dre Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 So, what IS the whole picture then? Apparently it has something to do with looking for ways to attack the character of some dude that dared to disobey their favoriate authority? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) Just to clarify, Hong Kong is not China proper. They're an administrative district of China, but they have their own legal system (common-law) and governing body that's mostly independent of China. And it's still utterly irrelevant that he went there. Also, Russia is a US ally on paper. Edited June 25, 2013 by cybercoma Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Apparently it has something to do with looking for ways to attack the character of some dude that dared to disobey their favoriate authority? After the Rosenberg, Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK chain, America doesn't like to take the chance if you ask me. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 So why didn't he stick around in China and tell the Chinese people the truth about their government? Yea gee good question... Why didnt he intentionally get himself thrown in a Chinese prison?! OF COURSE hes not going to do anything while in Russia or China that will get him arrested and thrown in prison. That would be as stupid as staying in the US would have been. If he has any information that would damage the Russian or Chinese governments (and thats sheer speculation on your part, and the part of the logically challenged dude that wrote that quote), then I would imagine he will leak it once hes no longer in those countries. But that does not in any way suggest that his motives were anything besides what he has said they were. And it does absolutely nothing to back up the suggestion of the fellow you quoted that his primary goal was to jeopardize US security. Thats a complete and utter failed attempt at logic. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest American Woman Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Just to clarify, Hong Kong is not China proper. They're an administrative district of China, but they have their own legal system (common-law) and governing body that's mostly independent of China. Hong Kong, a former British colony, reverted to Chinese rule in 1997 and, although it retains an independent legal system and its own extradition laws, Beijing has control over foreign affairs. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/us-usa-security-hongkong-idUSBRE95N07K20130624 Quote
Shady Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 It is also an issue, so make a thread about it and support your claims. Lol. Quote
Shady Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Hong Kong, a former British colony, reverted to Chinese rule in 1997 and, although it retains an independent legal system and its own extradition laws, Beijing has control over foreign affairs. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/us-usa-security-hongkong-idUSBRE95N07K20130624 Yep. Anyone that thinks China doesn't have a significant influence and power in Hong Kong demonstrates a child-like naiveity. Quote
Hudson Jones Posted June 25, 2013 Author Report Posted June 25, 2013 I assume you can back that up? You have a source that will verify that the Boston victims don't think NSA's doing a good job stopping terrorist attacks? I'd really appreciate a link. How about the fact that the bombs exploded. Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
Hudson Jones Posted June 25, 2013 Author Report Posted June 25, 2013 This judgement coming from someone whose criticism includes "retarded" is really quite funny. That's your opinion and frankly, it doesn't mean much. Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
Shady Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 The NSA/FBI/CIA failed to stop this attack, even when...1 - the Russian government warned the US about these two.2 - based on that information the FBI tracked them for some time.Even when given proper information, they still failed. Yep, no program is perfect. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) Hong Kong, a former British colony, reverted to Chinese rule in 1997 and, although it retains an independent legal system and its own extradition laws, Beijing has control over foreign affairs. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/us-usa-security-hongkong-idUSBRE95N07K20130624 Yes. Thank you for elaborating on the word "mostly" that I used in my original post. This was very informative of you and I appreciate your contribution. Edited June 25, 2013 by cybercoma Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 That's your opinion and frankly, it doesn't mean much. It means a lot to me. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 How about the fact that the bombs exploded. Doesn't mean squat; so in other words, you are speaking for the Boston victims yourself. Just as I thought. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Ok, for the rest of the thread let's not concentrate on the NSA and let's bash the crap out of Snowden. Who's in? Quote
Shady Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Ok, for the rest of the thread let's not concentrate on the NSA and let's bash the crap out of Snowden.Who's in? I'm not in. Especially if he continues to divulge classified information to hostile anti-democratic governments. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 I'm not in. Especially if he continues to divulge classified information to hostile anti-democratic governments. Wait, so you would rather talk about the NSA than Snowden? Quote
dre Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 In my previous post, I talked about framing my argument in a context that isn't helpful, and here's another. I was asking you a simple question, and the purpose was to demonstrate to you your own broken logic. You say you dont mind this trade off if it increases your security, but you only want to use it address extremely remote and statistically insignificant threats to your security, and not much greater and more dangerous threats. Theres nothing fallacious about this question at all, Im pointing out that this is a logical extension of your own argument in order to make you see your own flawed logic. Once again... Why not use these capabilities to hunt down violent criminals here in Canada? What logical reason do you have to draw a line there? Why would you ignore the big threats to your security in favor of the tiny ones? You're making assumptions about how the law works, what the ISPs have today and so on... No Im not, I know exactly what the government wants to do, because they already tried to do it. It goes something like this - because I believe in allowing keyword searches (not a database, as I've already said repeatedly) why not allow them to prevent murders, robberies, vandalism, petty crimes... Yeah... its a valid question and if you force yourself to think about it, you see the flaw in your thought process, and I suspect you already have or you would have just answered it. I think you and I have now expressed our preferences, and you're not going to convince me of your position, based on the trajectory of your posts here. Am I going to convince you ? From what I can tell you didnt even try to convince me. To convince someone that a specific course of action is required to address a certain problem, a reasonable person would first assess the scope of the problem, and how serious it really was, to find out what solutions might be warranted. You claimed you had "gathered data" or some such thing and done such an assessment, but you refused to share your methodology. And you jump right to a "solution". Your thought process on this is riddled with logical holes, and you get mad at me if I poke at them. Your argument appears not be designed to work on someone that has a habit of basing decisions on real information. It sure as hell wouldnt work on the other Mike Hardner on this forum that posts about healthcare Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Hudson Jones Posted June 25, 2013 Author Report Posted June 25, 2013 Doesn't mean squat; so in other words, you are speaking for the Boston victims yourself. Just as I thought. Stop acting like a clown. The NSA couldn't stop the terrorist attack, therefore they failed. You think the Boston victims would think otherwise? You think one of them is going to come out and say: "Hey, the NSA didn't stop the terrorist attack, but I'm okay with that and I don't think they failed... even though they failed to stop the attack. I will learn to deal with not having legs and a husband who is dead." Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
Hudson Jones Posted June 25, 2013 Author Report Posted June 25, 2013 Love the Judge. Here is Glenn Greenwald wiping the floor with a government mouthpiece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xObacZAPk8w Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 You think the Boston victims would think otherwise? You think one of them is going to come out and say: "Hey, the NSA didn't stop the terrorist attack, but I'm okay with that and I don't think they failed... even though they failed to stop the attack. I will learn to deal with not having legs and a husband who is dead." Well, they sure as hell won't say "stop the surveillance" after that. Might even want more ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Hudson Jones Posted June 25, 2013 Author Report Posted June 25, 2013 Well, they sure as hell won't say "stop the surveillance" after that. Might even want more ! Because it worked so well to prove that spying on its own citizens will prevent terrorist attacks? Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
Guest American Woman Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) Stop acting like a clown. The NSA couldn't stop the terrorist attack, therefore they failed. You think the Boston victims would think otherwise? You think one of them is going to come out and say: "Hey, the NSA didn't stop the terrorist attack, but I'm okay with that and I don't think they failed... even though they failed to stop the attack. I will learn to deal with not having legs and a husband who is dead." Let me remind you of what it is you said, and therefore what it is that I responded to: If the NSA's job was to stop terrorist attacks, well, it's not doing a good job. Just ask the Boston victims. You said that NSA is not doing a good job stopping terrorist attacks. That's plural. That's not singularly about the Boston Marathon attack, as you are now trying to make it. Obviously they would say that NSA didn't stop the Boston attack, but that doesn't mean that they would say that NSA's not doing a good job stopping terrorist attacks; ie: they very well could think that they are doing a good job in light of the fact that some were prevented and/or there haven't been more. You have done nothing but speak for them. Just as I said. Well, they sure as hell won't say "stop the surveillance" after that. Might even want more !Good point. Edited June 25, 2013 by American Woman Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Because it worked so well to prove that spying on its own citizens will prevent terrorist attacks? Yes....a Canadian team hasn't won the Stanley Cup in 20 years, but they keep trying !! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Hudson Jones Posted June 25, 2013 Author Report Posted June 25, 2013 Yes....a Canadian team hasn't won the Stanley Cup in 20 years, but they keep trying !! So now you're comparing the NSA to a team like the Maple Leafs. I rest my case. Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.