The enemy......it isn't always clear who that is.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Edward Snowden - Revoltingistan's Human Of The Year
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Exactly! .... and so, since it's not clear who the enemy might be, it's best not to give out info to anybody! This treacherous little cretin gave it to everybody!
This is called a 'treachery certainty', enacted by an attention seeking self righteous little traitor. Apart from that, he's ok, I suppose.
Your approach would enable the status quo, which is a march in the direction of
greater surveillance & secrecy. I prefer to throw a monkey wrench in Obama's agenda.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Snowden is a hero in my books, and deserves a great deal of recognition for his patriotism and service to his country. Him and Chelsea Manning are definitely the greatest American heroes of the 21st century so far.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Obama's agenda? You were happy about your Home-security, surveillance and secrecy before President Obama?
My approach does nothing more than support the premise that people who have taken oath and joined military and government forces should remain loyal. Neither you nor I know how many lives have been put at risk by that self-righteous judgemental traitor. We do not know. But it doesn't look good.
Alceste
Vagabond
Doesn't look bad either. We weren't easily finding terrorists or rescuing hostages before the world knew about the NSA and their partners around the world, and we're not doing it now. Is there any evidence of a change in the success rate of combating terrorists as a result of governments having a slightly harder time tracking innocent civilians on the net? If there is no such evidence, why accept the opinion of the people running the spying program? That's like asking a fox for his professional opinion on henhouse security.Obama's agenda? You were happy about your Home-security, surveillance and secrecy before President Obama?
My approach does nothing more than support the premise that people who have taken oath and joined military and government forces should remain loyal. Neither you nor I know how many lives have been put at risk by that self-righteous judgemental traitor. We do not know. But it doesn't look good.
If there is evidence, I'm more than happy to look at it and possibly even change my mind. The catch is that spies expounding on the value of spying is not evidence.
Is this a rhetorical question?
I wasn't pleased before, but things have worsened under Obama.
And this situation is within his purview.
I expect loyalty to the Constitution above government aparatchiks.My approach does nothing more than support the premise that people who have taken oath and joined military and government forces should remain loyal. Neither you nor I know how many lives have been put at risk by that self-righteous judgemental traitor. We do not know. But it doesn't look good.
Finding evidence here is likely impossible unless you have more whistleblowers, and access to all data from our government and the enemies.
I don't think there is an objective way of measuring this on both sides.
I understand both sides of the argument, but maybe I operate on fear of another 9/11 which ultimately is my worst case scenario.
Guerilla tactics where an enemy cares not of life, your rights or fighting fairly. And where he uses every tactical and strategical advantage available makes it almost impossible to combat and win. If so, this would ended long ago.
Snowden, however, honorable his actions were in accordance to our fundamentals, theoretically placed more people in physical danger compared to people finding their rights have been violated. I used the term theoretically on purpose because this is my fear driving that comment. I don't know is really what I should say.
If there is a solution to help uphold our security and ensuring our privacy, I actually would rather discuss that then promoting someone that can't be objectively measured without theoretical discussions.
Alceste
Vagabond
It's great that you acknowledge it is fear driving your opinion on the subject. Fear is the foundation of the surveillance state - if you can make the population fearful they often would rather give up their own liberties than deny a repressive state any tool they claim will keep the people safe.
In this case, the information was not released willy nilly. Snowden partnered with the Guardian and they vetted the material to ensure it could not put spooks or soldiers in danger.
I think the value of knowing I'm being tracked by the government outweighs the risk that terrorists know that too. IMO, they probably knew that already anyway, whereas I can take additional steps to maintain my privacy.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Good question.
Could it be argued that scientists who gave nuclear secrets to the other side created a balance which ensured guaranteed mutual destruction?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I haven't got any proofs about anything....... jilch.
But when our countries' servants decide individually to do what they think is right, rather than follow orders, and blow all their promises and oaths to the winds, it might be time to start wondering about what real anarchy is really going to be like.
Who can you trust? Who do you want to trust?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
.... double agents, who, once caught, would give up their countries' to save their own skins... for a time. ??
Alceste
Vagabond
I haven't got any proofs about anything....... jilch.
But when our countries' servants decide individually to do what they think is right, rather than follow orders, and blow all their promises and oaths to the winds, it might be time to start wondering about what real anarchy is really going to be like.
Who can you trust? Who do you want to trust?
When it comes to trust, I'd put the government close to the bottom of the list, and the intelligence industry even lower.
Frankly, I don't care that the government is tracking you or me. They'll find my life very boring. Can't say the same for you...
But I do care very much if they are capable of tracking our enemies especially those that are already embedded here. I care even more if they can effectively track these insiders. These insiders need communication to be effective. They need orders, and they need to return information. If you think about it more, the only way is the least guarded way and that is our internet.
But again, you and I are continuing theoretical discussions. I can't tell you exactly what security has been breached and who suffered from it. How do we know that this screening has not been successful in thwarting possible recent attacks before the leak? How do we know its not part of the reason in labelling high risk citizens? It's fair to say that your privacy has been violated but I don't think you can objectively say how destructive that was to you outside of your constitutional rights being violated. I understand that is wrong but has your life changed dramatically compared to those that possibly lost their lives or the possible compromise of our national security? I clearly admit to conjecturing some of these but like I said, I don't believe we will ever see all the needed evidence until it simply doesn't matter any more.
Also, ask me if my fears are rational in case? I believe I am being rational due to the fact that we are at war and that the enemy has been able to attack us on our soil which is a major feat for any country.
I haven't got any proofs about anything....... jilch.
But when our countries' servants decide individually to do what they think is right, rather than follow orders, and blow all their promises and oaths to the winds, it might be time to start wondering about what real anarchy is really going to be like.
Who can you trust? Who do you want to trust?
This is why I am so ambivalent about Snowden.
I am all about holding government accountable for evil behavior. But where are the Russian, Chinese, Saudi, etc, Snowdens?
I see this as similar to Muslims using their freedom of speech to demonstrate for censorship.
Tom
Alceste
Vagabond
Fear is irrational by definition. Yes, it's a given that a belligerent or interventionist state like the US will attract the attention of terrorists, who will try to attack them at home. I'm not afraid of that though, and I'm not willing to give up any of my liberties, such as privacy, because it MIGHT make it easier for the government to fight terrorists. (And it might not).
I have a better idea. We could stop attacking other countries and meddling in their domestic politics, and be entirely forgotten by the terrorists in a year or two.
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
He certainly got my vote. The only reason that he was branded as a "villian" is because the government is mad that they got caught with their pants down.
Fear is not irrational by definition? It is the context of your emotions that has to be evaluated, not the emotion.
Fear can save your life if you reacted accordingly. Anyhows, we're kind of diverging a bit on that.
And that's fine that you value your privacy more. Not saying you're wrong, but I can't objectively review Mr. Snowden as man of the year until all the facts are in.
Ironically, with all this notion of privacy being violated, US is the main proponent of freedom and civil liberties. No other country has literally put their own lives to ensure this of the world. I completely believe that the most dominant country in the world cannot be a pacifist state. It needs to lead the world. Because... If we don't then we risk another country that is willing to, and what other country would you entrust with that? Russia? China?