Hi, Lee Lofaso!
I read your message from 01.08.2013 20:00
about Clandestine activity is a holy cow of democracy.
ak>>> Anyway, Snowden did his best.
LL>>> Snowden swore a national security oath. Snowden violated that
LL>>> oath by leaking information to others, ovbiously without
LL>>> authorization from his superiors. That is called treason,
LL>>> punishable by death. However, our president, being a nice guy,
LL>>> has promised the Russians, as well as the rest of the world, that
LL>>> Uncle Sam has a soft heart, and promised not execute the traitor.
AK>> Freedom has never been archived without treason of the oppressive
AK>> regime. Because, when fighters for freedom overthrow a legitimate,
AK>> but oppressive power they commit an act of high treason.
LL> Jeffersonian violence is acceptable if, and only if, a regime
LL> becomes so oppressive that it has lost its legitimacy to govern. By
LL> that way of thinking, it is not an act of treason but rather an act
LL> of patriotism.
Who is a person who decides that the current regime is becoming
oppressive and totalitarian? Everybody decides it for himself and then
decided to fight with such a regime or do nothing. Snowden did the same.
LL> It is treason only if the parties are not successful in
LL> overthrowing the evil regime...
Yes, a victor as a rule is always right. That's why now Mursi in
Egipt is acáused in state treason, spying etc. ;-) And a year before,
Mursi himself accused Mubarak of the same things.
AK>> Another matter is - who are those people for whom the treason is
AK>> done?
LL> People who commit acts of high treason do it because they have
LL> something to gain. Of course, they have much to lose if things do
LL> not turn out the way they had planned...
Do you think Snowden wanted much?
AK>> If the treason is made for the world it is great;
LL> Nobody commits acts of high treason for altruistic reasons. Unless
LL> they are stupid or retarded.
Do you think that Assange, Manning are stupid or retarded?
LL> officials have now been forced to acknowledge that public debate on
LL> this subject has begun.
LL> Suppose Snowden had kept quiet. He would still have his job, making
LL> good money, with a warm bed to sleep in after work, in the USA.
LL> Would Americans (or the world) know about the NSA's database of all
LL> our phone calls?
The idea of a call phone base itself is simple and obvious, but
people usually don't think about such things. NSA made a base where all
contacts are stored. When they want to arrest a person they have all
addresses where he can be. And every address connected with the man has
its own connection, which can be in use if NSA wants to launch a more
wide manhunt.
LL> Do you like the idea that the government gets the authority to keep
LL> track of our private communications? Doesn't matter that we are not
LL> terrorists, or suspected of terrorist activity. Where did the NSA
LL> get the authority to snoop on us? From secret judicial orders
LL> issued by a secret court based on secret interpretations of the
LL> law. Sound familiar? Yes, I've read George Orwell's "1984"...
Actually, terrorist attacks in this case is a good thing for those
who wants to impose a total control over society.
LL> Yes, my friend, Edward Snowden has performed a valuable public
LL> service. It's too bad he will be spending the rest of his natural
LL> life in prison. If he ever makes it back to the USA, that is.
I think Snowden was prepared to leave the US. In the wake of Manning
trial Snowden knew possible consequences he could meet.
AK>> Snowden defends Holy cow of democracy - freedom, the possibility
AK>> not to be traced everywhere and every time.
LL> "Freedom is having nothing left to lose." - Kris Kristofferson
;) It is not saying for an American.
AK>> Without such a freedom, freedom can come to an end at some pretty
AK>> day.
LL> Freedom can exist inside, and outside, of prison. We create our own
LL> prisons, every day, in the way we live.
Well, probably it is possible that inside a person can be a Universe.
But we spoke about freedom in a particular country.
AK>> People don't understand that a free society must imply possibility
AK>> of resistance.
LL> Resistance? What kind of resistance?
For instance, "Occupy Wall Street" is resistance. While such things
are possible that country can be called free. But can this kind of
things repeat itself in the US in the future? I am not sure. All details
and photos of the participants are stored in secret bases. Next time,
these people can be intimidated even before they go to do something.
AK>> Well, abstractly, I retell my story in other words, of a movie
AK>> script:
AK>> The US state security organization has made a robot-terminator who
AK>> has to kill all the underground opposition and criminals. But in
AK>> some time oligarchs and moneybags pay some money to elect their
LL> On a serious note - Gerry Spence wrote the book on the subject
LL> above. Corporations own everything, including the lawyers and
LL> politicians.
With every year passing technology makes the scenario more and more
probable. Then they invent flies that will sting rebels making them
happy, phlegmatic, law-abiding people.
AK>> Terrorism can be killed only the same way how it was born! The US
AK>> people must understand why Arabs that were so far from terrorism
AK>> until WWII became so close to terrorism after the war. The reason
AK>> is simple -- great injustice. So, the remedy against Arab
AK>> terrorism is justice, not spying on all the people around the
AK>> world.
LL> A war on international criminals can be fought. But never a "war on
LL> terror" or a "war on terrorism." International criminals know no
LL> political borders or boundaries. International criminals do what
LL> they do because that is who they are. International criminals do
LL> not believe in justice (except their own kind of "justice"). As
LL> such, we owe them NOTHING! Our job is to hunt them down and make
LL> sure they are no longer in a position to harm others.
If there are thousands of people who fight for their causes they
cannot be all terrorists. It is something wrong in the definition
itself. Actually, it is called a popular resistance. The weaker
resistance is the more important role plays faith, fanaticism, cruelty,
extremism. And those people who had borne these outrages thousands are
more guilty than militants themselves.
AK>> So, calling it an instrument against terror attacks is a foolish
AK>> idea.
LL> Violence begets violence. More violence begets more violence. This
LL> has always been the case, ever since the beginning of time, or at
LL> least since man has walked this earth. However, every state does
LL> have the right to protect itself. Including harming those who try
LL> to harm us.
There is a rule - the weakest party doesn't start war. If militants
belong to the weakest party they fight for their just causes, and the
cause of the violence (the splinter in the Earth's ass) should be
searched in some other place.
AK>> If Al Qaeda has a nuclear bomb it will blow it up despite the fact
AK>> that that Americans are kept under surveillance. The possibility
AK>> to be tracked after the attack scares them not.
LL> If al-Qaeda has a nuclear bomb it will take over Mecca and threaten
LL> to blow up the black rock. And then, when the Saudis think al-Qaeda
LL> is bluffing, the bomb will be detonated. And Israel will be blamed.
Al-Qaeda bombs Caaba with a nuclear bomb? I am afraid you don't live
in the real world. ;-)
Bye, Lee!
Alexander Koryagin
fido7.debate 2013
--- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds
* Origin: Pushkin's BBS (2:5020/2140.2)
|
