Edward Snowden, Hero or Traitor?

[Fisherking]

What do you think?

He did not leak anything other governments didn’t already know. He only informed the public of what the US government was doing to its own citizens.

Yet politicians on both sides are calling for his head and saying that they are doing nothing wrong.

Who do you believe?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Delusional narcissist.

[Fisherking]

Delusional narcissist.


Well, I know which newspaper you read that in.

A nice piece of media based damage control.

To me it is more the open release of the information than the individual, yet they start to work to discredit and vilify the leaker.

Was there ever a time when the people were asked, do you think this is a good idea or is it a step too far?

It s not that it has not been obvious. It has just been one of those things you know they are doing but not saying.

I am guessing most of you don’t really care that your government is becoming a surveillance state.

[rajpoot]

Calling him a traitor is hypocritical because if it's OK for the government to snoop on its citizens, it's OK for a citizen to snoop on the government.

And for the record I find such a degree of surveillance a little creepy. What perverse motives do they have that they go so far in spying on their citizens?

[Fragony]

He didn't put anyone in danger like Assange did, he just revealed something that is worth worrying about. He deserves nothing but respect

[Fisherking]

The reason that these programs are seen as legal is because there is no way to challenge them.

As the programs are secret, courts, including the Supreme Court, will not grant standing to anyone bringing suite. They can not know what is in the law because it is secret.

Just how cool is that?

[Fisherking]

While this incident points up that the call data and not the calls are being logged, don’t fool your self. Calls are being recorded.

Perhaps the only ones kept are the ones with keywords in the conversations that trigger a response but all are monitored.

The call data would allow them to link conversations to phone records to know, more or less, just who made the call.

I am sure there are worse things going on, and yes, your computer spies on you too. This is only the tip of a great iceberg.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The US government insists that what it is doing is legal. Classic criminal response; they've rationalized activity that is an obvious affront to law to people not involved in the conspiracy. It is not legal just because they say it is. General warrants without reasonable suspicion to consume all personal effects and spy on people are barred by the constitution. Judges who have signed off on this are criminally corrupt. When government actions break the law, people informing the American people are whistleblowers. Bradley Manning was a traitor, but I support anyone stealing information from our corrupt government for non-terrorist or extra-national related purposes

Americans have an obligation to betray the political elite and the media that supports them. There are 2 parties in Washington. The people and the enemies of the people.

[Fragony]

The US government insists that what it is doing is legal. Classic criminal response; they've rationalized activity that is an obvious affront to law to people not involved in the conspiracy. It is not legal just because they say it is. General warrants without reasonable suspicion to consume all personal effects and spy on people are barred by the constitution. Judges who have signed off on this are criminally corrupt. When government actions break the law, people informing the American people are whistleblowers. Bradley Manning was a traitor, but I support anyone stealing information from our corrupt government for non-terrorist or extra-national related purposes

Americans have an obligation to betray the political elite and the media that supports them. There are 2 parties in Washington. The people and the enemies of the people.

Too easy, let them explain how it is still legal if they do it internationally.

[TinCow]

Assange is a hero. Manning is a traitor. Snowden is a whistleblower. Get it right.

I can buy that Manning is a traitor because he was a Soldier, and swore an Oath, and all that good stuff. Snowden on the other hand was a civilian working for a domestic security agency--the sort of agency that needs whistleblowers the most. I can give two :daisy:s less what his motives are, whistleblowing is a good thing when you're talking about clandestine domestic security. To consider this guy a traitor we have to put the NSA on the same level as the military. We have to put his non-disclosure agreements on par with the Soldier's oath. I find that a terrifying glimpse into the psychology of the government's bureaucracy.

This is basically my view as well (minus the Assange bit). Manning also just vomited up reams of information, the vast majority of which did not show any wrongdoing by the US, and thus endangered US policy, relations, and possibly lives for no whistleblowing purposes whatsoever. Regardless of whether he exposed some wrongdoing with some of his data, releasing the rest of it was inexcusable. I will not shed a single tear if he gets life in prison.

Snowden is significantly different. He actively selected out the information that he felt was necessary to inform the public about a serious issue. He released only the information that was needed to cover that issue and held back all other information that could have endangered US interests or lives. In addition, he released that information through sources that themselves then did a second round of editing to ensure that the absolute minimum amount of information necessary was released into the public. That is someone who cares a great deal about correcting a problem while doing as little harm as possible to our nation and our people. I hope they just leave the fellow alone, he's not likely to cause any more damage in the future anyway.

[Strike For The South]

Delusional narcissist.

Ding ding.

Let me preface this buy saying, I have no delusions that the American government does shady extra legal things. It's part of the territory when you're a government, even more so when you're the superpower basically tasked with the security of your underlings. I know Germany, Canada, and the UK have expressed outrage over this and all over the internet their citizens are quick to claim that they will never do business with America again. Even though their states are perfectly happy with letting the US do their dirty work for them. If your country participated in extraordinary rendition, your country is getting information from the NSA.

I would also like to point out this data mining is really only good for large scale groups and deductive reasoning after they have caught a singular man. Lone wolves will slip though cracks (undoubtedly to the jeers of "CONSPIRACY" to you internet heroes.) while groups that were once large start getting picked off, they will splinter once they get lost among the white noise. It's good in the sense that smaller groups plan smaller attacks due to smaller amounts of resources (generally of course) it's unfortunate in the sense that we will probably have to be dealing with a lot more fertilizer bombs. Of course you get in your car everyday, so I know you're not totally risk averse.

Cyber rights are the next big civil libirties debate. I don't know why it's surprising that the government is doing this stuff. Hell twitter itself is considered public space, obviously your tweets are not the same as your emails or your phone calls. It just goes to illustrate the fact that privacy rights in these spheres are still the wild west and I think a portion of this hand wringing is going because people went crazy with the personal stuff on the cat tubes.

Now to the issue of Snowden himself. Why should I believe a low level IT GED wielding tech guy at some BFE outpost in Honolulu? This is to say nothing of his ridiculous assassination fantasies. I have a couple of power point slides and him claiming he could bug the president. Not to mention he looks like every 28 year old virgin I ever met.

Color me unimpressed with this whole thing

New York Bomb July 4
OMGITSTOATTLYLIKE1984

[HoreTore]

I will gladly share everything I learned about the comms equipment(or aything else) during my conscript year to anyone who asks.

If I ever get knowledge of any other "national security risks" I'll spill the beans in an instant.


I don't give a crap about either state secrets or national security.

[Strike For The South]

I will gladly share everything I learned about the comms equipment(or aything else) during my conscript year to anyone who asks.

If I ever get knowledge of any other "national security risks" I'll spill the beans in an instant.


I don't give a crap about either state secrets or national security.\

Literally a hero

BRAVO YOU ARE THE NEW CATO

[HoreTore]

\

Literally a hero

BRAVO YOU ARE THE NEW CATO

"Hero" is a bourgeouise concept. I just don't give a crap.

Also, if I can help in any way to make life a little more miserable for our boys in green, I will.

[Strike For The South]

"Hero" is a bourgeouise concept. I just don't give a crap.

Also, if I can help in any way to make life a little more miserable for our boys in green, I will.\\

The bourgeouise is a bourgeouise concept

[rvg]

Also, if I can help in any way to make life a little more miserable for our boys in green, I will.

What are you trying to accomplish by this?

[HoreTore]

What are you trying to accomplish by this?

Not trying to make our army more competent and capable, that's for sure.


Though considering the fact that I'm one of those soldiers, I doubt it's possible to lower the standards any further. But still, there's no harm in trying!

[Greyblades]

:snip:
Well considering there are a couple of congressmen trying to get him the death penalty he might have a point, solitary as it may be.

[rvg]

Not trying to make our army more competent and capable, that's for sure.


Though considering the fact that I'm one of those soldiers, I doubt it's possible to lower the standards any further. But still, there's no harm in trying!

This doesn't make any sense. What's your goal?

[HoreTore]

This doesn't make any sense. What's your goal?

Wasting his majesty's pocket money, as I always have.

[rvg]

Wasting his majesty's pocket money, as I always have.

Isn't his majesty on a salary? This just sounds very irrational. Is this just a matter of entertainment(?) or a part of some larger plan?

[HoreTore]

Isn't his majesty on a salary? This just sounds very irrational. Is this just a matter of entertainment(?) or a part of some larger plan?

"His majesty's pocket money" refers to the defense budget.

Every krone spent on silliness, is a krone well spent.

[rvg]

"His majesty's pocket money" refers to the defense budget.

Every krone spent on silliness, is a krone well spent.

But if you waste what's already allocated, won't they just allocate more to make up for your waste? This seems counterproductive.

[HoreTore]

But if you waste what's already allocated, won't they just allocate more to make up for your waste? This seems counterproductive.

Nope, the Norwegian army starts calling off exercises when money is tight. Happened the year before my service, actually.

[rvg]

Nope, the Norwegian army starts calling off exercises when money is tight. Happened the year before my service, actually.

So, what's the benefit of having an army that is not ready to fight?

[HoreTore]

So, what's the benefit of having an army that is not ready to fight?

There's no benefit of having an army that is ready to fight.

There's fewer negatives of having an army that's not ready to fight. They'll be less able to kill people, for starters.

[rvg]

There's no benefit of having an army that is ready to fight.

There's fewer negatives of having an army that's not ready to fight. They'll be less able to kill people, for starters.

So, why resort to sabotage? If you're that committed to Norway without an army, won't it make more sense to start a political movement to promote those goals?

[HoreTore]

So, why resort to sabotage? If you're that committed to Norway without an army, won't it make more sense to start a political movement to promote those goals?

I'm already a part of that.

In the meantime, I have no qualms about screwing around. If I can make life just a little bit more miserable for just one soldier, I feel I've done a good job.

[HoreTore]

Why do you think Norway can do without an army, HoreTore? Do you believe you will never again have to defend yourselves, or are you just being politically nihilistic? Its one thing to hate on a subversive military industrial complex, but quite another to hate on the concept of a military at all. At the very least you need a self-defense force.

Why I think Norway can do without an army?

Because I see 35 billion better ways of spending the 35 billion NOK spent on the army.

[rvg]

I'm already a part of that.

In the meantime, I have no qualms about screwing around. If I can make life just a little bit more miserable for just one soldier, I feel I've done a good job.

Won't that discredit your movement? If just one incident like that becomes public, the public opinion will likely turn away from your movement, killing any chance of you ever accomplishing your main goal.

[HoreTore]

Won't that discredit your movement? If just one incident like that becomes public, the public opinion will likely turn away from your movement, killing any chance of you ever accomplishing your main goal.

You're not familiar with the whole conscription-concept, are you?

I'm a soldier. That should give a clue as to what the average Norwegian soldier thinks of his service.

[HoreTore]

So why in the world would you hate on the common soldier if you're problem is with the budget? You should be writing letters, or harassing politicians at the very worst.

I have no problem with either junkies or social welfare recipients, but I do object when they take pride in their commitment not to contribute to society.

[rvg]

You're not familiar with the whole conscription-concept, are you?

I understand the basic principle. If your main problem is with conscription, won't it be easier to push for changing the conscription law instead? I can't imagine conscription being very popular.

[HoreTore]

I understand the basic principle. If your main problem is with conscription, won't it be easier to push for changing the conscription law instead? I can't imagine conscription being very popular.

I'm not in any way against conscription.

I'm against the existence of military forces. If we do have them, conscription is a must.

[rvg]

I'm not in any way against conscription.

I'm against the existence of military forces. If we do have them, conscription is a must.

That's just not true. Our military functions just fine without conscription...

[HoreTore]

That's just not true. Our military functions just fine without conscription...

....and that's the problem.

[rvg]

....and that's the problem.

Okay, now you lost me completely... Why were you bringing up the issue of conscription in the first place?

[HoreTore]

Okay, now you lost me completely... Why were you bringing up the issue of conscription in the first place?

Because a soldier who wastes the time and money of the army is the norm, not the exception, in a conscript army, and thus incidents like the one in your post won't raise an eyebrow.


Let me see if I understand this, HoreTore.. please jump in if I'm wrong...

In your conscription system, you have to either serve as a Soldier or do some kind of civil service for 2 years, right? So the stereotype you have is that only junkies and welfare recipients choose the Soldier option? Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Either way, you seem to have a problem with the concept of the military and the concept of needing to defend yourself. You are upset that people have the option of attacking you. Seems like a mighty unreasonable stance to take. Might as well protest the weather.

Civil service(which was rightfully regarded as the worst option) was dumped years ago, and no longer exists.

My point with junkies and social welfare recipients, was that they contribute as much to society as a soldier does(ie. nothing), but the soldier takes out much more of society's resources than the first two groups(who additionally feel shame because of their condition and are often/most of the time there because of past life experiences have put them there).

[rvg]

My point with junkies and social welfare recipients, was that they contribute as much to society as a soldier does(ie. nothing), but the soldier takes out much more of society's resources than the first two groups(who additionally feel shame because of their condition and are often/most of the time there because of past life experiences have put them there).

So, then why did you become a soldier? Why not pick an alternative service and end up working at a hospital for 2 years or something?

[HoreTore]

So, your military is a drain on society because it is staffed by people who don't want to be there, and the problem is so bad that money has to be thrown at an inefficient system? Sounds like your problems run deeper than the budget. Our military is wasteful because it is so big, but even in a bad unit morale is pretty high and competency decent.

It's mainly a drain because it's an instrument designed to kill. Anything else is a bonus.


So, then why did you become a soldier? Why not pick an alternative service and end up working at a hospital for 2 years or something?

Because I didn't have a choice except by lying, and I don't feel like lying to get out of a democratic obligation. I was called in again this spring, and I have no plans to lie my way out, even though I know it's the easiest thing in the world. If they want me out I'll happily leave, but in the meantime I'm happy being a drain on their resources.


(service is 1 year plus repetition btw)

[Rhyfelwyr]

HoreTore I think you are misdirecting your anger at the military as an institution when you vent against ordinary soldiers.

Even if politicians and military leaders organise unjust or disastrous wars, soldiers are often the ones that do contribute something to the world, if not their own society as such. Look at what MRD did to help kids in Afghanistan.

And even then, soldiers to make their own society safer - consider how the Islamists were driven out of southern Mali, much to the residents' joy. That place would have been a breeding ground for terrorism. Some wars might be counter-productive in that respect, but that is not the fault of ordinary soldiers.


but the soldier takes out much more of society's resources than the first two groups(who additionally feel shame because of their condition and are often/most of the time there because of past life experiences have put them there).

Right, because returning soldiers are treated so well by society, feel nothing but pride for what they have done, and have no difficult past experiences to explain how they ended up in the military. :rolleyes:

[HoreTore]

HoreTore I think you are misdirecting your anger at the military as an institution when you vent against ordinary soldiers.

Even if politicians and military leaders organise unjust or disastrous wars, soldiers are often the ones that do contribute something to the world, if not their own society as such. Look at what MRD did to help kids in Afghanistan.

And even then, soldiers to make their own society safer - consider how the Islamists were driven out of southern Mali, much to the residents' joy. That place would have been a breeding ground for terrorism. Some wars might be counter-productive in that respect, but that is not the fault of ordinary soldiers.

I'm strictly speaking about Norway's military here, even though I certainly applaud every arms reduction wherever they happen. A norwegian soldier doesn't go into the army because of a lack of options, and he is most certainly not sent to war unless he desperately wants to be a part of it.

....And if helping kids is your dream, might I suggest the Red Cross...?

[Tellos Athenaios]

As for Snowden & the "coming to get him" angle, well, erhm Bradley Manning & wikileaks did happen. So why, exactly, would you expect him to reason otherwise? Particularly: if he is right on the money he has significant more insight into the inner workings of the "spooks" than Manning ever had so would be correspondingly more important to "bring in". I might well be wrong, but as far as I am aware "coming to get me" is where he stopped, he didn't actually cross into all out paranoia just yet. As for Snowden and being narcissist, well I am not a psychologist but as I understand it narcissism is a different from "gives one interview in which he answers some personal questions from a journalist and vanishes". Unless this is supposed to be an elaborate hoax. In any case he planned the thing carefully enough to minimise impact and avoid his persona being dragged into the matter. He didn't do the whole drama queen act Assange did, for example.

As for the "could he be genuine", why not? Major Robert Dump and Gelatinous Cube can regale us with plenty of tales in which ordinary servicemen had access to all kinds of stuff they weren't supposed to, or did things outside of established security protocol for their operation. Misconfigured and insecure IT systems are not an exception but the default; heck nuns breach the physical security barriers of nuclear facility with absurd ease. An IT guy earning approximately 200K pa, tasked with systems administration (monitoring the systems and keeping the whole thing running) is indeed relatively well positioned to know where the internal holes are (it was his job to identify and fix them), what is going on (it was his job to know what the system was doing and configure it), and has the abilities to analyse the results (has access to the system as part of the job in order to be able to test whether stuff works). You don't even need to be in the thick of the action, if you're active on the periphery, on the systems that the NSA uses to manage the logins of its employees for example you already have a good overview of the capabilities of NSA employees because you manage the access controls for that.

As for why the admin thinks this PRISM thing is legal: well, it is legal in terms of US law. You voted in and approved of the PATRIOT act via Congress. Twice. Remember? You let it happen, and this is one of the fruits of those labours. (The Gitmo debacle being another. The let's use drones to "assasinate American Citizens because the Prez says so" thing is another.) Or as the Daily Show put it (from memory): “the worrying thing, Mr Obama, is not that you did something illegal. It's the fact you didn't have to.”

As for why other countries are outraged. Well the moral component, but in the case of the EU also international treaties which quite clearly were broken/signed in bad faith. For example the US-EU safe harbor provisions, which is the escape hatch for US to continue to do business post PATRIOT act in the EU.


Why do you think Norway can do without an army, HoreTore? Do you believe you will never again have to defend yourselves, or are you just being politically nihilistic? Its one thing to hate on a subversive military industrial complex, but quite another to hate on the concept of a military at all. At the very least you need a self-defense force.

Possibly because armies everywhere exemplify a kind of fetish for authority and power (and power play) which breeds this kind of stuff. This is merely a technological wet dream of the kind of authoritarianism that would otherwise find itself in its natural habitat of the military.

[rvg]

...If they want me out I'll happily leave, but in the meantime I'm happy being a drain on their resources...

But if there was no conscription, you'd never be in this position. Wouldn't it make more sense to oppose conscription instead?

[HoreTore]

But if there was no conscription, you'd never be in this position. Wouldn't it make more sense to oppose conscription instead?

I haven't killed anybody, it's not my own service I oppose.

I quite enjoyed wasting other peoples money for year, the downside was the time spent with absolutely nothing to do.

[rvg]

...the downside was the time spent with absolutely nothing to do.

That's a pretty hefty downside imho. Too big of a downside if you ask me.

[HoreTore]

That's a pretty hefty downside imho. Too big of a downside if you ask me.

Meh, the barracks-disease gets everyone eventually, that doesn't mean it's not fun driving $100k vehicles into pieces without consequence.

[rvg]

Meh, the barracks-disease gets everyone eventually, that doesn't mean it's not fun driving $100k vehicles into pieces without consequence.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[HoreTore]

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

At the end of the day I'm not given a choice, it's something I'm obligated to do by the majority of my countrymen.

I'm not going to lie to get out of that.

[rvg]

At the end of the day I'm not given a choice, it's something I'm obligated to do by the majority of my countrymen.

I'm not going to lie to get out of that.

It was one year of your life, not mine. You spend it as you see fit.

[Husar]

Too easy, let them explain how it is still legal if they do it internationally.

Like they care...

As the only superpower, they alone define what is legal internationally, that's why they stay out of the hague and other international institutions. Just look at how Obama said they only spy on foreigners. He can easily say that because he only cares about Americans and the opinions of anyone outside don't really matter.

With such attitudes it's really not surprising that the amount of goodwill towards the USA has plummeted in other countries...

If my own government collects data about me that's one thing, but if the USA does that's a completely different thing because I have absolutely no influence on government and policies there. If you want my data, let me vote in your elections.

:soapbox: No data collection without representation! :soapbox:

[Montmorency]

notions of disentanglement

A nation that constitutes a quarter of the planet's GDP could never practice such a thing.

Travel back in time and help the Confederacy to win, so that in the 20th century North America comes out pretty weak. It's the only way.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As for Snowden & the "coming to get him" angle, well, erhm Bradley Manning & wikileaks did happen. So why, exactly, would you expect him to reason otherwise? Particularly: if he is right on the money he has significant more insight into the inner workings of the "spooks" than Manning ever had so would be correspondingly more important to "bring in". I might well be wrong, but as far as I am aware "coming to get me" is where he stopped, he didn't actually cross into all out paranoia just yet.

Greenwald: "Have you given thought to what it is that the US government's response to your conduct is in terms of what they might say about you, how they might try to depict you, what they might try to do to you?"

Snowden: "Yeah, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number of other nations. Or they could pay off the Triads. Any of their agents (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-wFfDzxeHlw#t=29s) or assets. We've got a CIA station just up the road and the consulate here in Hong Kong and I'm sure they're going to be very busy for the next week. And that's a fear I'll live under for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be."

[rvg]

Like they care...

As the only superpower, they alone define what is legal internationally, that's why they stay out of the hague and other international institutions. Just look at how Obama said they only spy on foreigners. He can easily say that because he only cares about Americans and the opinions of anyone outside don't really matter.
We is after all an American president. What did you expect him to say?


With such attitudes it's really not surprising that the amount of goodwill towards the USA has plummeted in other countries...
B-but it's O-B-A-M-A. Isn't he a godlike figure in Europe? Perhaps we need to vote in Sara Palin, so that you guys have something real to complain about.


If my own government collects data about me that's one thing, but if the USA does that's a completely different thing because I have absolutely no influence on government and policies there. If you want my data, let me vote in your elections.
Nuh-uh. But, if your government decides to spy on Americans, please do. I wouldn't mind one bit. Not my government, not my country, not my place to say what they can or cannot do.

[Husar]

To be fair, we stay out of the Hague and other international conventions because they run counter to our founding principle of not getting entangled, and not letting foreigners dictate our principles. Quite frankly, I approve.

Prism runs counter to my policies, so where can I opt out of prism? I didn't vote for the party that established prism and neither did I vote for the party that kept prism and there is no other party that I could vote for that would do away with prism? I'm basically spied on by not my government and there is nothing I can democratically do against it. Does that mean Obama is a dictator to me and I have the right to form a well-armed militia to overthrow him? I'd call them Al Queda, sounds nice.

[d'Arthez]

:soapbox: No data collection without representation! :soapbox:

01010111 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110000 01110000 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01101001 01100111 01101110 01101111 01110010 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100100 01100101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01100100 01110011 00101110 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000

Happy now?

[Papewaio]

Manning isn't a traitor until after he's been found guilty.

If he is already considered guilty how is he to get a fair trial?

=][=
Also aren't the Apache pilots shooting unarmed reporters the ones who should be facing trial and all those who covered it up and hid the evidence?

I assume the soldiers oath covers something to do with lawful orders and protecting the Constitution. If fellow servicemen were abusing the law, doesn't that create an oath bound obligation to become a whistleblower once the chain of command is found complicit?

I understand that following orders wasn't a defense for WWII Germans but it was for Vietnam War Americans. So is it the current standard that the threshold for unlawful actions is anything goes unless it embarrasses those in command?

[Papewaio]

You guys are at the top and it is your fields to sow.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Greenwald: "Have you given thought to what it is that the US government's response to your conduct is in terms of what they might say about you, how they might try to depict you, what they might try to do to you?"

Snowden: "Yeah, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number of other nations. Or they could pay off the Triads. Any of their agents (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-wFfDzxeHlw#t=29s) or assets. We've got a CIA station just up the road and the consulate here in Hong Kong and I'm sure they're going to be very busy for the next week. And that's a fear I'll live under for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be."

And on the other hand he agrees to appear in plain view, on camera, without any particular security theatre that we know of (contrast: Wikileaks). On balance the above snippet strikes me as entertaining the line of thought, rather than genuine paranoia.

I guess I definitely don't qualify as a psychologist; I simply fail to see all these mental disorders everywhere around me.

[Papewaio]

At least the diplomatic cables raised people's opinion of your diplomats.
It is also a catalyst in the Arab Spring be that good or bad.

I'm more concerned with a drone kill list then what Manning did.

[Strike For The South]

At least the diplomatic cables raised people's opinion of your diplomats.
It is also a catalyst in the Arab Spring be that good or bad.

I'm more concerned with a drone kill list then what Manning did.

Dear God are we still on the diplomatic cables?

What do you think goes on in every other capital?

The America has us under our thumb circlejerk is the most painful thing to listen to. If your country is part of NATO or ANZUS, they are complicit in this.

[Ronin]

if he signed some sort of agreement stating he would not divulge secrets he came into contact with, which I assume he did, then he is a traitor.

having said that, the information he divulged isn´t that surprising or shocking, in the current digital era, this sort of thing can easily be done....so it will be done.

[PanzerJaeger]

[OT]I'm not sure what you guys think the value is in a pretend-nation like Norway maintaining a standing military. If any GDP is to be spent on defense, it should be put toward a nuclear weapons program and call it good. There are only maybe ten nations on earth with the GDP to support a military that can have a materially significant impact on their national security and/or interests abroad. Now, if the fabled Euroarmee ever becomes anything more than a pipe dream, there may be some utility in a nation such as Norway participating in a pooling of resources. As of now, the US is glad to welcome such nations under the umbrella regardless of military prowess/contribution.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Dear God are we still on the diplomatic cables?

I want this to become an injoke whenever we talk about intelligence leaks.

"Let me talk to you about these cables."

[Papewaio]

Dear God are we still on the diplomatic cables?

What do you think goes on in every other capital?

The America has us under our thumb circlejerk is the most painful thing to listen to. If your country is part of NATO or ANZUS, they are complicit in this.

I've already mentioned the five eyes agreements.

The potential arrangement is that all parties only spy on foreigners unless a person has triggered a deeper inspection. The thing is each country then shares the data sets. So whilst your country doesn't spy on you regularly, the other ones do and then can legally share your information back to your government.

So all the countries of the alliance can legally spy on each others citizens and then report back to their voters that they only spy on foreigners. They then legally share all data and then legally have data on their citizens.

[Major Robert Dump]

I think I might have gone to North Korea instead, were I in his shoes, because its cheaper to feed your dates

[Fisherking]

I've already mentioned the five eyes agreements.

The potential arrangement is that all parties only spy on foreigners unless a person has triggered a deeper inspection. The thing is each country then shares the data sets. So whilst your country doesn't spy on you regularly, the other ones do and then can legally share your information back to your government.

So all the countries of the alliance can legally spy on each others citizens and then report back to their voters that they only spy on foreigners. They then legally share all data and then legally have data on their citizens.

That is exactly how it worked up until the Patriot Act, in the US.

Then they decided they could also gather data on their own citizens.

The last few NDAAs have only made it worse.

A lot of people (Democrats) were upset when Bush did it, and they should have been, but let it drop when their guy came in office. A lot of Republicans thought it was ok under Bush but upset now that Obama has expanded it, and yes he has greatly expanded it.

It is something everyone should be upset about no matter who is in office.

Congress thinks they are safe as they think provisions keep people from spying on them, but they are only fooling themselves. When everything and everyone is being watched they will not escape.

The program Obama spoke to my only be gathering the data he said but there are other programs gathering more.

None of the recent whistle blowers have divulged actual classified information, yet the government has gone to great lengths to silence them.

The new NSA facility being built in Utah is for more than storing your phone records and face book posts.

[CrossLOPER]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22952011


I would rather my son be a prisoner in the US than a free man in a country that [does] not have the kind of freedoms that we have”

I find this statement puzzling.

[HopAlongBunny]

Further to what Papewaio noted.
Each member of the "5 eyes alliance" regularly shares information with members; while the US may not directly violate "privacy rights" of US citizens, Canada might. Anything of interest will be shared 'cause we're buddies :)
Assuming the same apparatus in each country, privacy of on-line communications, is pretty much meaningless.
Of course, such terribly secure stuff never gets left/lost on a table in the House of Commons, a coffee shop or even a friends kitchen table :p

[Shaka_Khan]

I think I might have gone to North Korea instead, were I in his shoes, because its cheaper to feed your dates
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0oGkkYcvsNRDHoAtXBXNyoA?p=Pyongyang+girls&fr=yfp-t-900&fr2=piv-web

[Husar]

Oh, sorry I missed this post. I honestly don't know what to say to US Allies who are irked by this Prism thing. It is an obvious breach of international protocol, but it goes both ways. We're spied on all the time. I have an ideological beef with spying period, but I'm far more concerned about my government spying on me than I am about it spying on you. The obvious answer would be to complain to your leaders, because sometimes it feels like international pressure is the only thing that can get our leadership to do the right thing, but then again it's never really been tried.

Well, since I posted that a lot has changed. Not only has Putin said it's okay, Obama has also visited Germany (which was apparently not even known to most Americans) and talked to Merkel about it, who wanted to get answers from him about the US spying on Germans. Several things happened during this visit which I shall just recall from memory:

- The head of our police union said the German police needs a program just like prism to fight crime effectively, opposing it would just be naive.
- The BND, our CIA-equivalent got/released a lot of funding to create a very similar program for itself
- Obama explained that Prism has so far helped to stop about 50 terror attacks in the western world
- Obama said they wouldn't really spy on proper Western Europeans either
- Obama and Merkel both said there's not much to worry about
- Merkel said the internet is "new territory" for all of us
- Internetians hate on the government and make fun of Merkel's statement, at best it's called "unfortunate"

Now what is my position? What I said above still holds true to an extent, although I won't create a militia. But I think what bugs me more is that this is done in complete secrecy and now that it's out they say it's no big deal. I can recognize two opposing positions:
1. not all citizens should be regarded as criminals and spied upon
2. the Internet can not be a law-free room for eternity as much as some "netizens" want it to be
So the question is how much control should the government have and how can it be properly implemented with the correct oversight?
I'm a bit lazy to find my own answer until someone puts me in a committee to implement it to be honest but in general a middle ground has to be found. I guess I agree with Putin that it's kinda okay if it's only done based on court orders. A 360° look at all communication would even go against the "Fernmeldegeheimnis" (roughly: long range transmission secret) as embedded in our constitution that forbids stuff like opening letters, recording phone calls and otherwise spying on the communication between citizens. edit: scratch that, it doesn't apply to laws that are required to save our democracy, which arguably applies here if they want to look for terrorists.

I remember when our current minister for defense was minister of the interior and some data storage measures were demanded by several parties he said that it's not even be proven to help and shouldn't be implemented. At the moment he's criticized for wasting 300 million on a drone program he suppedly closed too late. :no: Not only a pitiful sum for a military program, he also inherited it and as such didn't even spend the entire 300 million AFAIK. But yeah, have to find some dirt on a good minister who was plucked into the wrong area anyway...

Oh and for the internet being new territory, I wholeheartedly agree. Internet hipsters may find it laughable because they've used the internet for 10 or 20 years and know how to write a blog and how to be arrogant about it but it's essentially true. Not only do humans and societies take much longer than 20 years to truly grasp and incorporate a new technology, you can also look at the amount of fraud, naivety on the internet, zombie networks and what that clearly show that very large parts of humanity are nowhere near a level of expertise regarding the internet as they ideally should be. And then you can't educate everyone to become an IT security expert either while the IT security experts all seem to fight uphill battles against the criminals. Not to forget the security failures of Sony and others who got hacked despite having a lot of "experts" around. So yeah, like it or not, but the internet is very new territory for humanity.

And as such I also like this leak because we can now have this debate in the first place.

[Strike For The South]

I really fail to see how this is such a big deal.

It is literally the least shocking thing in a history of overblown things. It should come as no surprise that governments around the world, who have the means, are tracking the biggest communication medium in the history of time. As per usual the law of the land hasn't fully caught up yet so the government exploits various loopholes and grey areas.

I don't particularity what they are doing but such is the nature of power, I suppose.

I will get a hearty laugh when a terrorist attacks are starbucks or the Chinese begin to rapidly overtake us. The same people howling now will be the same people howling then.

The real story here is the naked populism

And for the record, Snowden is neither a hero nor a traitor. He's delusional.

[Greyblades]

...How is he delusional again?

[Strike For The South]

...How is he delusional again?

Thinking he stumbled upon something. Is it really surprising to anyone that states and governments are tracking vast amounts of communications and transactions? Large swathes of law from time immemorial are dedicated to stop them from doing this. The law, unfortunately moves fairly slow. I see populism masked by feigned indignation.


People are hating on him and calling him delusional because the easiest way to dismiss the threat of total government domination of your privacy is by attacking the messenger. Its easier than accepting that your government hates your freedom.

LOL

[Tellos Athenaios]

Thinking he stumbled upon something. Is it really surprising to anyone that states and governments are tracking vast amounts of communications and transactions? Large swathes of law from time immemorial are dedicated to stop them from doing this. The law, unfortunately moves fairly slow. I see populism masked by feigned indignation.

He didn't "stumble on something", at least not by his own account. He sat on the info and mulled his options for quite a while, then reached the decision to go public. I still fail to see how that labels him delusional. Secondly as to whether or not this news is in fact, surprising and newsworthy: IMHO the answer is yes. Not because some shady government wiretapping is going on, but because of how much is going on; additionally he has disclosed quite a few specifics which most definitely were not public knowledge.

So it passes the acid test for news on a few fronts. First of all information which was previously something of a open secret among insiders under NDA is now public knowledge. Secondly this information is of public interest, to the US public because of implications regarding their civil liberties (which they seem to have been content to ignore wholesale, but that's for the US public to decide itself) and to the wider world (being on the "receiving" end of the programme). The alleged hacking into Chinese university computers and telcos by the NSA, the breach of quite a number of international treaties and protocol, the criteria for targeting subjects, etc. are definitely of public interest on the receiving side. And finally there's a few debates to be had about the role and scope of the power of government, as per usual, this tendency towards surveillance states. For example: any moral objection to the PATRIOT act was suddenly validated as practical concern grounded in reality. Or as the Daily Show put it: Good News: You're Not Paranoid, which should give some clue as to how this alters the debate. This is not limited to the USA, but then again the USA is not exempt either.

So tell me again why such "news" is not worthy of publication?

[Papewaio]

The difference is between hypothesis and proof.

One is for consipracy theorists the other for indignant voters.

[Strike For The South]

He didn't "stumble on something", at least not by his own account. He sat on the info and mulled his options for quite a while, then reached the decision to go public. I still fail to see how that labels him delusional. Secondly as to whether or not this news is in fact, surprising and newsworthy: IMHO the answer is yes. Not because some shady government wiretapping is going on, but because of how much is going on; additionally he has disclosed quite a few specifics which most definitely were not public knowledge.

There is a lot of information. It stands to reason that there would be fingers in the pie. He is deluded because he thinks he's some sort of martyr for freedom. He was a low level cog whom got his hands on some low level bullet points and it's blowing up because people are being told that they are being "watched"



So it passes the acid test for news on a few fronts. First of all information which was previously something of a open secret among insiders under NDA is now public knowledge. Secondly this information is of public interest, to the US public because of implications regarding their civil liberties (which they seem to have been content to ignore wholesale, but that's for the US public to decide itself) and to the wider world (being on the "receiving" end of the programme). The alleged hacking into Chinese university computers and telcos by the NSA, the breach of quite a number of international treaties and protocol, the criteria for targeting subjects, etc. are definitely of public interest on the receiving side. And finally there's a few debates to be had about the role and scope of the power of government, as per usual, this tendency towards surveillance states. For example: any moral objection to the PATRIOT act was suddenly validated as practical concern grounded in reality. Or as the Daily Show put it: Good News: You're Not Paranoid, which should give some clue as to how this alters the debate. This is not limited to the USA, but then again the USA is not exempt either.

So tell me again why such "news" is not worthy of publication?

It's certainly more newsworthy than the average story that's churned out, don't be so melodramtic.

It's well established that other western countries have similar programs and it's well established that the Chinese hack out computers. Turnabout is fairplay.

[Strike For The South]

Please point to where I was "cool" with this.

This is the nature of states, This is the nature of power. This is the response to an asymmetric threat that we clamored for.

Please define "enlightened political self interest" I will accept "bullshit I heard on the radio"

[Greyblades]

There is a lot of information. It stands to reason that there would be fingers in the pie. He is deluded because he thinks he's some sort of martyr for freedom.

And where does he say he thinks that?

[a completely inoffensive name]

And where does he say he thinks that?

To be fair I am pretty sure Sasaki made a post somewhere mocking how he portrays the CIA down the road getting prep'd Jason Borne style.

[Ironside]

There is a lot of information. It stands to reason that there would be fingers in the pie. He is deluded because he thinks he's some sort of martyr for freedom. He was a low level cog whom got his hands on some low level bullet points and it's blowing up because people are being told that they are being "watched"


It's certainly enough for the US to charge him with 3 felonies and up to 30 years in prison and demanding his extraction.


It's well established that other western countries have similar programs and it's well established that the Chinese hack out computers. Turnabout is fairplay.

Those programs are quite a bit more restrictive and more heavily regulated even on the spying abroad part. Yours is of a "we gather everything and sort it out later"-type and while China probably has the same type, they are also known to be a dictorship.

[Fisherking]

I would not say he is delusional. There is a war on whistle blowers. If apprehended he could look forward to a very long time in prison. He can’t come home but he seems to be doing a lot to keep from becoming a martyr.

What he did was break a security agreement and release classified documents. But the agreement basically required him to be silent to illegal activities by the government, which is about the same as following an illegal order. It makes you guilty as well.

The fact that NSA was monitoring Americans illegally was already known but without the document he released on Vorizion no one had standing to take action in court.

This is the real damage done. It gives us a means to attempt to put an end to it.

I am not encouraged to know that we have secret courts overseeing our secret programs, particularly when they are clearly violate the constitution.

Saying Congress was briefed is a large disappointment. It just means they are also involved in the whole mess. All three branches seem fine in ignoring constitutional protections but would rather that we don’t know. They are all to blame.

Will anything come of it? I doubt it.

But remember this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qptZOMEwFXM

[drone]

He's delusional, because he had no idea what he was getting into. If he was a true whistleblower, he would have remained in the US, stood up for what he thought was right, and taken his lumps. Instead he ran off, placed himself under the control of a foreign power, and promtply spilled the beans on a bunch of other stuff that isn't targeting US citizens. Did he think the Chinese or Russians would protect him just out of the goodness of their hearts? Everywhere he goes, he will have to pay for asylum with info.

He'll be on the run for a while, but eventually he'll get nabbed. And at this point, I have zero sympathy for him.

[Husar]

He's delusional, because he had no idea what he was getting into. If he was a true whistleblower, he would have remained in the US, stood up for what he thought was right, and taken his lumps. Instead he ran off, placed himself under the control of a foreign power, and promtply spilled the beans on a bunch of other stuff that isn't targeting US citizens. Did he think the Chinese or Russians would protect him just out of the goodness of their hearts? Everywhere he goes, he will have to pay for asylum with info.

He'll be on the run for a while, but eventually he'll get nabbed. And at this point, I have zero sympathy for him.

What? You mean to be a true whistleblower and get your sympathies he should face his inevitable death penalty in home sweet home?
I'd rather make a deal with Putin than get sentenced to death in the US. And to say he didn't know what he was getting into is weird given that he made his way to safety in time. I guess quite a few countries would gladly host him even without any info just so the US won't get him. At worst Russia might exchange him for a KGB whistleblower who ran to the US. Of course if such an exchange happened, the US would send just as strong a message to whistleblowers from their enemies...

[drone]

He wouldn't have gotten the death penalty for the original leak. There was a pretty good chance his punishment would be fairly minimal, considering the publicity and nature of what he put out. Civil disobedience tends to lead to prison, that's part of the process. If he was a patriotic whistleblower worried about the rights of US citizens being violated, why spout on about hacked Chinese universities or the G8 thing, he's compromised and who knows what else he has given up. Now he's just a spy on the run and when he's caught he's going to get the hammer, the sooner the better. Staying in the US would have been a much better choice, the feds don't even have to prep a smear campaign, he's done it for them.

The number of countries that will host him for free is very small. The heat is not worth it, and it appears he wasn't specifically working for any one particular service, so no one owes him anything.

[drone]

Who are you to judge? The guy's a hero in my book, if for no other reason than that we now have a concrete problem to point to. I'm sure the next whistleblower will alert us to something even more unsettling than a domestic intelligence-gathering program worth more than the GDP of many Countries. :shrug:
Well, the title of the thread asks us to judge (poll lacks Gah! option). He started out as a "whistleblower", although I was sceptical when he showed up in Hong Kong. Now he's just a rat spilling his guts for any chance to escape. The very definition of "compromised".

[drone]

When somebody comes up to you and tells you that the tires on your car are flat, do you call them a liar and kick them in the nuts? Or do you say thank you? The idea that submitting to a life as a political prisoner is what he is supposed to do is mind-boggling. Political prisoners in this country don't ever get out. They are ignored.

Your analogy is lacking. After he told you your tires were flat, he preceded to tell your boss you are a drunkard, and tell your wife about your mistress. :tongue:

I go on about the abuses of the government a lot here, so I'm glad the issue is at least being discussed. But Snowden went about it in the absolute worst way, and has since shown that he either has no principles at all, or is completely naive. I'm beginning to wonder why he even bothered at all.

[Greyblades]

He's delusional, because he had no idea what he was getting into. If he was a true whistleblower, he would have remained in the US, stood up for what he thought was right, and taken his lumps. Instead he ran off, placed himself under the control of a foreign power, and promtply spilled the beans on a bunch of other stuff that isn't targeting US citizens. Did he think the Chinese or Russians would protect him just out of the goodness of their hearts? Everywhere he goes, he will have to pay for asylum with info.

He'll be on the run for a while, but eventually he'll get nabbed. And at this point, I have zero sympathy for him.

...Dude, that doesnt make him delusional, at best that makes him short sighted and maybe cowardly, which doesnt really discredit what he has done.

[Fisherking]

And why is that hard to understand?

When the people who are supposed to be carrying out the law are criminals working against your interest what makes it so wrong to share what they are doing with a rival gang?

Is that some how making it worse? Is it hard to understand the feeling of betrayal. We don’t know what he has seen and not shared with the public. Or what has not been reported.

People should be upset with the government yet this seem a matter of trying to kill the messenger.

[Xiahou]

Anyone remember this from Obama's campaign platform?

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process. Since he's been in office he's busied himself cracking down on them.

I don't think Snowden is a hero. But I don't think he is a traitor either. My personal, unfounded opinion is that he started out as a well-meaning whistleblower who quickly found himself a pawn in International power plays that are beyond his understanding. I think he's just completely in over his head and has been so since the beginning.

[Husar]

Your analogy is lacking. After he told you your tires were flat, he preceded to tell your boss you are a drunkard, and tell your wife about your mistress. :tongue:

Well, the problem is that you drink too much and cheat on your wife. Those are problems you created and things you lied about.
It's really funny how everyone keeps blaming and badmouthing the chinese for hacking into servers in the US when the US are doing the same in China. What he did was pretty much dismantle your perceived moral superiority in certain things which now looks like hypocrisy.
On a whole I would still rate the US as more moral than China but it's like you're really trying hard to get there one whistleblower at a time.

[Montmorency]

It isn't easy to see why the state would get more upset over technical details leaked to rivals than generalities to global subjects?

[ICantSpellDawg]

You cannot be a traitor to the United States as long as you stand to uphold the inalienable rights protected or suggested under the Constitution. If the flag, the government, the people stand in the way of service to the idea of a free people, then they are the traitors. There is no allegiance to government necessary for being a patriot, only to the rights of individuals.

This isn't red team: bad, blue team: good anymore. Too many Americans live in this inbred 19th century concept of nationalism. The flag is meaningless without the individuals rights, the consent of the governed. The people condemning Snowden for exposing truth are the enemy. The people upholding and defending expanding secret courts, secret government to protect people from a bombing every once in a while are the enemy. Their threat and damage to a free people are greater than any realistic al-Qaeda threat.

[Montmorency]

"Traitor" is only a matter of numbers. If everyone but you is a "traitor" by your reckoning, then you are in fact the traitor.

[Husar]

It isn't easy to see why the state would get more upset over technical details leaked to rivals than generalities to global subjects?

The state, yes.

But the people, no.

If I want my country to be the good guys and advertise that all the time then I am upset about the state doing this in the first place.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The fundamental truth of any populist based government is, "that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government" that we find ourselves in the condition that we do.

The obesity crisis has mimicked our own unhealthy public discourse and a people cannot expect to be looked upon as victims for refusing to understand "garbage in, garbage out".

[HopAlongBunny]

Snowden is that guy who shows up at a dinner and mentions that thing no one wants to talk about.
O' Bama doesn't need to talk; after all he informed the House
The Reps don't need to talk about it; what people don't know can't be held against me... besides its a secret
The secret court; well that's just obvious...it's a secret :p

One clown ventures outside the "cone of silence" and see what happens! At least he should get an atta boy from the populace; but a lynching is preferable in some circles...

[Fisherking]

At the moment you could still say that Snowden is working for the government and their propaganda apparatus.

All of the focus is on him.

It is not on the revelation of the extent of government intrusion and spying. It is not on the abuses of government in targeting journalists by the DOJ or conservatives with the IRS and who can say what else.

We are not having a debate about government and individual rights, we are focused on this guy.

Revelations of this magnitude should bring down the government. Nixon was brought down by a bungled attempt to spy on the DNC.

Here we have an administration trampling on everyone’s rights and spying on us all, yet the press is not outraged.

It is supremely stupid to take a partisan view of this. It involves both parties and if one administration is allowed to abuse its power what will stop the next?

The media has no credibility any more, they are just party organs. How is this going to generate any outrage just because the next guy dose the same thing?

[ICantSpellDawg]

It is important to recognize that media are a bunch of party organs; Entrenched interest groups that have no interest in individual rights. Americans need to recognize the colossal forces against their interests that work tirelessly to strip them of their rights.

[HoreTore]

Nixon spied on other politicians.

This spying is about the serfs. Quite the difference.

[Strike For The South]

Does it make you feel cool when you call yourself a serf?

Things I have learned from this thread
-The US spies on China and that violates treaties! Of course no one spies on America
- Both the UK and Canada have as invasive or more invasive programs and yet America is to blame.
-The government is simultaneously suppressing Snowden and allowing him to speak to keep our eyes off the ball (lolololololol)


With any luck the Russians will interview him, find out he knows fuck all, and keep him in the airport. Make a reality TV show out of it. "I thought I was Jack Ryan and all I got was this seat in the Moscow airport" I'd watch that.

I would love to visit these fairy tale worlds some of you live in, Where power politics don't exist and nothing happens when the door closes.

[Papewaio]

Read up about the five eyes.

When someone talks about US spying that includes Canada, UK, NZ and Australia. There are shared facilities in each of these countries and shared protocols. The Australian government are already in damage control over what Snowden will reveal about its spy network. How does he know it? Because the large amount of information shared by the five nations means they are all complicit in the same programs being key contributors and users of each others information.

[Strike For The South]

Morality?

The government is exploiting the slow nature of the law. No one ever said anything you did would be protected when you plugged in. You may have assumed that, but you know what they say about assumptions. Expecting your government to "behave" is naive. Expecting your government to behave while you clamor for more protection is stupid. Expecting power politics to have anything to do with sustainability means you haven't been paying attention.

Didn't Xaihou have a Washington quote in his sig once? Something along the lines of treating the gov't like a carefully stoked fire. Crap in crap out fellas, Some of you saying the traitor lines fell right in lockstep a few years ago. Not suprsing but lamentable none the less

[Montmorency]

Strike, I'll be frank: your posts have nothing to do with what anyone else has been discussing. At least, I can't see their relevance to the posts of others.

It's as though you're just talking to yourself; it's kind of disturbing.

Doesn't it make more sense to just pace around your room, flailing your arms and baying at the ceiling? Or if it's the public nature of the forum that attracts you, then just take your act to the nearest town square.

I see it all the time. There's no shame in it. To see it on a website, on the other hand, is just confusing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Morality?

The government is exploiting the slow nature of the law. No one ever said anything you did would be protected when you plugged in. You may have assumed that, but you know what they say about assumptions. Expecting your government to "behave" is naive. Expecting your government to behave while you clamor for more protection is stupid. Expecting power politics to have anything to do with sustainability means you haven't been paying attention.

Didn't Xaihou have a Washington quote in his sig once? Something along the lines of treating the gov't like a carefully stoked fire. Crap in crap out fellas, Some of you saying the traitor lines fell right in lockstep a few years ago. Not suprsing but lamentable none the less

I fell in lock step years ago. I've be been burned since, personally, professionally, and politically. The well oiled, bureaucratic machine is an awesome thing to behold when you feel like you are in control, but when it is riding rough-shot through your front door you have a different perspective. The type of candidate that I will support in the future is a more hands off, permissive candidate. The era of 9/11 is over, it has to be.

This is the type of issue that re-defines political perspectives for a generation. One that libertarians and progressives can come together on that exposes the statists (which I used to be). I was 18 when I signed up for these boards and terrorists had just flown planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon, killing 3000 and injuring 6000. Since then, we've figured out that we should lock cockpits up tight because they are flying missiles. The nuclear spying may or not be warranted, but an invasive security state to prevent a bus or two from blowing up up every few years is not worth it, even if i'm on it. Drink bottled water and get the government off of our backs. This State is a greater threat to us than the terrorists.

[Strike For The South]

Strike, I'll be frank: your posts have nothing to do with what anyone else has been discussing. At least, I can't see their relevance to the posts of others.

It's as though you're just talking to yourself; it's kind of disturbing.

Doesn't it make more sense to just pace around your room, flailing your arms and baying at the ceiling? Or if it's the public nature of the forum that attracts you, then just take your act to the nearest town square.

I see it all the time. There's no shame in it. To see it on a website, on the other hand, is just confusing.

False.

Tuff Stuff and cube quoted

UMAD

Is this the part where I claim I have aspergers and that I'm really "gifted" but my teachers don't "understand" me?

[Montmorency]

Drink bottled water

???

[ICantSpellDawg]

Don't worry so hard about terrorist attacks on water supply.

[Montmorency]

Don't worry so hard about terrorist attacks on water supply.

We're doing a better job with fracking than the terrorists ever could. The best/worst a terrorist would ever manage is to take a crap in a reservoir.

Aside from the ecological, macroeconomic, and budgetary pitfalls of relying on bottled water - plus the effect of plastic on your own health - over municipally-purified water:

*Quite a lot of bottled water is merely bottled tap water, which means the source is exactly the same

*Even if the source is some spring somewhere, consider that the vast aquifers, reservoirs, and groundwater beds of the US of A are magnitudes of order vaster and more dispersed than the sources for 'higher-end' bottled water
***Meaning that they are less vulnerable to everything and anything that a terrorist could bring to bear

*The supply chains of bottled water corporations are more vulnerable to sustained terrorist assault than those of the weightiest state in the world
***The government keeps many billions of gallons of clean water on stock in case of emergencies

Bottom line: A terrorist starting forest fires is literally the worst thing that could happen to this country by terrorism, short of widespread deployment of NBC.

[ICantSpellDawg]

*Quite a lot of bottled water is merely bottled tap water, which means the source is exactly the same


Good points, all - except for this one. I was thinking about bottled water of cooled brita as a time delay. If the source is corrupted, tap drinkers can find out first.

The rest of them are good. I fully don't understand what the point of invasive security is at this point.

[Xiahou]

Didn't Xaihou have a Washington quote in his sig once? Something along the lines of treating the gov't like a carefully stoked fire. Crap in crap out fellas, Some of you saying the traitor lines fell right in lockstep a few years ago. Not suprsing but lamentable none the less"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

If you want a less invasive government, you want less government. :yes:

[Fisherking]

Bull. You can't be that naive. If you take away the government, you get corporate exploitation. Why do you think we don't look like China, or Mexico, or any other country that has unfettered corporatism? Because we have a government that is strong enough to fight that kind of crap. If the government is broken, or percieved as useless, or weakened, it is the corporations who benefit most. What you want is a government you can trust, and that requires setting a moral standard. Which is why I assume nobody ever considers that option?

The revolutionary concept of American Government was that government should be the servant of the people, not their master. It is also the foundation of the modern democratic state.

Most, if not all, of our western democracies seem to have forgotten that fact.

Modern legislative bodies make laws favoring the corporation over the people. The peoples rights are disregarded in the face of a perceived security threat. The government thinks it is the caretaker of us and we are no more than children, and of course, children need no rights as the government parent cares for them.

The people provide the money to operate the government but more important is that the corporations provide the money to elect the politicians and positions on their boards once they leave office or positions as lobbyists to the institutions they have retired from.

The governments rule the people and the corporations rule the governments.

Of course some industries lose out to the interests of others. Right now coal is losing out to oil with the closing of coal fired power plats. But government is pretending to save you from all that pollution, that was actually removed in the 1970s with the scrubbers. Do you really think coal emits more CO2 than oil? It is just another bait and switch.

The difference is that in China the government is the corporation and in Mexico it is a little more overt, mostly because your domestic press complains about what is happening elsewhere but it doesn’t serve them to point out how it is all working at home.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Fire, not coffee, ladies and gentlemen. It's the only way.

[Strike For The South]

But coal is by far the dirtiest fuel....there's science and everything

[Strike For The South]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?58212-Bush-allowed-NSA-to-spy-within-USA-without-warrants

The old thread, who says I just mutter to myslef?

Edit: Pindar was a grown man playing with children

[a completely inoffensive name]

GOd, I would be laughed out of this forum if it was 2005.

[Hooahguy]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?58212-Bush-allowed-NSA-to-spy-within-USA-without-warrants

The old thread, who says I just mutter to myslef?

Edit: Pindar was a grown man playing with children

Oh man, that was when Tribesman was still around. The memories.

[ICantSpellDawg]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?58212-Bush-allowed-NSA-to-spy-within-USA-without-warrants

The old thread, who says I just mutter to myslef?

Edit: Pindar was a grown man playing with children

Pindar was a god among men on these boards. Adrian and Red Harvest were no sloutches. We have fallen dramatically since then. I would have probably agreed with Pindar, partly because of his well formulated points, partly because my awe-related adoration of him.

We are all a bunch of frivolous noobs now. We've sunken to the level of tribesmen - intelligent enough people who were too unserious to formulate professional arguments and instead demean one another with clever quips, like I am doing now with this passive-aggressive post.

Where did all of the Constitutional attorneys go? TinCow is an attorney, right? I used to learn so much here. I'm going to go to law school, just so I can post briefs and case law on the org. Does anyone know where I can do this as cheaply as possible, because I don't plan to ever get a job in that field, due to my obvious intellectual, physical, and personality disabilities.

Its time to go to work as a claims adjuster... Blegh.

[Papewaio]

The thread SFTS quotes is about warrant less spying on foreigners.

So it looks like it is now warrant less spying on locals if they might be talking with foreigners... and everyone else just in case.

But since these are all obscure processes that have a secret court. Exactly what is and isn't looked at is speculative. Its also the very definition of not accountable or transparent.

[ICantSpellDawg]

How can people possibly consent to a government whose laws, courts, and interpretations of those things are secret. The idea that consent of governed is a factor in government power has become an international farce. How can I have an allegiance to this government as it doesn't even pretend to inform or represent me.

[Fisherking]

How can people possibly consent to a government whose laws, courts, and interpretations of those things are secret. The idea that consent of governed is a factor in government power has become an international farce. I have no allegiance to this government as it doesn't even pretend to inform or represent me.

Oh well, they will come and get you for that.

[Greyblades]

Pindar was a god among men on these boards. Adrian and Red Harvest were no sloutches. We have fallen dramatically since then. I would have probably agreed with Pindar, partly because of his well formulated points, partly because my awe-related adoration of him.

We are all a bunch of frivolous noobs now. We've sunken to the level of tribesmen - intelligent enough people who were too unserious to formulate professional arguments and instead demean one another with clever quips, like I am doing now with this passive-aggressive post.

So Where did they go?

[Fisherking]

People for the most part have been to polarized and partisan on the issues of the day to see the general situation of degradation.

In reality there are the people and there is the government-corporate complex. Everyone just knows what they are fed from various media outlets, and those are mostly just more partisan distractions.

It is long past the time for a wake up.

[Sarmatian]

Oh man, that was when Tribesman was still around. The memories.

And Devastating Dave and Gawain of Orkney... Legends of the org...

Just take a look at this


Right , all the Americans who have posted in this topic are now guilty of treason .
Your muppet of a leader has spoken . Discussing this issue is giving aid to the enemy , please turn yourselves in to the nearest police station you traitorous dogs .:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:

Such a fine line between trolling and hitting a nail on its head. Pure genius. And the smileys... Oh, the smileys...

[Greyblades]

People for the most part have been to polarized and partisan on the issues of the day to see the general situation of degradation.

In reality there are the people and there is the government-corporate complex. Everyone just knows what they are fed from various media outlets, and those are mostly just more partisan distractions.

It is long past the time for a wake up.

Sugestions?

[Fisherking]

I wish I had some good ones but all I have at the moment is use multiple sources from both sides to keep your self informed, talk to people about the problem and look for alternatives to mainstream politicians and parties.

[Xiahou]

The thread SFTS quotes is about warrant less spying on foreigners.

So it looks like it is now warrant less spying on locals if they might be talking with foreigners... and everyone else just in case.

But since these are all obscure processes that have a secret court. Exactly what is and isn't looked at is speculative. Its also the very definition of not accountable or transparent.
IIRC, the thread was about warrantless eavesdropping on Americans when they were party to foreign calls that were already under surveillance... something like that. What we've been talking about in this thread has some similarities, but this is more about using a dragnet to pull in all manners of data- foreign and domestic.

Yeah... Pindar was one of my favorite posters....

[Lemur]

Pindar was a grown man playing with children

Pindar was a god among men on these boards.

Pindar was one of my favorite posters....
A gentle push-back against the golden calf:

Pindar, for all of his good qualities, was wildly uneven in the application of his rhetoric. He would (politely) tear into the most picayune and abstract depends-on-the-meaning-of-"is"-is detail of a position with which he disagreed, putting in a very lawyerly turn (the sort that doesn't actually work very well in, you know, a court of law, but impresses the hell out of philosophy students).

And then he would allow the most wild-eyed, illogical rants pass, so long as they were in agreement with his personal politics. Here's a good example (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?86190-The-Conservative-Mind&p=1563317#post1563317). Note the misspellings, the multiple malapropisms and grammar errors, the unsubstantiated assertions, the leaps in logic, the foam-flecked rantish quality of the quoted post. And the god among men's response? "Truth to power."

Honesty is not selective, and intellectual curiosity doesn't give free passes.

His absence is a loss to the forum, for sure, and I miss him as much as I miss Adrian and Gawain and DevDave and many other fine posters. But the hagiography of Pindar has always struck me as, well, idolatrous.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A gentle push-back against the golden calf:

Pindar, for all of his good qualities, was wildly uneven in the application of his rhetoric. He would (politely) tear into the most picayune and abstract depends-on-the-meaning-of-"is"-is detail of a position with which he disagreed, putting in a very lawyerly turn (the sort that doesn't actually work very well in, you know, a court of law, but impresses the hell out of philosophy students).

And then he would allow the most wild-eyed, illogical rants pass, so long as they were in agreement with his personal politics. Here's a good example (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?86190-The-Conservative-Mind&p=1563317#post1563317). Note the misspellings, the multiple malapropisms and grammar errors, the unsubstantiated assertions, the leaps in logic, the foam-flecked rantish quality of the quoted post. And the god among men's response? "Truth to power."

Honesty is not selective, and intellectual curiosity doesn't give free passes.

His absence is a loss to the forum, for sure, and I miss him as much as I miss Adrian and Gawain and DevDave and many other fine posters. But the hagiography of Pindar has always struck me as, well, idolatrous.

No one is perfect. But even as a relative newbie here, I can tell that in every discussion there needs to be "that guy" that pulls the lawyer speak out. Just as there needs to be "that guy" that wants to dissect everyone's language. And "that guy" who is able to make the most blunt, but apt points in response to your furry of words and then laugh at your meager attempt at pinning him with more walls of text.

They all contribute a different way of ascertaining the truth although the men themselves might not be consistent or well intended. When you have succeed in exposing the hypocrisy or half-truth behind the legalese you will find yourself in agreement with others who with their own contribution work together at picking apart the common enemy. That's what I took from the thread Strike linked. There is much to be missed in not having the "constitutional expert" come by to explain why your privacy is silly and why 1984 is perfectly legal and sane.

[Husar]

Well, they all have one imperfection in common:

They're not coming here currently.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A gentle push-back against the golden calf:

Pindar, for all of his good qualities, was wildly uneven in the application of his rhetoric. He would (politely) tear into the most picayune and abstract depends-on-the-meaning-of-"is"-is detail of a position with which he disagreed, putting in a very lawyerly turn (the sort that doesn't actually work very well in, you know, a court of law, but impresses the hell out of philosophy students).

And then he would allow the most wild-eyed, illogical rants pass, so long as they were in agreement with his personal politics. Here's a good example (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?86190-The-Conservative-Mind&p=1563317#post1563317). Note the misspellings, the multiple malapropisms and grammar errors, the unsubstantiated assertions, the leaps in logic, the foam-flecked rantish quality of the quoted post. And the god among men's response? "Truth to power."

Honesty is not selective, and intellectual curiosity doesn't give free passes.

His absence is a loss to the forum, for sure, and I miss him as much as I miss Adrian and Gawain and DevDave and many other fine posters. But the hagiography of Pindar has always struck me as, well, idolatrous.

Oh, stop. You wish you could be him. Clearly he was selective in his application of critical analysis; he was a Mormon. I'm selective too, I'm a Catholic.
Let allied posts go under the radar unless they suggest something that is not allied, irrespective of the merits of the argument. Let your opponent take issue. Save your breath for the fights that you want to have. To not attack everyone for logical errors doesn't mean that you are dishonest, it means that your time is worth correcting the most serious errors which irritate you.

Example - I'm absolutely opposed to the practice and rationalization of abortion. I don't correct allies when they apply religious rationale to their arguments in support of mine. I take issue and voice it when they insinuate that they want a theocratic council deciding which secular laws pass divine muster.

[Lemur]

Let allied posts go under the radar unless they suggest something that is not allied, irrespective of the merits of the argument.
Here we part ways. I am more irritated by irrational, illogical, sloppy reasoning by people I agree with than the reverse. But then, I do not live in a dualistic us-v-them kinda world.

Truth is truth, honesty is honesty. When you let it all slide to score a point for Your Team, you are knowingly, willingly lowering your standards.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think a lot the old vanguard are overrated. They were articulate and could make their positions sound more solid than they really were. I remember Tribesman being caught out and looking pretty silly once when somebody finally managed to gauge a proper reply out of him. I also remember Adrian being outright wrong on something that was something of a local issue and common knowledge for people like myself, which he tried to argue for whatever reason. Although he was good to me when I made one of my earliest posts here, around the time I became a Christian, so I am thankful to him for that. Don't get me wrong, he was a great contributor, but the golden era of the Backroom was defined by its culture, not its characters.

Indeed, what I bemoan is the change in the debating culture here. It's fine to make sly quips and play the superior intellectual that transcends the discussion, but you have to earn that status by backing it up with solid posts elsewhere. I think there's a lot of faux-intellectualism and circle-jerking these days, and not a lot of substance and real debate.

[CrossLOPER]

So how is suffocating on nostalgia going?

Also, I don't see MY name on that list.

[Beskar]

Here we part ways. I am more irritated by irrational, illogical, sloppy reasoning by people I agree with than the reverse. But then, I do not live in a dualistic us-v-them kinda world.

Truth is truth, honesty is honesty. When you let it all slide to score a point for Your Team, you are knowingly, willingly lowering your standards.

There are occasions where I have been genuinely impressed by people on the "other team". I was debating a while back, I think it was about the UK? Anyway, some one was saying something I heavily disagreed with and I turned around and said to them "If I am being honest, go and read some of Furunculus's posts. Whilst he is 'On your team' he makes some excellent arguments and logical cases in your favour, better than you are expressing yourself".

He is an example of a poster which I do disagree on ideological points with, but I cannot argue his logic and reasoning because within his framework "Best interests of the British people", he was most certainly right. On the other-hand, I have more global reaching approach, so I viewed the situation more as "Best Interests of Mankind". Obviously these positions can conflict, but was a more a matter of stance than irrational opposition.

[Beskar]

Ideology rules the day, and why shouldn't it?

I think it is more popularism than ideology though. As you see with "flip-flopping", people change their opinions like they change briefs if it suits their cause. The whole concept of going to one room full of people and saying one thing, then walking into another and saying completely and utterly different, only to return to the other position for a different group should be lambasted and political suicide. I think it is fine for people to change opinions and as such, if they do change opinions, they should say why they did. More open and honest communication should be the way forward, unfortunately, honesty gets lost in the white-noise of popularism and whimsical attention span.

[Papewaio]

Latest round of spying docs are in. Looks like the EU mission in Washington DC has been bugged by the NSA whilst the mission to the UN in New York has also.

Also according to the news reports the Brussels NATO buildings are being used to intercept comms occuring at the EU HQ.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm glad it is all coming to a head. Western governments are spying on all of us without a warrant. We just know it is true now. The next time we say that we are at risk of creating a gun database, fewer accusations of baseless paranoia should be levied. Just because we are paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get us.

[Papewaio]

Well, how many of your firearms are foreign made, have a foreign parent company or subsidiary, have a foreign sounding name and same for the ammo.

If any of the above and you've talked to another firearm owner about this on the Internet then what are the odds of bombs, firearms, fertilizer and ammo being keywords?

So as far as an official gun database is concerned. The only difference would be an official publically known database.

[Kadagar_AV]

USA... Spying...?

Who would have guessed... Just joking of course, who wouldn't have?

Seriously, every damn nation have spies. It's been publicly known since at least the last millennium that USA have spies and use them...

That USA actively spies on the EU and its own citizens isn't a shock either, that was first publicly discovered in 2001, and popular knowledge dates back from when the internet got popular (remember "Echelon"?)

So basically, this new report says things that has been publicly known for some 20 years or so?

I am not the biggest USA fan boy, but if you want to flame USA, at least do it for the actual MAJOR issues that dictate the current problems of the world.

[Papewaio]

It's only a crime if you get caught.

USA and its four partners, just, got, caught.

[Kadagar_AV]

What's important is that there is a near-universal reaction of "Stop that crap!" every single time one of these spying scandals occurs. It never stops. Intelligence obviously rates higher than the rights and desires of the people in America and probably most other western democracies too. It is an ideological issue, and people want an ideological fix. Rightly so.

Nah.. The real problem is that people are sheep. Bear in mind that a sheep don't care what nation spy on who, sheep care about having food and possibly offspring.

So in a world where we gave the sheep the power, we will undoubtedly end up with a system where those in power get away with pretty much anything as long as it doesn't directly threaten a majority of society's basic needs (warmth, safety, food, procreation).

It's all good people, don't worry about it. This is the world we built, this is what umphft years of civilization has brought.

[Shaka_Khan]

USA... Spying...?

Who would have guessed... Just joking of course, who wouldn't have?

Seriously, every damn nation have spies. It's been publicly known since at least the last millennium that USA have spies and use them...

That USA actively spies on the EU and its own citizens isn't a shock either, that was first publicly discovered in 2001, and popular knowledge dates back from when the internet got popular (remember "Echelon"?)

So basically, this new report says things that has been publicly known for some 20 years or so?

I am not the biggest USA fan boy, but if you want to flame USA, at least do it for the actual MAJOR issues that dictate the current problems of the world.
Spying wasn't considered as a U.S. thing for a long time simply because the U.S. was rarely associated with it on the media. And the U.S. never got caught at that time. The British 007 and the Cold War era depiction on the Russians dominated the scene......

[Kadagar_AV]

Spying wasn't considered as a U.S. thing for a long time simply because the U.S. was rarely associated with it on the media. And the U.S. never got caught at that time. The British 007 and the Cold War era depiction on the Russians dominated the scene......

Uh... Ok... I have no idea where you are from, but where I am from US spying has been a very well known, not to mention documented fact.

So the US is actually SPYING!? What next? Will they start torturing people? Assassinating world leaders? Meddling with democratic elections?

I am of course kidding again, the US is known to do that as well..

Let's face the facts, USA wouldn't really top your list of "friendly nations", now would it?

[Shaka_Khan]

Uh... Ok... I have no idea where you are from, but where I am from US spying has been a very well known, not to mention documented fact.

So the US is actually SPYING!? What next? Will they start torturing people? Assassinating world leaders? Meddling with democratic elections?

I am of course kidding again, the US is known to do that as well..

Let's face the facts, USA wouldn't really top your list of "friendly nations", now would it?
You're very young. The entire history is the 21st century to you. There was a time when people considered U.S. spies as underdog unintentional ones who resemble Chevy Chase and that guy who appeared as one of the Ghost Busters.

[Kadagar_AV]

You're very young. The entire history is the 21st century to you. There was a time when people considered U.S. spies as underdog unintentional ones who resemble Chevy Chase and that guy who appeared as one of the Ghost Busters.

Am I very young?

You must either be very VERY old, you know, the kind of old where wrinkled old ladies with boobs to their knees are referred to as "the new generation"... Or just very stupid to make an assumption like that.

My degree in History also kind of put your ill founded assumption to shame.

I am well aware that the US wasn't seen as one of the big dogs on the spy scene until quite lately (mainly because the nation came quite lately)...

But with that said, anyone below the age of what? Hmmm... Let's just say below the age where people die... So pretty much anyone now living... Who had some sort of education... Well, they should not be shocked that the US does nasty things. Now should they?

[Fisherking]

Many of you criticize Snowden for not following the whistleblower path.

But everyone should be aware that that path is broken. We can look at what has happened to all of them in the last 6 year and see that most either wind up in jail on trumped up charges or are put through a living hell by the government.


The revelations over the weekend of spying on the EU Trade mission and the UN staff would seem to be the beginnings of a firestorm, at least in Europe.

German Representatives are comparing the NSA to the Stasi (the East Germans Secret Police). Not exactly a compliment.

Gathering intelligence on your enemies is a lot different than monitoring governments that are you allies.

With one you can liken it to a man having a PI follow an unfaithful wife and her supposed lover.

What the US is doing is having people monitor not only a faithful wife but also his children, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, and everyone else they come in contact with.

There is not much that can be said to justify such behavior and speaks to a very demented mind set.

[Shaka_Khan]

My degree in History also kind of put your ill founded assumption to shame.

I am well aware that the US wasn't seen as one of the big dogs on the spy scene until quite lately (mainly because the nation came quite lately)...

But with that said, anyone below the age of what? Hmmm... Let's just say below the age where people die... So pretty much anyone now living... Who had some sort of education... Well, they should not be shocked that the US does nasty things. Now should they?
Well that explains how you knew. Not everyone has a degree in history.
And you're basically agreeing to what I said.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Many of you criticize Snowden for not following the whistleblower path.

But everyone should be aware that that path is broken. We can look at what has happened to all of them in the last 6 year and see that most either wind up in jail on trumped up charges or are put through a living hell by the government.


The revelations over the weekend of spying on the EU Trade mission and the UN staff would seem to be the beginnings of a firestorm, at least in Europe.

German Representatives are comparing the NSA to the Stasi (the East Germans Secret Police). Not exactly a compliment.

Gathering intelligence on your enemies is a lot different than monitoring governments that are you allies.

With one you can liken it to a man having a PI follow an unfaithful wife and her supposed lover.

What the US is doing is having people monitor not only a faithful wife but also his children, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, and everyone else they come in contact with.

There is not much that can be said to justify such behavior and speaks to a very demented mind set.

Anyone who knows their 20th Century History knows that the US Government has a plan to kill everyone, conquer every country, overthrow every government. This is a Government that deliberately broke the back of British trade during the early Cold War to remove us a competitor as "Leader of the Free World".

Who really cares at this point?

As to Snowden: He's in Russia now seeking Asylum. I would not be surprised if, in 30 years, it transpires that he was a Russian patsy all along. So I'll say he's probably a traitor, and should probably be executed.

Rather like Bradly Manning, this man is distinguished by he own ego and sense of entitlement - I have been surprised by nothing I have heard from either, anyone who has was probably not paying attention or just flat-out naive.

Maybe I'm just a Machiavellian Bastard.

[Shaka_Khan]

This is a Government that deliberately broke the back of British trade during the early Cold War to remove us a competitor as "Leader of the Free World".
Not everyone in the world knows enough about British and U.S. history. What you said is unknown to most people. It's like how much you know about Portuguese and Brazilian history, especially during the early Cold War.

[Papewaio]

Maybe I'm just a Machiavellian Bastard.

It's part of the requirements for senior membership in a site called Total War.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not everyone in the world knows enough about British and U.S. history. What you said is unknown to most people. It's like how much you know about Portuguese and Brazilian history, especially during the early Cold War.

The "Scandal" is mostly manufactured for the Americans though - and even if the general populace don't know, the pundits and "experts" should.


It's part of the requirements for senior membership in a site called Total War.

It's why I was never in politics - I'd like to keep some scraps of my soul.

[Shaka_Khan]

The "Scandal" is mostly manufactured for the Americans though - and even if the general populace don't know, the pundits and "experts" should.
Well it's a matter of which group we were talking about. I didn't say that nobody heard of the "scandal". There are a lot of conspiracy theories, some turn out to be true while others are false.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In the end the argument of the nay-sayers comes down to, "I wasn't impressed, he should die."

Everyone who shrugs off knowledge of any sort as "irrelevant" or "known to all but the naive" blatantly gives up the game and dishonestly portrays the situation by ignoring what really shows the truth, the process. If Manning was a nobody who showed nothing special why does the government want to kill him, if Snowden is a nobody who showed nothing special why does the government want to kill him so badly?

Don't tell me that whistleblowers only deserve protection if they can get "the good stuff" subject to your standards.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In the end the argument of the nay-sayers comes down to, "I wasn't impressed, he should die."

Everyone who shrugs off knowledge of any sort as "irrelevant" or "known to all but the naive" blatantly gives up the game and dishonestly portrays the situation by ignoring what really shows the truth, the process. If Manning was a nobody who showed nothing special why does the government want to kill him, if Snowden is a nobody who showed nothing special why does the government want to kill him so badly?

Don't tell me that whistleblowers only deserve protection if they can get "the good stuff" subject to your standards.

The difference between a Whistleblower and a Traitor is determined by whether the leak benefits the home nation or it's enemies.

Manning leaked confidential information that harmed the US, to no good purpose other than his personal view of right and wrong, or the satisfaction of his own ego. He also chose to do so anonymously via a website run by a probably rapist, instead of publicly going to the papers. I'm not defending what the US has done to the Afghans, hiding massacres, bungles helicopter strikes, but I see no point in releasing the information, other than to harm the US and make a diplomatic resolution harder. Leaking the diplomatic cables was even worse, nothing revealed other than salacious gossip and embarrassment caused to the US that makes the work of diplomats harder.

If Snowden had stopped at the revelation that the NSA was bugging US citizens without warrants and snooping their emails he'd be a whistleblower - but he had to release more, the moment he started exposing spying against foreign powers he became a traitor.

Everybody bugs everyone - the Brits bug the Americans and vice versa - 50 years ago it might have been true that the Aussies didn't bug the Brits, but today I expect they do - we have enough divergent interests that it seems only prudent. Face it, all the screaming the Turkey, the EU, whatever, is manufactured outrage for the benefit of the general public.

As to punishment - I'd say Manning was stupid, I'd give him life, parole after 15 years, Snowden should have known better - life, parole at the discretion of the State Department after perhaps 30 years. The fact that Snowden has fled to Russia and has been allowed to apply for asylum tell you who has antics have benefited.

[Fisherking]

As you are from the UK, you may not know that each and every person working for or with the government and ever elected official must swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

It is not sworn to the government or to the people, just to uphold and defend the Constitution.

That is where the loyalty lies.

Did he show Constitutional violations? Yes!

He has also gone beyond that in showing that the US is violating the rights of others but the moral imperative to speak out was followed.

Is the US Government following the Constitution? It would seem not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The difference between a Whistleblower and a Traitor is determined by whether the leak benefits the home nation or it's enemies.
Which is is completely subjective and thus a useless definition to go by. You must know how silly it is to make the claim that as long as a whistleblower does not harm his country, he is ok. The whole point of a whistleblower is to discredit that which we previously held in esteem, whether it is due to exposed corruption, or illegal activity.

The Jungle might as well be a traitorous document, I wonder how well that socialist sympathizer managed to sabotage the US meat industry with his quite frankly unremarkable statements.



Manning leaked confidential information that harmed the US, to no good purpose other than his personal view of right and wrong, or the satisfaction of his own ego. He also chose to do so anonymously via a website run by a probably rapist, instead of publicly going to the papers. I'm not defending what the US has done to the Afghans, hiding massacres, bungles helicopter strikes, but I see no point in releasing the information, other than to harm the US and make a diplomatic resolution harder. Leaking the diplomatic cables was even worse, nothing revealed other than salacious gossip and embarrassment caused to the US that makes the work of diplomats harder.

Very, very disingenuous PVC. As Fisherking pointed out, we as individuals swear allegiance to the Constitution not to the abstract notion of US government as an institution. Following our own personal view of right and wrong is precisely the most justifiable rationale that a man could claim if he is arguing that that which he does is in reverence to the Constitution as Snowden has said.

Secondly, if you have nothing else to go on when it comes to criticizing Snowden other than to sneak in an attack on Assange and try to push a guilt by association, then it really shows the lack of substance behind the attacks on Snowden.

Thirdly, the papers have been a joke. You know this, I know this, everyone in the Western world is almost unanimous that traditional media has failed us. Utterly and completely. You ask whistleblowers to trust institutions that take orders from the people they are trying to expose? There is no difference between the media in Turkey and the media in the US. When the shit hits the fan, you turn into CNN and see twitter posts about pop stars, not anything resembling news.



If Snowden had stopped at the revelation that the NSA was bugging US citizens without warrants and snooping their emails he'd be a whistleblower - but he had to release more, the moment he started exposing spying against foreign powers he became a traitor.
And if the man had exposed the US attempts at infecting its own people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment), well string the man up on the gallows he is undermining our covert efforts to get a leg up on the enemy when it comes to biological warfare! It's all spin, and what a man considers to be protecting the human rights of all, that which the Constitution was inspired by, the government calls "aiding and abetting the enemy".

And the police shoot your dog because of its "aggressive character" when the SWAT team blows down your door by mistake. Very odd how a British national is the one who wants to wrap himself in the comfort of the US government half truths. Do you trust Obama to be the one spying on you more than Cameron?



Everybody bugs everyone - the Brits bug the Americans and vice versa - 50 years ago it might have been true that the Aussies didn't bug the Brits, but today I expect they do - we have enough divergent interests that it seems only prudent. Face it, all the screaming the Turkey, the EU, whatever, is manufactured outrage for the benefit of the general public.

As to punishment - I'd say Manning was stupid, I'd give him life, parole after 15 years, Snowden should have known better - life, parole at the discretion of the State Department after perhaps 30 years. The fact that Snowden has fled to Russia and has been allowed to apply for asylum tell you who has antics have benefited.

Oh we all do it man, it's no biggie. I cheated on her, she cheated on me, her new bf cheated on her with me. Lets face it, decency and privacy are gone, so you are just looking silly by asking for them to return. The modern man accepts his place as a possible suspect at all given times. This is the enlightened way really when you think about it. I am not even going to talk about how shallow such a judgement of Russia=bad man is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're equivocating - if Snowden had been exposing domestic police abuses, or medical experiments carried out on US citizens - again - that would be whistlblowing. The distinction is drawn when he steps outside the domestic sphere.

There's no equivocation here - at all - it is a fundamental principle. I'm not an expert on your Constitution, but I'm aware of no provision which protects foreign nationals on foreign soil.

[Strike For The South]

It's rather telling no one will give him asylum

It's rather telling all we're seeing is a bunch of saber rattling

His newest statement is straight vomit and directly from Assanges mouth

As usual Phil is right

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's rather telling no one will give him asylum

It's rather telling all we're seeing is a bunch of saber rattling

His newest statement is straight vomit and directly from Assanges mouth

As usual Phil is right

Which is scarier - this, or realising I read your posts?

:stare:

Seriously though - I applaud the exposure of the US Intelligence Services' pilfering of US Citizen emails, essentially the same as going to the Post Office and slitting envelops - I am ambivalent (from a US perspective) about the disclosure that this information was shared with GCHQ and vice-versa. As to the rest, leaking the fact that the US spies on other nations, including Allies, is traitorous and also not much of a revelation.

As a UK Citizen, I'm quite angry that GCHQ has been snooping my internet usage and emails, not especially worried personally, but it sets a poor precedent with regards to Civil Liberties in my country.

[Strike For The South]

It was a fight, tooth and nail, to get the post protected. What we should be doing is organizing something like that for our e-transactions, because that's essentially what this is.

But no, everyone wants melodrama

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It was a fight, tooth and nail, to get the post protected. What we should be doing is organizing something like that for our e-transactions, because that's essentially what this is.

But no, everyone wants melodrama

Hard from a technical point of view - but from a legal point of view this should be simple. Email is like physical mail - end of.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It was a fight, tooth and nail, to get the post protected. What we should be doing is organizing something like that for our e-transactions, because that's essentially what this is.

But no, everyone wants melodrama

It's not melodrama, it's an attempt to create symbols for people to coalesce around. You don't just suddenly get millions of Americans to fight for electronic privacy unless you fire them up somehow. This cynicism chokes your ideas for organizing from the very start because when you try to denounce any one who doesn't do it "perfectly" and in a "non-traitorous" fashion, you are actually just supporting the status quo by promoting their efforts to make any whistleblower (good or bad) at all seem dangerous.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not melodrama, it's an attempt to create symbols for people to coalesce around. You don't just suddenly get millions of Americans to fight for electronic privacy unless you fire them up somehow. This cynicism chokes your ideas for organizing from the very start because when you try to denounce any one who doesn't do it "perfectly" and in a "non-traitorous" fashion, you are actually just supporting the status quo by promoting their efforts to make any whistleblower (good or bad) at all seem dangerous.

Maybe Snowden is a US patsy - releasing the Verizon files followed by more that discredits him as a traitor?

Is the CIA that cruel, or that good?

Fact is - if he had a political point he's buried it under his own idiot ego.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Maybe Snowden is a US patsy - releasing the Verizon files followed by more that discredits him as a traitor?

Is the CIA that cruel, or that good?

Fact is - if he had a political point he's buried it under his own idiot ego.

Only if you treat the message and the man as exactly the same. We don't think less of "all men are created equal" despite the failures of the man who wrote it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Only if you treat the message and the man as exactly the same. We don't think less of "all men are created equal" despite the failures of the man who wrote it.

Oh - quite the opposite - I'll take the message gratefully, but the man who delivered it decided to dive into treason for his next trick - so lock him up and forget about him.

Have some pity for his abandoned girlfriend

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh - quite the opposite - I'll take the message gratefully, but the man who delivered it decided to dive into treason for his next trick - so lock him up and forget about him.

I am sure many British living in the Isles thought the same about all the Founding Fathers.

[Husar]

It's rather telling no one will give him asylum

It's rather telling all we're seeing is a bunch of saber rattling

His newest statement is straight vomit and directly from Assanges mouth

As usual Phil is right

Indeed it, shows that all these despicable national leaders lack a spine and are in the pockets of the US, their sovereignty being about as useful as a banana that doesn't meet EU banana import standards.

It's just further proof that Europe's individual nation states are completely superfluous entities which have absolutely no weight on their own and can't stand up to anything. Obama calls Merkel a third-rate ally in front of the entire world and she still shies away from doing anything that could make him angry. As someone asked on Facebook: "Are third-rate allies legally required to oblige extradition treaties?"

As for Snowden, it was dumb not to accept Putin's offer. The European traitor states even denied the airplane of the Bolivian minister of foreign affairs the right to fly over their territory, forcing his machine to land in Austria over suspicions that Snowden might be on board.
How is that anything but trying to please their overlord Obama while their voters actually favor Snowden?

The only thing this does is help the Nazis because they're the only party in favor of full national sovereignty.

[Fisherking]

Europe's individual nation states have always been completely superfluous entities. Europe has always acted as a whole against the world in national affairs, despite itself. The two world wars were European civil wars that just happened to include the whole world because hey, colonialism.

You're all just lucky the Chinese decided to scrap that fleet.

Let’s not start on this crap. Might does not make right. The government is sticking it to everyone. Obama is showing just how arrogant he can be and is openly antagonizing others.

I would say the US is trying for rogue state status under his watch.

[Conradus]

I guess you really don't know European history?

[Fisherking]

There is also an investigation into whether the NSA may have been passing on highly technical data of European companies to US corporations. Be it the NSA as a whole or just an annalist on the take, or helping friends. It points up the dangers of these programs to everyone.

[Papewaio]

So GC yout text books:

WW II didn't include Japan vs USA

The Pacific wasn't colonized by Polynesians by sea

US never colonized any nations outside the Americas

US never had civil wars or interfered with indigenous populations.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If we can convince 1 man in a thousand to expose all of the secrets, it doesn't matter that 999 people are opaque-state sycophants. Information wants to be free and it will be. Freedom is akin to gravity.

Fight power for the sake of the struggle.

[rory_20_uk]

He's both.

Clearly a traitor to America as he's blabbing about their illegal activities.

Clearly a hero to those getting a "heads up" about what illegal activities America is up to.

The old Freedom Fighter / Terrorist situation.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

I'm not starting on anything of the sort. I'm just saying the traditional perspective of what makes a distinct political entity in a global world is misleading. The decision to spread out on ships and conquer the world was a distinctly European one. The Chinese had the opportunity to do it over a hundred years earlier and made a choice not to, but Europeans like to pretend that it was always inevitable (in no small part because of the constant need to keep up with neighboring European "countries").

In a global context, Europeans shouldn't think of their tiny little insignificant countries as actually being countries. They're not, and never have been. The European ego is simultaneously what caused Europeans to decide they needed to take over the world, and also what keeps them thinking that they're all so different. :laugh4:

My point being, of course, that Europe is a distinct political entity. Greece? France? Germany? Belgium!? Not so much. Coming together under one government wouldn't be creating anything new, it would merely be acknowledging what has always been going on. How I got on to this topic, I forget.. probably just to irritate Europeans.

"Being Norwegian is a way of being a European" is a quote from our foreign minister which pops up.

Anyway, a Norwegian organization has applied for asylum on behalf of Snowden(he can't do it himself as he is not on Norwegian soil). We had Trotskij before, this should be a walk in the park in comparison.


And considering the amazing speed of our beauraucrats, Snowden should have his application processed in a short 10-15 years.

[Montmorency]

Freedom is akin to cosmic psychic energy

Fixed.

[Strike For The South]

Indeed it, shows that all these despicable national leaders lack a spine and are in the pockets of the US, their sovereignty being about as useful as a banana that doesn't meet EU banana import standards.

It's just further proof that Europe's individual nation states are completely superfluous entities which have absolutely no weight on their own and can't stand up to anything. Obama calls Merkel a third-rate ally in front of the entire world and she still shies away from doing anything that could make him angry. As someone asked on Facebook: "Are third-rate allies legally required to oblige extradition treaties?"

As for Snowden, it was dumb not to accept Putin's offer. The European traitor states even denied the airplane of the Bolivian minister of foreign affairs the right to fly over their territory, forcing his machine to land in Austria over suspicions that Snowden might be on board.
How is that anything but trying to please their overlord Obama while their voters actually favor Snowden?

The only thing this does is help the Nazis because they're the only party in favor of full national sovereignty.

Or maybe because Germany does the same thing and they don't want that spotlight.

Der Strudel has been pumping out puff pieces all week, nary a peep about Germany's own intelligence (armed and funded by the NSA). Oh well, you get caught, you get your nose rubbed in it.

[Fisherking]

Strike, you may not know it, as I very much doubt you speak German, but you did a little double entendre with that.

[Montmorency]

nary a peep about Germany's own intelligence (armed and funded by the NSA). Oh well, you get caught, you get your nose rubbed in it.

NARY A PEEP?!?!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Europe's individual nation states have always been completely superfluous entities. Europe has always acted as a whole against the world in national affairs, despite itself. The two world wars were European civil wars that just happened to include the whole world because hey, colonialism.

You're all just lucky the Chinese decided to scrap that fleet.

Not true - if Europe functioned even remotely as you describe, the Crusades would have been successful, we would have driven the Arabs back into Arabia. If Europe had been as you describe, there would have been no Dark Ages, no Renaissance, no 30 Years War, no Napoleonic Wars...

[rajpoot]

How is it telling? For all you know they won't give him asylum because they're scared of us.

That is most certainly why India has denied him asylum. Scared, or just plain bootlicking I don't know. What I do know is that the current government disgusts me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Awww Europeans are upset because I offered a wider perspective? Adorable.

Before any more of you question my grasp of history, maybe you should re-read my post. Obviously Europe has never been a centralized state, but economically and culturally it has been Europe against the World since the Romans. To think of yourselves as independent countries is silly--you're only individual within the context of an untouchable and separate Europe. And everything the USA did is European, obviously. The USA is what Europe would look like if you all spoke the same language and submitted to the same government.

It must be irritating having those people from accross the sea tell you that your nations are so small, weak, and powerless that we spy on them at will. That their customs and cultures are laughable. That their nations aren't even nations!

Hmmm... :rolleyes:

Ah - so the same is true of the Near East, yes?

Until very recently (post renaissance) there was no "world" beyond Europe, the Near East, Middle East and Far East. You're engaging in reductio ad absurdem because the fact that Europeans either fought against each other or together against the Muslims and Mongols is a matter of religion and the range of our ships.

As soon as we were able, we started fighting everyone else, and we exported our wars and our individuality - that why South America is different to North America.

[The Lurker Below]

Awww Europeans are upset because I offered a wider perspective? Adorable.

Before any more of you question my grasp of history, maybe you should re-read my post. Obviously Europe has never been a centralized state, but economically and culturally it has been Europe against the World since the Romans. To think of yourselves as independent countries is silly--you're only individual within the context of an untouchable and separate Europe. And everything the USA did is European, obviously. The USA is what Europe would look like if you all spoke the same language and submitted to the same government.

It must be irritating having those people from accross the sea tell you that your nations are so small, weak, and powerless that we spy on them at will. That their customs and cultures are laughable. That their nations aren't even nations!

Hmmm... :rolleyes:

At least when you go for demeaning, you make certain you are all inclusive. So we now go back and tell all those indigenous tribes that they are not their own separate nation. All those states never had any sovereignty. It's no longer enough to have your own language and overlords, you must now have a separate and distinct national persona? Is there some official measurement of what that takes? I thought having watches or cheeses named after your region would be enough? Personally this irritates me a tiny bit because I keep the dream that some day Texas will declare their independence. Not so much that I want Texas out of the union, but because I want the Californians to follow suit.

[Montmorency]

Europe has always acted as a whole against the world in national affairs, despite itself.

Just so things don't get muddled: your assertion is that European states individually have no meaningful extra-European foreign policy?


Where Europe has acted as a group, it acted that way because of its culture and its people, not its boundaries or borders.

Geography plays no small role in shaping culture...

[HoreTore]

Remember that you're discussing mostly with brits here, GC. The british fool themselves into thinking that they are somehow different from the rest of Europe, and worship their own imagined uniqueness. I'd say that actually goes beyond what you yanks put into the concept of american exceptionalism.

Talk to someone from central europe, and they'll agree with you. I'm willing to bet that Louis or Adrian would've jumped to your defence if they had been around.

[Rhyfelwyr]

GC I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "Europe has acted as a group". Outside relatively modern innovations like the EU, there has been little cooperation between the kingdoms, states, nation states etc of Europe throughout history. Of course the idea of a homogenous nation state is more an ideal than a reality, but it has been quite close to reality at times in the past. And even besides nation states, for all the various other forms of statehood that have existed in Europe, there has not been any sort of political entity at the European-level.

Maybe you had things like the Berlin Conference or the Congress of Vienna in mind? I'll grant that these were significant, but such organisation never developed into an institutionalized political process, and is hardly outside the norm for international cooperation.

It also seems a bit odd for an American to mock Europe for its heritage. Natives aside, of course.

[Montmorency]

Of course it does, but geographical boundaries change.

Over millions of years. (You know what I'm talking about.)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Its not that hard to get. I'm talking about cultural conventions. European culture has been distinct and combative since the early middle ages. God, European civilization, the Roman Legacy, and a total disdain for lesser peoples' is what made the Europeans unique. All the little subdivisions are beside the point, in a global context.

I'm not pointing fingers or trying to make you guys look bad--after all, most Americans won't even admit that we're just the left-overs from that mind-set.

Euoprean culture has only ever exited in a very vague and loose sense. It's like talking about African culture, Asian culture or the like. I hardly see how God can be a focal point of European culture, since in broad terms we share a monotheistic God with most of the world, and in the more particular sense, we've butchered ourselves because we've got different ideas about him. The Roman legacy is not directly relevant to Germany, Eastern Europe, or the UK. As for racism/xenophobia, it is more a human trait than anything, as evidenced by the fact that the majority of the world is pretty racist.

So I believe that all these things that you say make Europeans unique, in fact do no such thing, and half the time aren't even shared 'European' traits in the first place.

[The Lurker Below]

Its not that hard to get. I'm talking about cultural conventions. European culture has been distinct and combative since the early middle ages. God, European civilization, the Roman Legacy, and a total disdain for lesser peoples' is what made the Europeans unique. All the little subdivisions are beside the point, in a global context.

I'm not pointing fingers or trying to make you guys look bad--after all, most Americans won't even admit that we're just the left-overs from that mind-set.

Have you been playing Fortress America? It's pretty old and never was popular, so I suspect not, but your world-view reminds me of that games central theme.

I guess only Europeans had the influence of religion, Romans, and racial superiority.

[HopAlongBunny]

But you're addressing one point-of-view. Mainly that of the elite that bemoans and derides "local" culture and mourns the passing of Rome.
Granted, the bestowal of a common MacCulture would simplify a lot of problems, but it would also make everywhere the same. Boring I call it.
What does this have to do with Snowden? No idea :p

[Lemur]

All cultures are traditonally insular and distrustful of "barbarians" but only the Europeans decided they all had to be crushed underfoot.
One of my favorite takes on this subject:


http://youtu.be/UTduy7Qkvk8

[The Lurker Below]

Snowden? He's a boring humbug. Here's a guy who sent forth a significant message and then decided to betray the message by seeking a personal spotlight. Most heroes seek no personal glory. He has not lent credibility to his message, he has detracted from it.

[Fisherking]

Only Europeans had the balls to take the notion of "We're the best." and actually go with it. All cultures are traditonally insular and distrustful of "barbarians" but only the Europeans decided they all had to be crushed underfoot.

I refer you once again to China. They rounded the Horn of Africa with a fleet larger and better Armed than the Spanish Armada centuries later. They made a choice not to colonize or project their power across the whole world. Be real here, Europe... you're special. Admit it.


And what does any of this have to do with America spying on Americans and the rest of the world?

Are you blaming Europe? Have you gone all Euro-phobic on us? Is it time for your meds?

[Montmorency]

GC, can you guarantee that all European states had substantial colonizing ventures ongoing at some point, or that no autonomous Christian-European state ever allied with a Muslim power?

[Pannonian]

Its not that hard to get. I'm talking about cultural conventions. European culture has been distinct and combative since the early middle ages. God, European civilization, the Roman Legacy, and a total disdain for lesser peoples' is what made the Europeans unique. All the little subdivisions are beside the point, in a global context.

I'm not pointing fingers or trying to make you guys look bad--after all, most Americans won't even admit that we're just the left-overs from that mind-set.

I think what you're advancing would be easier to swallow as well as understand, if you said that all Europeans think in a similar way, whose differences are insignificant when seen from an outsider's perspective. I think that would be largely accurate, as seen in the distinct bloc that's variously called the First World, western countries, etc.

[Pannonian]

Yes, but the first world is a result of that unified European direction. The entire first world is a result of Europe acting for Europe, even when it was Europeans acting against Europeans. That's my darn point.

Not just the First World War, although it was the most concentrated debating ground for the most eloquent and expansive debaters in the world. Various schools of philosophy had flourished in the European countries, in a way possibly unequalled before in history barring the Warring States in China. Whereas someone managed to unify the Chinese kingdoms into a single identity, the post-Napoleonic settlement went for a balance of power (and before Napoleon, no-one had the strength to even think of unifying Europe). So all the debating was either confined to their own countries, or tested abroad outside Europe, where there was no risk of upsetting the agreed to balance of power. Debating topics such as liberal democracy, socialism, how many people we can kill and how can we kill more in less time, etc.

[Fisherking]

Yes, but the first world is a result of that unified European direction. The entire first world is a result of Europe acting for Europe, even when it was Europeans acting against Europeans. That's my darn point.

The first world war was a family feud by a bunch of inbreed monarchs. It had little to do with nationalism otter than the propaganda

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wishful thinking. You can say "Not us, look at them!" all you like, but the fact is that only Europe (yes, Europe, not just the individual countries) colonized the whole world. That means you need to look at yourselves separately.

Wishful thinking has nothing to do with it, since I don't feel the need to defend the actions of past Europeans. Speaking of personal motivations here, sometimes you strike me as having a bit of a white-guilt complex. It's one thing to acknowledge various wrongs committed by European powers; quite another to suggest that European are uniquely evil or malicious, far less that it should be a defining point of their identity.

That Europe should play such a significant role in colonization is due to demographic and technological factors that were particular to the time centuries ago. We've gone through a lot since then so you can't just presume that we have retained the same mind-set.

Other peoples/states around the world have colonized just as aggressively as 'Europeans', as far as their circumstances have allowed. Consider Arabs/Muslims on the southern fringes of the Sahel or down the East Coast of Africa. Chinese in Tibet, Xinjiang, Indonesia, or indeed modern day Africa. Imperial Japan. 'Americans' in Liberia. Pagan Vikings in Vinland. Altaic peoples in Russia, the Ukraine and the Caucasus. Indians in Kenya, South Africa, Fiji, Guyana and the like.

You need to stop hating yourself.

[Papewaio]

IMDHO it isn't culture that made Europeans take over the world. Wars between countries have happened outside of Europe. It's pretty much throughout the world that there has been cultures fighting with each other. China is China because of war between thirteen kingdoms plus change. Modern India was once many more nation states fighting each other.

What allowed Europe to take over was technology and disease. One or maybe both an accident of geography.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So on the original topic. It has become apparent that in order for a whistleblower to not have his ego get in the way, he should release his information to the proper authorities who will then properly clean it of the most crucial stuff that the administration will call "state secrets", then proceed to sit at home and not do any interviews and wait for his inevitable arrest and execution/life imprisonment in a camp in Cuba.

THAT WILL GET THE PEOPLE ORGANIZED TO FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT

[Fisherking]

Not the first world war, the first world.

Then that would be the industrial revolution. There is a higher degree of high cultural appreciation in most of Europe but there is no real unity of thought. Certain ideas and ideals became popular from the American and French Revolutions allowing a degree of nationalism to take hold but there is still a great deal of division and rivalry between regions and peoples.

In terms of what you are talking about it is only England, France, and Spain that were serious players. Germany and Austria were relative late comers.

What is seen from the US and even to an extent by the UK is very myopic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In terms of what you are talking about it is only England, France, and Spain that were serious players. Germany and Austria were relative late comers.

Poor Portugal, no one ever remembers your empire.

[Fisherking]

ACIN, for some reason I can’t thank your post, only give you and infraction, (geez).

But thank you!

[Pannonian]

What is seen from the US and even to an extent by the UK is very myopic.

The UK is not myopic. It's not our fault that the rest of the world fails to match our perspective.

[Fisherking]

Poor Portugal, no one ever remembers your empire.
I left them out and a couple of others, but they were never a serious power.

[Pannonian]

I left them out and a couple of others, but they were never a serious power.

The Dutchies and the Portuguese were probably on a par.

[Fisherking]

They all contributed in their own way. The nations that weren't sea-going powers still had massive economic and political inter-dependencies with the nations that were.

Not until the industrial revolution and for the most part that was post US Civil War, and by then the US began making inroads, so, no.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I left them out and a couple of others, but they were never a serious power.

True, true. But they were really the first to say (in India at first), "if we can't get what we want through trade, by god we have the guns to take it." I like to think of them as a proof of concept of colonialism which others adopted on a more grand and efficient scale.

Also, many thanks for your thanks.

[Montmorency]

It's interesting to note here that two of the top colonizers - UK and France - had quite different approaches.

The UK colonized through private ventures, particularly mercantile, that were backed up by direct state governance years or decades later.

The French colonized as coordinated state ventures as a rule, sending in the military first to pave the way for colonists on the tail.

But such niceties don't interfere with your point, huh?

Along Pannonian's line: you would be better off restating your case as that European cultures have been less insular than their contemporaries (while admitting that politics, technology and geography are what permitted the exercise of this outgoingness, if not engendered it in the first place).

To be honest, I'm having trouble seeing the fine line between which your words are neither truisms nor almost certainly false.

[a completely inoffensive name]

God damn it, I want to rout the statists in this backroom not relive my 1550-1965 history class.

I smell a new thread breaking off.

[Beskar]

I am sure many British living in the Isles thought the same about all the Founding Fathers.

and the United States about the Confederates.

Unfortunately, that is the cycle of life and all that. You are rebel traitor scum unless you are successful and have strong popular appeal. See Nelson Mandala, for example.

[a completely inoffensive name]

and the United States about the Confederates.

Unfortunately, that is the cycle of life and all that. You are rebel traitor scum unless you are successful and have strong popular appeal. See Nelson Mandala, for example.

Nope. Nice try though. Original colonies were completely justified in rebelling since they were not represented in any fashion within the British government. All the Confederate states willingly joined the Union and had representatives and senators representing their interests. They broke the law that they had consented to. The colonials broke laws that they never voted on directly or indirectly.

[Montmorency]

To be honest, I'm having trouble seeing the fine line between which your words are neither truisms nor almost certainly false.

I'll be a bit more elaborate, then. Let's break down what we've said so far.

Europe was less insular as a whole, and was universally bent towards colonization of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Same principle as the Cold War, pretty much.

European states were all similar to each other in structure and organization. So what? All states throughout the world back then were either empires or city-states.

European states shared a religion, broadly speaking. In that case, aren't Hinduism and Buddhism pretty much the same religion, broadly speaking?

European states were closely intertwined economically and politically. This is a matter of national scope and national proximity. European states were relatively small and relatively close to each other. In North Africa, there were large stretches of uninhabited space. That is, the space was not permanently inhabited - see the urbanization of Western Europe. The situation was similar in Central Asia and the rest of the Middle East. India would have been most similar to Europe with respect to proximity and scope, at least, but even then not so much. China was and is an island. Southeast Asia - islands and peninsulas, but nevertheless in fierce competition and commerce with each other. Note how the distinction between Eastern and Western Europe fits into this picture.

European states had a common Roman legacy. To greater or lesser extents.

The big point: With respect to the rest of the world, Europe can be taken as having acted as a unified whole rather than as a collection of sovereigns with diverse interests.

I'll reiterate: what you're saying is either incorrect or just a truism, and at any rate isn't really relevant. And you're building a case on this? Ultimately, you can only take this interpretation based on the result of European colonial empires.

It's also possible that you are confusing all of this with the development of the national state. That would, again, be the same logic as the Cold War...

Out of interest, would you say that the Greek city-states should be interpreted in a similar fashion?


God damn it, I want to rout the statists in this backroom

L'etat c'est l'etat. Now kneel, peasant!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wonder if GC has been reading Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - a magisterial work which I comment to call Classicists as a manual on how *not* to do it.

The core assumption here is that Europe has a culture that is fundamentally unified, that differences are a matter of degree and not of fundamental nature.

I don't buy it - there are certain things that Europe shares, Roman heritage mainly, and there has been a constant transmission of ideas around the Continent which has allowed us to progress rapidly. HOWEVER, progress has been spurred primarily by internal conflict, not just outright war but other manners of cultural and mercantile competition.

Even so - this has not been purely internal strife within a larger whole. If you look at England and France you can see that, despite only a narrow strip of sea between us, we have taken radically different paths to the present, and we still haven't arrived at a common point. Political systems have, until the last 100 years, varied wildly in both principle and application. England has had a parliament for roughly 800 years which the monarch has always had to consult. By comparison the Nordic countries emerged from warrior-chieftaincies into absolute monarchies and, with the odd blip, remained that way into the 19th Century.

As to Horetore's sly barb about the English being different - we're what you get when you stick an Island between France and Scandinavia, put some Nords in the Southern part and surround then with angry Celts.

I'm not aware of something like that anywhere else in Europe.

[Montmorency]

It's all about the national state, guys. That's the core of the confusion, I'm sure of it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The only hate I have is for narrow-mindedness. I don't believe anyone alive today can be held responsible for the actions of their deranged ancestors--so don't worry about that.

Still, you keep missing my point. What separates European colonial adventures from other nations' "colonial" adventures is the sheer scale--and more importantly, that it formed the modern world we see today. Europeans act like its all incidental, but I believe the mass psychology behind the European ascension to ultimate power in the world deserves to be studied from a more critical perspective.

Well I think I could be forgiven for missing your point, since I don't think you've been consistent with how you have expressed yourself. Here you say your point is that Europeans' colonization efforts were unique in their scale, and yet previously, you seemed to indicate that what made them unique and particularly damnable in your eyes was their motivation. As you said in your first response to me:


God, European civilization, the Roman Legacy, and a total disdain for lesser peoples' is what made the Europeans unique.

So, which point were you driving at? Scale or motivation?

If you had said at first that the main issue was their scale, I would never have contested it and gave those examples of other nations/peoples colonizing various places.

But, regardless of whether or not it is your main point, I still take issue with these ideas you have on what drove European colonization. Of course, what motivated settlement of Massachusetts was entirely different from what motivated the Scramble for Africa. But I think they both share one thing in common - that they were not motivated by a belief that, as you put it, all other peoples "had to be crushed underfoot".

[Strike For The South]

Point of order. Luther did not split the church. Luther split the Western Trinitarian church. It's myopic to assume Catholicism=the church and it ignores Eastern European/near east relations.

Also, the assumption that Spain, France, and the UK colonized more or less the same is patently false. All you're showing here is you flipped through a post 1492 history book and saw the map was painted a few colors.

I have a bigger reply for this but am willing to let you bend the knee and move on.

Off to the pub

[Rhyfelwyr]

Point of order. Luther did not split the church. Luther split the Western Trinitarian church. It's myopic to assume Catholicism=the church and it ignores Eastern European/near east relations.

You say "Western Trinitarian Church" as if there was a Western non-Trinitarian alternative.

Anyway, I think the reasons for the Western-centric mindset are actually better justified than just being down to ignorance or narrow-mindedness. The Orthodox/Coptic churches were far smaller than the Western Church in terms of their political power and their following. But the point of real significance is that they failed to make any contribution at all to either Christian theology or political thought. They let themselves become irrelevant on the wider Christian scene.

[Montmorency]

as if there was a Western non-Trinitarian alternative.

Well, surely there were alternatives, even I've heard of a few of them - they just weren't viable alternatives in the context.

[Greyblades]

Remember that you're discussing mostly with brits here, GC. The british fool themselves into thinking that they are somehow different from the rest of Europe, and worship their own imagined uniqueness. I'd say that actually goes beyond what you yanks put into the concept of american exceptionalism.
There is little delusion, merely the acknowledgment that the anglo saxon culture has ruled the world for a quarter millenium and, assuming the americans dont become suicidal, (Though, considering the recent news, suicidal america might not be far off.) it will continue forever now the world has entered nuclear stasis. Our ancestors left us 1st place and, while the current generation is yet to live up to it, the pride is enough to propel us above you savages.

Tounge planted firmly in cheek, BTW.

[Montmorency]

They were just tribes. How we love them so much is more due to the way they've been idolized by European historians than due to any innate virtues.

You didn't really answer the question...


but in the end they all did it with the same mindset and with the same convictions about what the world owed them. You can't possibly dispute that.

The question, rather, is how you could possibly support that?!

[Greyblades]

Who else, in the history of the world, has sent ships across the ocean to plant a flag and claim new continents as their own? Only Europeans. Damn dude, I covered this two pages ago.

Japan with China 1930's

[Montmorency]

Who else, in the history of the world, has sent ships across the ocean to plant a flag and claim new continents as their own? Only Europeans. Damn dude, I covered this two pages ago.

Again, you're introducing utterly irrelevant notions.

That's like saying, without Albert Einstein no one would have invented the A-bomb.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You say "Western Trinitarian Church" as if there was a Western non-Trinitarian alternative.

Anyway, I think the reasons for the Western-centric mindset are actually better justified than just being down to ignorance or narrow-mindedness. The Orthodox/Coptic churches were far smaller than the Western Church in terms of their political power and their following. But the point of real significance is that they failed to make any contribution at all to either Christian theology or political thought. They let themselves become irrelevant on the wider Christian scene.

The Greek Orthodox Church made important and lasting contributions to liturgy and political theology.


They were just tribes. How we love them so much is more due to the way they've been idolized by European historians than due to any innate virtues.

they were the prototype for the modern-nation states, including the US. They pioneered concepts like federalisation with the Athenian League and the Theban federation.


Okay then. Whatever you say, Boss. There were lots of niggling administrative differences in the way European nations went about colonizing, but in the end they all did it with the same mindset and with the same convictions about what the world owed them. You can't possibly dispute that.

That's all fine, though. Keep looking at history through that romantic lens.

It is the nature of all peoples, when presented with others so far below them technologically to label them "barbarians" and to try to civilise them.

Britain enacted colonisation in order to sell things, mainly, and to export undesirables. French Colonisation was about spreading French civilisation, so that the indigenous people become French Citizens. Others were simply concerned with strip mining their colonies.

[Montmorency]

Its not my fault you don't get it

So, you think the statement of the fact that Europeans colonized is in itself not only relevant, but somehow proof towards the contention that "they all did it with the same mindset and with the same convictions about what the world owed them"?

Seriously?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Didn't succeed. It also was also inspired by and executed with European equipment and ideologies. Try again?

Mongolia

The Huns

The Arabs

The Chin

The Zulus in Africa.

[Montmorency]

No, I'm saying that the fact that they all did it means that they all did it.

So, tautologies on top of truisms?


This is the common European bond--the patronizing imperialism

Wow. You've just substantially weakened your case.

[Montmorency]

None of those people sailed across the sea and genocided continents.

We'll say it again: that doesn't matter! Not a whit!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

None of those people sailed across the sea and genocided continents. Is it so hard to see why Europe shouldn't be held to the same critical standard? It should be looked at harder.

But in the context of the bigger discussion--what makes a distinct political entity in a global world--I would say that the middle-east has the same problem Europe does.

errrr

The Arabs?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, surely there were alternatives, even I've heard of a few of them - they just weren't viable alternatives in the context.

Of course, I am talking about significant, institutionalised churches here. The sort that were making real contributions to theology, politics, society etc.


There were lots of niggling administrative differences in the way European nations went about colonizing, but in the end they all did it with the same mindset and with the same convictions about what the world owed them. You can't possibly dispute that.

Pretty much any historian I know of would dispute that. Colonization has been driven by religious and political persecution, individual entrepreneurial enterprise, political punishment (penal colonies), demographic crisis (Highland Clearances, Irish Famine), jingoism and a whole host of things. But most of all commerce. You need only glance at a map of the great colonial empires to see what drove their expansion - Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong, Zanzibar, Goa - outside the settlement of the Americas, colonial interests reflect mercantile interests. It is no coincidence that trading centres should be the gateways to European empires.

I highly doubt that the Renaissance Europeans simply decided, "you know what, all the black and brown world really owes whitey, so we are going to do everything we can to kick them down and taken their land and wealth".

Racism as an ideology, as a driving force in politics, only really became significant well after colonization and even the slave trade was in decline. You are reading your experiences with American racism into the Europe of centuries ago. See for example the 'blackamoors' of Elizabethan England.

[Greyblades]

Your question: Who else, in the history of the world, has sent ships across the ocean to plant a flag and claim new continents as their own?
My answer: Japan with china 1930's.
Valid and sound answer, no?


Didn't succeed. It also was also inspired by and executed with European equipment and ideologies. Try again?

Ignoring that you are blatantly moving the goal posts. It doesnt matter if it succeeded, nigh all colonial ventures ultimately failed, they are no longer posessed by the colonizer. Also, that the europeans thought it up first makes no difference, other nations are willing to do so when the opportunity presented itself, as exhibited by Japan.

I have to ask, what makes an invasion a colonisation? Technological difference? Distance? The fact that it is overseas?

That europeans did it? That seems to be the only common factor for your rejection of other incidents.

[Montmorency]

I would say that the middle-east

I can assure you that Turkey's stance toward Europe or China is very different to Morocco's stance to Europe or China.

[Montmorency]

All of the nations of South America were built on the European model (after they had been bled dry, of course).

Not the European model but the Anglo-French model. Your vague awareness of the rise of the national state has bled into everything else, to the detriment of your overall position.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Greek Orthodox Church made important and lasting contributions to liturgy and political theology.

I'll hold my hands up if I'm being ignorant here, but what would those be?

[Montmorency]

You don't even know what a national state is, do you?

It is, quite simply, a centralized, autonomous and differentiated sovereign organization with coercive power and influence and priority over all other organizations within a bounded territory. The distinction between these, and empires and city-states, is that national states have eliminated autonomous bases of power in opposition to the central authority, have developed an autonomous and self-perpetuating administrative structure, strong institutions beyond the military and rulership, and generally have much stronger grip on their internal territories.

Before England and France, these did not exist anywhere, so far as I know.

[Montmorency]

That would be a typically European way of trying to make something simple into something very obtuse.

Ignorance tends to defend itself, yes. :rolleyes:


Because it kind of kills your point. China in general kills your point.

Not at all, as it is irrelevant.

Do you even know what your central position is, any longer?

[HoreTore]

You don't even know what a national state is, do you?

It is, quite simply, a centralized, autonomous and differentiated sovereign organization with coercive power and influence and priority over all other organizations within a bounded territory. The distinction between these, and empires and city-states, is that national states have eliminated autonomous bases of power in opposition to the central authority, have developed an autonomous and self-perpetuating administrative structure, strong institutions beyond the military and rulership, and generally have much stronger grip on their internal territories.

Before England and France, these did not exist anywhere, so far as I know.

If that is your definition, then China fits that bill perfectly. I'd say Pax Romana fits as well.


And I'm not so sure how well England or France fits it, until recently.

[Husar]

Or maybe because Germany does the same thing and they don't want that spotlight.

Der Strudel has been pumping out puff pieces all week, nary a peep about Germany's own intelligence (armed and funded by the NSA). Oh well, you get caught, you get your nose rubbed in it.

I already mentioned that myself about a week ago or so. Apparently the BND does not have it but wants it ASAP. You're really late to the party.

As for the whole colonies and Europe thing, of course GC is right that Europe is better off united and should have united long ago.
Europe has always united when there was an outside thread because united we're strong. I don't really care whether Britain gets to be a part of it, noone really wants a rotten tomato in a nice lasagne.

[Greyblades]

Europe's individual nation states have always been completely superfluous entities. Europe has always acted as a whole against the world in national affairs, despite itself.
Yes Europe has allways acted as a whole against the world in national affairs despite itself. You can say the same thing about any collection of nations in the world, as long as we are considering any conflict between them as little more than "civil wars".
Everyone works against everyone else and europeans have worked against eachother more than they have ever done against the rest of the word. To say that Europe's individual states are completely superfluous entities is kinda wierd considering that the only reason europe took so long to steamroll everyone else is exactly because of those entities fighting eachother. To dismiss those entities as seperate and everything they did against eachother would be to ignore damn near everything that happened between 1700 and 1950.
In fact, the one, count it, one time a majority of the power of europe has been unified against an outside nation without any of them helping the other side was the boxer rebellion in 1901.

[Greyblades]

The "Despite Itself" bit can't really be overstated. Ever since the fall of Rome, Europeans have craved tangible conquests that resemble Empire. All the infighting is what made Europeans so capable when it came time to conquer the world.
Sure whatever.
I'll just say that if anyone was to take that "each nation is superfluous" thing to heart when dealing with actual europeans they would quickly find themselves buying bridges and swampland.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'll hold my hands up if I'm being ignorant here, but what would those be?


I am offering you a wider way of looking at history. Its all well and good that the little tiny "nations" of Europe think they're special. So did the Indian kingdoms. So did the chinese states. Europe is a distinct political entity, today, right now. Like the USA, or Russia, or China. The nations that make up Europe aren't. That was my point. All the side-tracking was just Europeans getting indignant.

This is your central point?

OK - I can engage with that, but reading it back into history is a fallacy. The US is composed of "States" but those states are much more similar than European Counties - they really have more in common with French "Departments" than with the Sovereign Nations of Europe.

As to Europe being a distinct political entity currently - no, it isn't. Europe makes up a close cultural grouping with a cultural core and a periphery, but then so does Latin America, or the Anglo-sphere, or the "White Dominions", which includes the UK.

Saying Europe is once political entity is rather like saying Canada, the UK and Australia are one political entity.

In reality what you have is a fairly close grouping which may or may not coalesce into a new Nation-State or break apart completely.

If the EU is a distinct political entity it has been a short-lived one which is quite possibly entering systemic collapse.

[Greyblades]

The EU has been a single entity since the concept of Christendom emerged. You're all just so in love with the combative histories of your different little states that you refuse to see it for what it is. I am willing to admit that, at this point, I could be justifiably accused of being persnickety about semantics but the vehemence with which Europeans oppose this notion is just great. You don't see it at all?

No, the same way you dont see such between you and the rest of the anglosphere. Or hell, how about you and the rest of the entire world.

[Greyblades]

GC, we will grudgingly accept we have the romans and christianity in common, we are one big europe in purely catagorical terms and we might even admit that occasionally.

Beyond that we have a historical based inclination to work apart from and against eachother and our only attempt to cooperate has become the festering tumor that is what was formally an economic union but is now an unelected irresposible club of wannabe dictators currently wasting our resources that we only put up with because of the money they generate.

As long as that entity exists in said state you will never ever have all the europeans on this board, or in the world for that matter, consider think of themselves as a united europe because that currently implies wanting to give all our power to the retarded frankenstien monster that is the EU, that is currently the only thing the majority of Europe will unequivacably rally against.

[HopAlongBunny]

You could make the same argument on the basis of commerce.
Nation-states=:>mercantilism Trans-national corporations=:>globalization.
Which would lead us back to Snowden. PRISM, the 5 Eyes etc as agents of social control necessary to a global production chain ie: mere national coercive actors are not up to the task of discipline when the shop-floor is international.

[HopAlongBunny]

I was just running together some stuff I was reading (oddly enough about colonization of Canada) and your posts.
To paraphrase his comments about special relationships and our British/French heritage: Look, when the money dried up they were gone and could care less; minor parts of empire remain minor concerns and are cut loose without a thought.
The attitude fits nicely with a transnational viewpoint.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I leave my computer for three hours to attend my philosophy class and I come back only to say: What the hell happened here?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU has been a single entity since the concept of Christendom emerged. You're all just so in love with the combative histories of your different little states that you refuse to see it for what it is. I am willing to admit that, at this point, I could be justifiably accused of being persnickety about semantics but the vehemence with which Europeans oppose this notion is just great. You don't see it at all?

I see how you're drawing this conclusion - but you fail to appreciate that the convergence of European culture is VERY modern outside the elite.

You need to look at, for example, the differences between our legal systems, our attitudes to law and order, our gender-roles.

Two examples:

1. Italian Courts - they are, from a Germanic perspective, utterly laughable. All the accused has to do is make sure the trial and subsequent appeals drag on until the expiration date and he gets off, no punishment. The most shocking part, from a Germanic perspective, is that Italians are ok with that. Beating the system, from criminal law to taxes, is a fundamental part of Italian culture. Likewise - the relationships of kinship and clientia are more important than keeping your word. Something I found out when I smashed down a door in a hostel in Rome (don't ask), the owner told me he'd send me the bill (never did) that if he called the carpenter he would say he'd come tomorrow, but he might not come until next week because his brother might have a job for him or.... etc.

2. Democracy - is not a universal European virtue, historically, England has had a parliament of the "Commons" for a long time, which has always had a hand in government. France has vacillated between warring Dukedoms and absolute monarchy, the various Italian City-States have had varying constitutions, some recognisably democratic, others autocracies, the Papal States were a theocracy....

Contrast this with your US - where every state has the same basic organisation, same basic legal system.

We share common cultural elements - aside from that we are distinct peoples, the very fact that we do speak different languages demonstrates how different we are, how we are naturally divergent.

You were a soldier, so I would imagine you've spent at least some time in Europe, but I don't think you grasp how very different this Continent is to the US.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All of that is totally true. But consider that until equally recently, it was only the opinion of the elite that mattered. The ideals of liberalism that fractured that old way of thinking was also a result of common European themes. Its not like the French just up and revolted out of the blue.

Those common cultural elements are far more important in the global scheme of things than the tiny little differences that keep Europe fractured.

Like I've said many times before, Europeans, for the most part, have more in common with each other than they do with us.[/QUOTE]

That's only true because the US has diverged from the rest of "European" Civilisation to such a degree from the late 19th Century onward's, the British have more in common with the Australians than the French, both have more in Common with the Canadians than the US, but we have more in common with the US than the Italians.

Your problem is that you're reading back from the US onto Europe when the US is an Anglo-French conglomeration with other peoples added in. If the Italians had settled the Continental US your means of Government, the flavour of your culture would be different. Likewise, the "European" Civilisation in Asia etc. is essentially Anglo-French, latterly via the US.

That same culture has then been exported back into Europe - modern Italy and Germany have been influence by the American, British, and French settlements after WWII which is why they now seem much closer to those countries than they were previously.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I understood what you were saying GC I only didn't join in because I was editing my speeches about everyone in this thread being a status quo whore. But then the thread topic shifted and I had to go to class to learn about Socrates's argument against the Hedonism of The Many from the Gorgias.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Lots of people understood my surface argument, but misunderstood the intent and thus missed all the subtlety. That's largely due to my trollish approach (I can't resist hitting Europeans where it hurts, sorry). I'll lay out the whole theory in a more rational and coherent way some day, and let you people pick it apart correctly.

Hey man, it's just like my friend says sometimes, "Somedays you gotta get up on that podium and let them know what's up and other days you just gotta sit down and skeet."