Send me a PM if you need me.
Thanks Deborski, the article seems very good. Snowden is an extremely interesting person and who can blame him for starting out idealistic and loving his country? We all are a bit blind about our own countries. Don't blame him for working for the NSA either, everyone needs food on the table and obviously you get tempted to take the best paying or most interesting options. That job must have been a geek's paradise if you take the politics out of it. But he finally did one of the bravest things anyone's done in Intelligence for a long time.Originally Posted by Deborski
I bet most people have stopped following the leaks, but there is a new one almost every week and it just keeps getting worse.
Imagine that they now try to sway the discussions in forums and on social networking sites! A lot of people just have a sheep mentality and will go with the heard. If they can figure out how to use bots or swamp sites with their messages at the level that would drown the real discourse, then it's the most genius form of censorship and propaganda that was EVER invented. Göbbels, eat your heart out.
Say what you will, but the thing he did has always been called treason. In every country at every time. I disapprove even though he was betraying our opponents.
Send me a PM if you need me.
Wouldn't you want to know, if your country was doing this kind of stuff? I would!
There is a border line where morality and decency kicks in and overrides patriotism, I think.
Do you think Solzhenitsyn was a traitor for writing "The Gulag Archipelago" and "Ivan Denisovitj", and clearing off to the USA?
And another example, different, but with a parallel: That officer who tried to kill Hitler? I'd say he was a German patriot.
1. I would want to know too, but then again he was not supposed to compromise the state secrets he had sworn to protect.
2. What concerns Solzhenitsin - yes I consider him a traitor, a liar and an enemy of Russian people. One of the worst kind Russia ever produced.
3. That German officer is a traitor too despite all sympaties we might have towards him now.
We can be sympathetic to traitors, we can understand their motives, but they still remain traitors nevertheless.
Once a traitor - always a traitor.
Send me a PM if you need me.
That is a nice saying, however, I insist it should work both ways. That is the citizens do not betray the state and the state does not betray the citizens. And we all know the latter is rarely (if not never) a case. Therefore, I think the personal views should outweigh the oath to a state. Also, consider the fact that the oath is usually solemnly intended to be given to "the peoples" or any other decent notion, but in reality it is ALWAYS excercised by the limited number of criminals.
You know my views. State IS a crime. Snowden had the choice when entering the NSA. He could refuse. I still disapprove.
Send me a PM if you need me.
I know your views and, as you know, I disagree with thew (partially). I think a state is a lawful entity, but the law could either be legitimate or illegitimate depending on the personal views of the people. Hence, in my opinion, the personal views are of a higher priority than the law and the state. Obviously, that is why a state would work hard to shape the personal views of its citizens in its own favour. And that is why betraying the state (a group of criminals that is) is a bad-bad crime in the eyes of the statesmen. And that is why they shape the public opinion to convince us that being a traitor is bad.
I am pretty sure he had different intentions when he had sworn the allegiance to the NSA...
State is a legalized form of violence. Someone's personal views may contradict the other's and that's where the state brings up the law (a formalized set of someone else's personal views) and brings violence upon the one whose personal views contradict the views of the majority. Since the state is a legal entity and it has a law that prohibited Snowden to disclose the information he was entrusted with, Snowden's guilty! Thinking otherwise would question the personal views of the majority which is called law.
This all is schizophrenia, of course, but you insist, that the state is a rational thing.
To serve and protect the people of the United States? Heh, actually his actions endangered some of his colleagues who also happenned to be the citizens of the United States.I am pretty sure he had different intentions when he had sworn the allegiance to the NSA...
Send me a PM if you need me.
Absolutely! He is guilty of treason and the legalized form of violence could come upon him any time they could physically pass through another kind of the legalized form of violence without a violence being imposed upon them in a very legal way.
Idealists like Snowden, as history shows, are the most dangerous ones. They do the most damage. Him inside the NSA's secrets reminds me of this:
P.S. Was there anything you didn't know or suspected about in what Snowden's published? All he did was showing everyone the underwear of his government. The government that paid him his salary.
Send me a PM if you need me.
I agree. The fact that he's a traitor does not bother me too much, but the butterfly effect of his actions is unpredictable mostly because his actions could serve example to some other even less careful individuals out there. As to the 'revellations', no they don't impress me much. Perhaps the US were able to acheive more since they were able to spend more, but that about it, I guess..
State is a legalized form of violence. Someone's personal views may contradict the other's and that's where the state brings up the law (a formalized set of someone else's personal views) and brings violence upon the one whose personal views contradict the views of the majority. Since the state is a legal entity and it has a law that prohibited Snowden to disclose the information he was entrusted with, Snowden's guilty! Thinking otherwise would question the personal views of the majority which is called law.
This all is schizophrenia, of course, but you insist, that the state is a rational thing.
To serve and protect the people of the United States? Heh, actually his actions endangered some of his colleagues who also happenned to be the citizens of the United States.
I really don't understand how you can defend this disgusting programme!
This is 1984 x 1984 ! The USA has turned into a menace to the freedom of the world, and has to be stopped. (Note to the NSA and GCHQ: Just expressing feelings not stating any intentions.)
Snowden believed that the USA was good initially, it once was, pretty decent and it has some good aspects to it. Then he dawned on him that it's become rather evil, particularly from the perspective of non-Americans or poor Americans.
It's out of control with the invasions, bases everywhere and now spying on everyone! He couldn't live with his conscience and took action. I think he's brave!
If it was discovered that Russia had some evil plans or activities against its own citizens, or the world, I would applaud anyone who disclosed it. I doubt they've got anything that evil though.
Snowden did the decent and moral thing. I don't care if that technically makes him a traitor.
It is MORALLY WRONG to follow the orders of a corrupt and invalid state.
An example which is a bit dubious, but applies: Remember those border guards who shot a few people who tried to cross the border between East/West Germany? It was just regular guys doing their military service. As I understand it, most of them had a half-hearted belief in the ideology and that the state was justified. They may have thought that the people who were shot were a danger, they were spies or something. And some of the border crossers probably were. Either way, they were following orders and they probably didn't even shoot with the intention of killing.
But in united Germany they were prosecuted and sentenced to prison.
The relevance is that they WERE held responsible for their actions during a (supposedly) corrupt regime.
In retrospect, the expectation on them was that they should have refused top shoot and taken the consequences, or they should have refused military service in the first place. I never heard anyone complain that the trials against these people were wrong.
As for what you said about states: States are good if they are not fascist and not oppressive, imo....
Yes you might have GUESSED some of it, and so did I of course. There were some signs, and it made logical sense that it would be happening.
But even as an IT professional, and rather paranoid one at that, I could never have guessed the scope of this.
I don't believe you guys when you said there was nothing new. You couldn't have known all that!
Unless you also reveal that you work for the Russian intelligence service, they knew it, of course!
Bravery often comes together with stupidity. This is the case.
Right now, at this very moment, the Russian government is probably doing one or even several disgusting things all governments do. Disclosure won't make them stop.
I would agree if we could agree upon what's 'moral' and what's 'immoral'. You're applying your ethics and morality to everyone around you falsely assuming that these things are universally accepted.
That word again. What if I told you that this corrupt and invalid state saves millions of lives every day by its mere existance? It may be corrupt and invalid, but it herds 300 million idiots trying very hard to keep them relatively safe and well-fed. Discrupting this state won't make people happy. I saw the fall of USSR. There was no happiness.
That only proves that since 1945 there was no original thought in Western Europe. Everyone thought what's moral and what's not in accordance to what the media had been telling them. To throw your life away by not shooting an idiot who decided to jump a fence - great choice!
State is a form of formalized monopoly for violence. How can it be unopressive?
Actually, I think that Snowden didn't cover a tenth part of what's really going on. I'm afraid that he simply had no access to the most disgusting secrets of the US. Fortunately.
Send me a PM if you need me.
You drive me crazy Ramil!You know perfectly well that the USA is out of order yet you appear to be defending it on a technicality.
As for morality yes. I agree that it's an subjective term. Unless you decide you believe in a particular religion. I happen to think that Biblical morality is good and a reasonably standard for right and wrong. But you can't force this on others, it must be a personal choice. It was never intended to be foundation of national laws.
And the Bible doesn't exactly comment on the morality of spying on the whole world and saving+datamining it indefinitely.
That's my personal morality.
Perhaps it's covered in "Thou shalt not bear false witness" or "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people." (I'm trying to think o something applicable from the bible...)
And yes, I value personal and religious morality OVER state morality. Christianity says that people should follow the laws of the land except when the contradict with Christianity. I think that makes sense. And I think Christianity is against all war, so killing anyone in the army, is wrong.
With this I am not saying that I am living a 100% biblical life, just that it's an external and objective sourse of morality that stands outside things like nation states and culture.
The state has burned women at the stake for witchcraft, discriminated against people because of religion or ideology, and been tools in the hands of corrupt rich people. I maintain that it's morally defendable to go against the state as Snowden did, if you are genuinely convinced that the state is acting immorally. What are we otherwise.... state drones.......?
And I don't believe for a second that the surveillance is protecting us from terrorism!
I think we are seeing the beginning of a fascist globalist dictatorship that will make 1984 look like child's play.
Or genuinely, the scenario from Revelation in the bible with antichrists empire and the mark of the beast without which you can't buy or sell.
Бывший президент США Джимми Картер признался, что не использует электронную почту, так как Агентство национальной безопасности может отслеживать его переписку, сообщает CNN."Wikileaks и Сноуден многих научили тому что по-настоящему секретные документы могут быть только бумажными. Кое-где даже пишущие машинки опять появились."
"Федеральная служба охраны РФ заказала 20 пишущих машинок. Соответствующий заказ размещен на сайте госзакупок. В соответствии с документацией, каждый аппарат ФСО планирует приобрести примерно за 10 тысяч рублей."
http://lenta.ru/news/2013/07/11/tape/
В связи с этим в случае появления необходимости отправить кому-либо важное письмо президент собственноручно печатает или пишет от руки письмо, после чего отправляет его по обычной почте.
Комментируя скандалы по поводу шпионажа со стороны АНБ, Картер отметил, что «практики по добыче разведданных значительно либерализовались, в связи с чем стали объектом злоупотребления со стороны спецслужб».
Примечательно, что ранее экс-президент открыто поддержал действия экс-сотрудника спецслужб США Эдварда Сноудена, передавшего СМИ сведения о ведущейся спецслужбами США, в частности АНБ, глобальной программе слежки.
Экс-президент США Джимми Картер не использует e-mail из-за страха слежки АНБ - Газета.Ru | Новости
For some reason, I missed this post.
I'm not defending USA per se. I'm defending people who live there.You drive me crazy Ramil!
Biblical morality is only good when you apply double (or even triple) standards over the same things. Bible has too much ambiguities and mutually contradictory statements to be a good guidebook on morality.
Say that again - state morality? What's that? Besides, a state cannot exist if it respects every and all of its citizens. In order to function normally state now and then has to step on a few necks. Even a 'perfect state' from Utopia would have to do that - to do little evils for a greater good. What can be said about normal states? Your libertarian views can only function normally in anarchism but then again you wouldn't like that very much.
Epistle to the Romans (Paul), Chapter 13
Obedience in Authority.
1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.
6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
Please, do not bring Christianity to this. I will always prove you are wrong with the quotes from Bible
1. See above
2. It was not the state. It was people who did that.
You may not believe it, but normal people never know when their intelligence succeeded. They know only its failures. Technically this helps to prevent many acts of terrorism (among other things, of course)
To cut it short - a modern day state simply cannot exist if it does not spy on its own people. Like it or not. Every state does it and every state will.
Send me a PM if you need me.
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
188Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
