News Stories

[ganbaru]

Canada police say five dead, about 40 missing after oil train blast
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9660D320130707

America's NSA 'in bed with' Germany and most others: Snowden
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9660C020130707
The guy is trying to piss of everyone or what ?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

America's NSA 'in bed with' Germany and most others: Snowden
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9660C020130707
The guy is trying to piss of everyone or what ?

Since EU countries has rejected his sanctuary request and has been taking form US in trying to arrest. Why should Snowden keep the gloves on, not like the Europe is going to change its mind and stop being US's lapdog.

[Kokukirin]

Snowden is already the new public enemy #1 of the mightiest government in the world. I don't think he cares about pissing off another dozen governments.

[KiraYamatoFan]

I picked this up from another forum:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07...dward-snowden/

Have We All Been Fooled By Edward Snowden?

Through this whole business, I’ve remained of two minds about Snowden’s tale. While I am certain that what he has reported is true, I’m unsure of motivation. With what I have just read, though, I think I’m getting a clearer picture. One I will try to paint for you.

Snowden used to post on a website called Ars Technica: it’s a site for professional techies (“alpha geeks” is what the site says). He frequented the Internet Relay Chat rooms quite a lot, shooting the breeze with whoever happened by. This began when he was stationed in Geneva in 2007: an IT guy for the CIA in a foreign land, he probably enjoyed this little bit of home. His posts – under user name TheTrueHOOHA – from that time show someone who is decidedly unworldly: he complained about almost everything in Switzerland, from the price of food to the women. Over the years, he changed from an insulated, opinionated American into an opinionated, snarky ex-pat. One of the biggest changes in his opinions is what he thought of leakers. Back then, he was not a fan. In January of 2009, the following exchange took place in the chat room:

Spoiler for coarse language:

SNOWDEN: HOLY SHIThttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?_r=1&hp

SNOWDEN: WTF NYTIMES

SNOWDEN: Are they TRYING to start a war? Jesus christ they’re like wikileaks

User19: they’re just reporting, dude.

SNOWDEN: They’re reporting classified shit

User19: shrugs

User19: meh

SNOWDEN: moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?

SNOWDEN: those people should be shot in the balls.

Well, he’s sure done a switch since then, eh? I bet he would rather that his balls remain unshot now. He went so far as to wish the NYT would go bankrupt. He also had no problem with Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, saying:

Spoiler for coarse language:

SNOWDEN: these are the same people who blew the whole “we could listen to osama’s cell phone” thing the same people who screwed us on wiretapping over and over and over again [sic] Thank god they’re going out of business.

User19: the NYT?

SNOWDEN: Hopefully they’ll finally go bankrupt this year.yeah.

He was gung-ho for it when Bush was president. Which brings up an interesting point: his opinion of such programs abruptly changed when Barack Obama took office. In the chat room, which Ars Technica calls “Officially unofficial” – the online equivalent to “the back room occupied by drinkers who feel the front (of the bar) is just too stuffy for them,” Snowden felt free to speak his mind even if everyone in the room would disagree with him. And he could be ugly about it.

Snowden revealed that he was a Ron Paul supporter and championed a return to the gold standard along with short selling stocks. Social issues also reveal a Libertarian bent when it came to personal freedoms. He also bought into Obama conspiracy theories such as the one that said Obama was going to devalue U.S. currency, leading to higher unemployment, something he saw as a “correction” and “a necessary part of capitalism.”

His disdain of President Obama and his policies was apparent and he bitched about them with “increasing frequency.” But there are two issues where, I believe, where Snowden’s true colors shine very clearly. This is one:

Spoiler for harsh comments, especially if you're a senior:

SNOWDEN: save money? cut this social security bullshit

User11: hahahayes

User18: Yeah! Fuck old people!

User11: social security is bullshit

User11: let’s just toss old people out in the street

User18: Old people could move in with [User11].

User11: NOOO

User11: they smell funny

SNOWDEN: Somehow, our society managed to make it hundreds of years without social security just fine

SNOWDEN: you fucking retards

SNOWDEN: Magically the world changed after the new deal, and old people became made of glass

SNOWDEN: yeah, that makes sense

User11: wow

User11: you are just so fucking stupid

SNOWDEN: yeah, [User11]. and you’re quite a gem

User19: and magically, life expectancy has doubled in the last 100 years.funny how that works.

SNOWDEN: [User19], you don’t think modern medicine has something to do with that? no? it’s social security? wow. I guess I missed that.

User11: hurr wait a second, life expectancy has shot up in recent times along with the dissolution of the communal family unit in exchange for the nuclear family

User11: gee i guess we might need to create a safety net for the sudden glut of helpless elderly????

SNOWDEN: they wouldn’t be fucking helpless if you weren’t sending them fucking checks to sit on their ass and lay in hospitals all day

User11: you are so goddamned stupd*pid

User11: PUT OLD PEOPLE TO WORK IN THE FIELDS

SNOWDEN: my grandmother is eighty fucking three this year, and you know what? she still supports herself working as a goddamned hairdresser

“Fuck old people”? An objectivist view if ever there was one. The other issue is the Second Amendment:

Spoiler for coarse language:

User: the restrictions were made to appease the conservatives to get another bill passed. fucking cons.

SNOWDEN: See, that’s why I’m goddamned glad for the second amendment. Me and all my lunatic, gun-toting NRA compatriots would be on the steps of Congress before the C-Span feed finished.

Very interesting. Snowden is a gun nut as well as an Obama hater. He also has been an outspoken advocate of the very thing he has become famous for revealing, cheering the security state network and insisting that it needed funding, even in the face of draconian budget cuts. He was particularly upset by Obama’s choice for the head of the CIA:

Spoiler for coarse language:

SNOWDEN: Obama just appointed a fucking POLITICIAN to run the CIA!

User11: yes unlike every other director of CIA ever

User11: oh wait, no

SNOWDEN: I am so angry right now. This is completely unbelievable.

Ars Technica has opened a new forum thread called Edward Snowden—NSA Leaker and Arsian (does anyone know what ‘arsian’ means?) where users who remember interactions with Snowden are not very complimentary. One wrote, “He was kind of dick.” Posts like this make a good argument for his dickishness:

Spoiler for coarse language:

“The fact that you’re posting on a gaming forum makes me cry. I hope someone tosses you in a burlap sack and beats you with reeds. You’re a filthy little ragamuffin who lacks any semblance of taste. You loved Halo and own an Xbox. You pre-ordered “Mary-Kate and Ashley: Sweet 16 Licensed To Drive.” You are the sole reason I write these posts. I hope you’re killed by a drunk driver on Halloween.”

This new information has me pondering exactly who this guy is: is he the concerned whistle-blower? Or did he have an ulterior motive to spill what he did? His background isn’t really CIA or NSA material, so say a few people I’ve spoken to who actually have worked for a government contractor. So why was he hired? And why did he pick now to speak out? This has never smelled right to me, which is why I have withheld judgement. But these new revelations create even more questions. Is this whole thing a ruse to make the President look bad? If so, who is funding it – who is paying for all his travel and hotels? Or is Edward Snowden, a man who has completely destroyed his own life, just stupid? I still don’t know but this new information gives me a lot to think about. How about you?

"He was gung-ho for it when Bush was president. Which brings up an interesting point: his opinion of such programs abruptly changed when Barack Obama took office."... That was the key phrase in the article. When I read some of his shit about social security, old people and the NRA, he's the one big cunt who deserves to be shot in the balls... preferably with a .50 Cal bullet if the opportunity presents itself. He's a serious load of damaged goods, people.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

I picked this up from another forum:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07...dward-snowden/



"He was gung-ho for it when Bush was president. Which brings up an interesting point: his opinion of such programs abruptly changed when Barack Obama took office."... That was the key phrase in the article. When I read some of his shit about social security, old people and the NRA, he's the one big cunt who deserves to be shot in the balls... preferably with .50 Cal bullet if the opportunity presents itself. He's a serious load of damaged goods, people.

So the guy have a online internet life and may have posted a few statements that are questionable. Compare to the government who decided to toss the 4th amendment and spy on Americans, as well as foreign civilians.

Instead of spending so much time reading through all his internet posts going back all those years, how about you focus a bit more on how the government is abusing its power and spying on everyone with an internet connection like some kind of real-life fucked-up Orwell story - coz that's what I'm more concerned about, not the fact that Edward Snowden hate social security.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

"He was gung-ho for it when Bush was president. Which brings up an interesting point: his opinion of such programs abruptly changed when Barack Obama took office."... That was the key phrase in the article. When I read some of his shit about social security, old people and the NRA, he's the one big cunt who deserves to be shot in the balls... preferably with a .50 Cal bullet if the opportunity presents itself. He's a serious load of damaged goods, people.

I care not what his political beliefs or the motivation for his leaks, nor does he deserve to get shot in the balls for his beliefs any more than you do for yours.

The PRISM program is a total disgrace, and as far as I'm concerned, have completely destroyed whatever claim Obama may have left of moral superiority over the GOP. If anything, he's an even bigger hypocrite, at least the crazy republicans have the courtesy to let you know upfront that they're nuts.

And yes, I did vote for that guy.

[GDB]

From the sounds of it, didn't it start in 2008 under Bush? Doesn't pardon Obama, since they still informed him of it and he allowed it to continue, but it's not like this is just his doing or anything.

[Lightning_Wing]

Originally Posted by GDB

From the sounds of it, didn't it start in 2008 under Bush? Doesn't pardon Obama, since they still informed him of it and he allowed it to continue, but it's not like this is just his doing or anything.

Well of course not. People are quick to blame the administration while forgetting that it's the legions of employees within the agencies that actually start and actuate the operations. The president(s)-previous and current-get too much blame (while not being blameless.)
Yet, I really just echo what's obvious, right...?

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by GDB

From the sounds of it, didn't it start in 2008 under Bush? Doesn't pardon Obama, since they still informed him of it and he allowed it to continue, but it's not like this is just his doing or anything.

Indeed, but I do recall a certain someone talking about "hope and change"

Not much hope left, nor was there much change, and half of what did was for the worse.


Bringing Bush into this is pointless, it doesn't lessen the blame on Obama one bit - if you were beaten and robbed, and a bystander who claim to want to help beat and robbed you as well, is he any less guilty just because another guy did it first?

Originally Posted by Lightning_Wing

Well of course not. People are quick to blame the administration while forgetting that it's the legions of employees within the agencies that actually start and actuate the operations. The president(s)-previous and current-get too much blame (while not being blameless.)
Yet, I really just echo what's obvious, right...?

Yea, because an expensive large secret operation like PRISM is just some side project of some interns at the NSA... Not to mention that the POTUS, as the head of the executive branch, is ultimately responsible for the action of those agencies.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Lightning_Wing

Well of course not. People are quick to blame the administration while forgetting that it's the legions of employees within the agencies that actually start and actuate the operations. The president(s)-previous and current-get too much blame (while not being blameless.)
Yet, I really just echo what's obvious, right...?

That's the point. If the guy really had a problem with PRISM while he was working within the agency, why did he not sabotage that program from within if he's as damn good and moral as he tries to show he is? The people working within agencies, regardless of who the President is, are the problem because they usually are the ones holding all the details on everything when they are the ones creating those monsters. They are like your typical crazy scientists.

[Lightning_Wing]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

If the guy really had a problem with PRISM while he was working within the agency, why did he not sabotage that program from within if he's as damn good as he tries to show he is?

Perhaps he wanted the forthcoming 'fame' (or infamy)? Perhaps he hoped to become sympathized enough to gain asylum in other countries with said recognition?

Not many can say exactly why he did what he did and why he chose the manner that he did it (repetition!);

However, sabotaging a government program from within is, without a doubt, much harder and more dangerous than it sounds. He probably took the method that

1.) Released the info to as many people as he could, and
2.) Gave him some comfort and security within the instant recognition he gained.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

That's the point. If the guy really had a problem with PRISM while he was working within the agency, why did he not sabotage that program from within if he's as damn good and moral as he tries to show he is?

Sabotage? what, a super-virus? or should he have went Mission Impossible/007 style rampaging through the NSA HQ and kill all the "rogue" agents and evil boss? Blow up the entire internet? You've watched too many spy movies, the only way to put any pressure on things like this is going public.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

You can't sabotage a government program from within unless you are prepared to use explosives. And that means some people would get killed. You can cause trouble, but unless you work in some massive conspiracy, you can't do real damage without resorting to violent means.

Being a whistle blower is the best he could have done. Any more would mean being an ACTUAL old school Terrorist. Rather than the modern fake terrorist.

[Vexx]

Most of you may be too young to remember J. Edgar Hoover's FBI and just how corrupt it was and how *hard* it was to clean house. The spotlight of public transparency is the only thing that really works.

[ganbaru]

Cheap Detroit homes are costly for communities, unwary buyers
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96205I20130703

Greece, foreign lenders close in on deal to unlock aid
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9660HQ20130707

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Cheap Detroit homes are costly for communities, unwary buyers
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96205I20130703

I wonder how the rental market is in Detroit. You buy a handful of cheap buildings/multifamilies with a couple of units each in cash, fix them up, and get them fully rented... That's a pretty amazing opportunity. It really depends on the rental market, though.

[Dhomochevsky]

While I am certain that what he has reported is true, I’m unsure of motivation.

No, that is the keyphrase of that article.
Why do you even care about the second part? I don't get it.
The facts are out and all you talk about is the person who delivered it. This must be some cultural thing I guess.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

No, that is the keyphrase of that article.
Why do you even care about the second part? I don't get it.
The facts are out and all you talk about is the person who delivered it. This must be some cultural thing I guess.

Because the righteousness of a person's actions does not automatically make someone righteous beyond criticism. Everyone has an angle. Everyone has an agenda. For all the praise and sanctification heaped on him, he could have his own agenda and easily be no better than the people he's fighting against.

Some call him a revolutionary, but things and people change. Personally all the labels I'm reading elsewhere of him being some sort of moder day hero or savior are extremely premature and likely exaggerated.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Because the righteousness of a person's actions does not automatically make someone righteous beyond criticism. Everyone has an angle. Everyone has an agenda. For all the praise and sanctification heaped on him, he could have his own agenda and easily be no better than the people he's fighting against.

Some call him a revolutionary, but things and people change.

I don't care even if he is secret a Dalek in disguise, or Darth Vader himself. What matters is the truth. If you care more about the messenger than the message, you are deliberately choosing authority over evidence; as in, you care more about who is speaking more than what he is saying.

And this is pretty much how the NSA outrage is being drowned out. Instead of focusing on fixing the problem, the media talk about the person exposing the problem.

What exactly do you want to know about his motives? How does it matter? Is it fame, money, blackmail, revenge, what? Does any of that matter? Does any of that matter more to you than what he is saying?

The only reason we even make him look remotely heroic, is because of the US government's attempt to label him as a criminal. Cause and effect. There is a deliberate attempt to blacken his name, and we are just pushing back against that accusation which existed to discredit him.

[Zakoo]

But not a single damn should be given to whether he is righteous or not. Since it won't ever change what PRISM is. He could be a pedo, it won't change the fact that the system do exist and that many officials admitted it, now we have the confirmation of the existence of the thing, it's not at the state of hypothesis anymore.