravery.

If you disagree..fine. You disagree.

And to be as out-front as possible...all the people on the Internet who voice their views and opinions as strongly as are expressed on the Internet...and who use anything other than their full name...

...should not be giving lectures of any kind of bravery or cowardice.

The best thing that could happen to the Internet is for there to be a way to identify EVERYONE who posts anywhere by their full name and the city where they live.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Benedict Arnold did what he did for his reasons.

Arnold did not act on principles but for a great deal of money for the times and for promises of high military positions in the British army and to get back at Congress for mistreating him at least in his opinion.

I wrote that Benedict Arnold did what he did FOR HIS REASONS.

He did...no matter what the reasons were.

Quote:

If Snowden had been acting for any of the above reasons I would not respect the man but both I and you Frank know that is not the case.

I most assuredly do not KNOW that...and neither do you.

For all any of us know...the guy is a sicko...or someone who did it to get his name in the newspapers. People have done all sorts of crazy things to "become famous." Or he may have done it because he is a misguided, childlike person.

Who knows?

So don't give me that nonsense that both you and I know his motives.

We don't.

Quote:

Hell Arnold row for a British warship leaving his wife to face the music alone and that is not an act of a brave man.

I never said Arnold was a brave man, Bill.

Snowden ran off to China and Russia...and that is not an act of a brave man either.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I've followed your comments closely over the years, Bill...and in my opinion...you hate this country

An to me you are a clueless idiot that would follow anyone in power blindly over the cliff right to a police state while waving the flag.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I wrote that Benedict Arnold did what he did FOR HIS REASONS.

He did...no matter what the reasons were.

The reasons matter a great deal indeed and Snowden reasons show him to be an honorable man who love his country far more then those who wish to hide their misdeeds from the american people by ways of security stamps.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Snowden ran off to China and Russia...and that is not an act of a brave man either.

Yes and those evil men and women who dare to break the law and help run away slaves who then needed at least in some cases to ran to Canada themselves was not brave men.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

LOL...

You can hardly expect us to have been able to track the terrorists after Snowden told the terrorists how to evade our detection.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Maintaining high security is never trivial as one moment of carelessness can undo years and reveal you to a high power enemy such as NSA but it is no more trivial now then before snowden.

Before Snowden, the terrorists did not know what precise tactics they needed to avoid.

Snowden told them precisely what they needed to avoid.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

There is a difference (and I believe you know it) between surveillance and Bulk data collecting which has done little to catch terrorist.

The claim that "it has done little" is nonsense. It is based on the fallacy that intelligence is only useful if it directly leads to the capture of a terrorist.

However, intelligence that merely confirms other data is useful because it helps us to know that we are working with sound information. Under the above fallacy, such intelligence would be labeled useless simply because it did not lead directly to an arrest.

Intelligence that says that something is not related to terrorism is also beneficial, as it tells us that we can stop wasting time on it and focus our energy somewhere more useful. The now-defunct phone metadata system was handy in this regard. From time to time the government stumbled across suspicious phone numbers, and the metadata program was able to establish that those phone numbers were not worth focusing a lot of energy on.

Now when the government stumbles across a suspicious phone number that might have been ruled out by the metadata program, they will have to devote resources to investigating the phone number even if those resources would be better spent somewhere else.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

You can hardly expect us to have been able to track the terrorists after Snowden told the terrorists how to evade our detection.

You living in a fantasy world that before snowden they did not know how to evade detection and did not take steps to do so.

The only thing Snowden did was to let the world know about massive and non-target spying that had not been shown to produce any useful results as far as terrorism is concern.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

some of us are hoping the charges go away.

Not likely to happen.

Quote:

The European Union's legislature has called for member states to protect US surveillance whistle-blower Edward Snowden from possible extradition.

If Snowden gets asylum in Europe it should then be very easy for the CIA to slip in and throw him down an elevator shaft.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Quote:
She added that the report did not contradict findings of groups that have concluded that “the domestic bulk call record program has not helped stop an act of terrorism.” But she noted that the report “does importantly acknowledge that there are additional steps that the intelligence community can take to increase transparency, improve oversight, and limit the use of information collected.”

Perhaps, Frank, this is why they decided to do away with Bulk collecting.

The legislators who did away with the program are extremists who didn't care about what the facts were.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

In the first place, mass data spying hadn't stopped yet

The phone metadata program is stopped.

And even for programs that continue, Snowden told the terrorists exactly what they needed to do in order to evade detection by the US.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

As far as my opinion of Snowden I could only hope I would be as brave and as patriotic as he was and would be willing to throw my whole life away to warn the American people of how our own government was spying on us.

We all already knew the NSA was listening.

BillRM wrote:

Setting up super Hoover blackmail cabinets on a large fraction of the human race.

Nonsense.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Before Snowden, the terrorists did not know what precise tactics they needed to avoid.

Where did you come up with such a claim as it is complete nonsense as there never been a secret on how to keep a low profile on the net dating back to at least to the 1990s.

I am fairly sure that I had look at more snowden papers then you had and as I been interest in the subject for many decades with more understanding and had yet to had found any thing in them that would be of great added help to terrorists.

But if you would care to link to such snowden information I will be happy to look at it.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You living in a fantasy world that before snowden they did not know how to evade detection and did not take steps to do so.

Before Snowden they did not know the specific tactics the US government was using to detect them, and were always at risk that they weren't countering something that the government was doing.

Now they know exactly what they do and don't need to counter. Snowden made life much easier for the terrorists.

BillRM wrote:

The only thing Snowden did was to let the world know about massive and non-target spying

The world already knew that the NSA was out there listening.

BillRM wrote:

that had not been shown to produce any useful results as far as terrorism is concern.

The spying was highly useful until Snowden compromised it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The phone metadata program is stopped.

Real serous terrorists do not used phones all that must for real time communications and when they do they used cheap burner phones that are only use a few times each.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know