On 6/14/15, Shelley wrote:

On June 14, 2015 12:15:55 AM grarpamp wrote:

...

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/15/06/14/0441220/report-russia-and-china-...

Russia and China have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by the fugitive US whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries, according to senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services.

Or perhaps one of the many data breaches of the incompetent fed.gov contained info, legally held or otherwise, on other five eyes operatives and this is an opportunistic parallel construction to try to implicate and nab Snowden?

ISTR some solid "yep, we parallel construct" facts at some point...

Seems like they'd want to keep something like this quiet if their operatives really were in danger. Jmo.

Well, may be not. Lie back, relax. Now imagine you're 5 years old. Actually, so you have 20 operatives in say North Korea and you need to contact them urgently so they know their holiday picture taking is over and must return post haste, since their holiday cover is about to be blown - how do you contact them without personally contacting them, to maximise their safety? Is a daily Tor sign in the best idea for operatives in other countries? Of course for those who do their daily Tor duty, they presumably will be notified. So perhaps just reading the daily newspaper from the country from which you're officially on holiday from? "Oh, there's some international spy scandal going on, think we better leave now dear, since we foreigners might be targetted regardless - how about an opportunistic trip South?"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/14/2015 07:07 PM, Tim Beelen wrote:

I'm highly critical this news. Think about it, what is the intended benefit of coming out with such a discovery.

It's like proclaiming to Germany that we broke the Enigma-code during WW2.

And it's completely inconsistent with the established official narrative, including for instance the ridiculous farce about destroying a hard drive at The Guardian. And it's inconsistent with accounts given by Snowden, Greenwald et al about the handling of the documents. And it comes hot on the heels of news that databases of U.S. Federal personnel records have been stolen - material of GREAT value to counterintelligence activities around the world. As this was nobody's fault but the folks responsible to safeguard that data, a big diversion covering some of the more embarrassing and expensive consequences of that breach would definitely be in order. :o/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVfiMxAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LrTkP/i+tMT7chdvjDfYuT0V9JExx JQtbC+/xdAeivL8ItFkp/bjNJ4IFR0DGLZuu4fFFIMqzUXXoPzzEQpdsyuO9goN6 1lIjxXdh4vlehT9idlTYsMGkIq4XLze3vkW9ZcBtbjid4iNa21P0FNeuKJ588ybr YPaIf+f2tGefxOqSo4gFTf4cO9Rp16qLz3lvh3gU09EhvUSpz2JZhIQqZW9P4Kfr ZZ+Pm/5Uh8NdAPbnmXs+Y8KitUEHvr2ebnZTSbwEYI9mwckl5zTkcR6eyzz40RQx QTcGn/L4bMFCmSOSNT8VLYzeY8ReiwO6DabqhIsopLnhKqkhNTBLsHu9Dr1yeCKP wyvZOpjI4EpmzI1K6SK0QigjyCgIJygEDD57/UuRqsMa2IebwJaDTF6jQsnL2+8X E/d9rDQzW2gnn/PceftzlhZTDGPrtIRpJw4bvkk7gROeEPon0SYT7s9n2oWrf6Kh YOj8u0D1dcyFXmSCQ8oXX2LxPIMNIQDy69H3DRW3Vne3ylX3vigwH747U3OeAeB4 Vp9o3xa9wJ+/Wak64ywxDAurS6Y1Z2lCB2kb3AqTCMZyVjzZZKpd0c4//YK6cKB3 bzJjd06WKPZF+bkO3x0d+qxs+QTEySPnr9id2rLWTCfbnNGfksSrn5i52ivcsGMd 9F6NWoAtk5HFxYIenBf6 =iaXh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

This is not meaningful speculation since the main point is of the story is not finding out who to blame, it is spreading FUD about the fallout of Ed's actions by spreading blatant lies. Which basically derails a developing dialog: Ed was right, there /was/ overreach/abuse and accounts of premeditated lying attributable to our Government(s) fine agencies. It's fun to watch the government losing face by trying to cover it up. What I saw was a five year old with his hand stuck in the cookie jar. Only the cookie jar is actually the privacy of my own home. No matter the fact that I extend my presence to locations around the globe by way of internets. I am not forgoing my rights to privacy when I directly communicate with others. The very same way I find those rights in the confines of my home. On 6/15/2015 2:10 PM, dan@geer.org wrote:

| Glenn Greenwald at The//Intercept on The Sunday Times birdcage liner | 'reporting' that brought the story to press. | | https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowden= | -files-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/

If Snowden had zero copies and Greenwald/Poitras had the originals, then any Russo-Chinese fiddling with those originals was the result of having stolen them from Greenwald/Poitras, not Snowden.

As the world turns,

--dan

On 06/15/2015 02:06 PM, Juan wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:10:23 -0400 dan@geer.org wrote:

...

If Snowden had zero copies and Greenwald/Poitras had the originals, then any Russo-Chinese fiddling with those originals was the result of having stolen

stolen?

"copied"?

...

them from Greenwald/Poitras, not Snowden.

As the world turns,

--dan

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Juan wrote:

stolen?

It would be fair to call it "stolen" iff they copied the data, then destroyed the original owner's copy.

Tom Harper, the Sunday Times' journalist who wrote the article. The man who repeatedly lied about the the state of affairs regarding Ed landed himself an interview with CNN. It was aired a few hours ago. The man dug himself a hole, jumped into his hole and buried himself with an explanation of how he reports what. Effectively he told CNN that it is speculation, that he reports what he feels to be the truth as provided by his sources within the government but that what he reported is not explicitly mentioned as such, and that it is up to his sources "the government" (whatever that means) to provide proof. In other words, he lied. Many bad things did not happen. And I'm sure that the OPSEC that Glenn et al. have been maintaining is for the sake of all parties involved. And I bet that three-letter agencies have reached out to him to let him know that he's walking a fine line and I'm sure that Glenn also knows that they have a vested interest in the information not becoming freely available. And that's the end of that story. We're also not discussing the semantics of how Glenn handles his files in the face of what is an obvious push to erode civil liberties. Because. On 6/15/2015 7:13 PM, zaki@manian.org wrote:

1. Crypto is broken in the sense that entire notion of trusted computing is massively broken and nation states can compromise end devices at scale and access plain text via device compromise.

2. There was a period of time when the Snowden cache was controlled primarily by journalists with limited organizational support. Many bad things could have happened. It is still mysterious if they did.

3.It also seems likely that competing services had access to many of the same documents as Snowden did. It seems reasonable to assume there were more people exfiltrating docs for private benefit than for public benefit on the top secret network.

4. What standard should organizations who handle secret information be held to? The Intercept has hired some of top practitioners in the field. Is that good enough? Less well funded institutions?

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:10 AM, mailto:dan@geer.org> wrote:

| Glenn Greenwald at The//Intercept on The Sunday Times birdcage liner | 'reporting' that brought the story to press. | | https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowden= | -files-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/

If Snowden had zero copies and Greenwald/Poitras had the originals, then any Russo-Chinese fiddling with those originals was the result of having stolen them from Greenwald/Poitras, not Snowden.

As the world turns,

--dan

WikiLeaks WikiTweets only .05% of Snowden documents have been declassified for release by the spy-micking hoarders, out of nearly 1M. Cryptome tallies 7% of Guardian's magically variable 58,000 or .02% of DoD's defense industry mass overkill 1.7M. This affirms the Snowden-idolizing MSM are hardly better journalism than Sunday Times at customary citizen-subject-consumer hoodwinking relying on rhetorical exaggeration with minimal substantiation, that is, following the model of royalty, official spies and commercial public relations (bestow on Apple's CEO for lying about iSpookery), why even, pardon the ad disruption, cryptosecurity everywhere floggers, nay, nay, hordes of educators indenturing wage slaves, religious hustlers token-sucking the poorest tax-avoiding the richest, and not worth slathering horse-dookie on Lady Gaga Godiva, bloated governments wielding the armaments of utter obedience for most none for a few. Which, clang cymbol, why demand only NSA stop it, stop stomping invented civlib, why not demand all the world's spies close shop, defuse the PALs of the WMD terrorists. Spies beget world's worst spies, govs beget world's worst govs, biz begets world's worst biz, secperts beget, so on, to wit, shit methane. Tis a damn lie, verily a rigged stat, a TED yip, that some official secrecy is okay (Schneier, most secperts) just not too much, that is, my secrecy, my NSA protection racket sold to world spies and clueless public as costly and methaney, is perfume, yours is RU and CN bowel gas -- as mirrored by RU and CN. At 12:20 AM 6/16/2015, you wrote:

On 06/15/2015 05:13 PM, zaki@manian.org wrote:

<SNIP>

...

2. There was a period of time when the Snowden cache was controlled primarily by journalists with limited organizational support. Many bad things could have happened. It is still mysterious if they did.

Indeed.

...

3.It also seems likely that competing services had access to many of the same documents as Snowden did. It seems reasonable to assume there were more people exfiltrating docs for private benefit than for public benefit on the top secret network.

Well damn, they could have been decent enough to post them on Cryptome or WikiLeaks ;) Even a hidden service site with a paywall would have been cool ;)

...

4. What standard should organizations who handle secret information be held to? The Intercept has hired some of top practitioners in the field. Is that good enough? Less well funded institutions?

What does "be held to" mean? By whom?

...

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:10 AM, wrote:

...

| Glenn Greenwald at The//Intercept on The Sunday Times birdcage liner | 'reporting' that brought the story to press. | | https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowden= | -files-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/

If Snowden had zero copies and Greenwald/Poitras had the originals, then any Russo-Chinese fiddling with those originals was the result of having stolen them from Greenwald/Poitras, not Snowden.

As the world turns,

--dan

On 6/17/15, Tim Beelen wrote:

On 6/16/2015 7:13 AM, John Young wrote:

...

WikiLeaks WikiTweets only .05% of Snowden documents have been declassified for release by the spy-micking hoarders, out of nearly 1M. Cryptome tallies 7% of Guardian's magically variable 58,000 or .02% of DoD's defense industry mass overkill 1.7M. The reason for this is the work that /all/ of these institutes do. It is bigger then what an individual or, is some cases, a small group can accomplish. And can easily be undermined if details are published. Who is it to say that what CIA has been doing is not in U.S. best interest. You? Me?

You just bought not only the false presumption, but a logical impossibility - without knowledge in detail of the CIA's actual actions, I am unable to prove their violations. Are you suggesting CIA, NSA, FBI, etc ought do what they will, except ath someone is able to say that what they've been doing is not in U.S. best interest? That sounds inane. I am not even in U.S. nor a U.S. citizen - to me your statement sounds highly problematic and indicative and problematic nationalist think. Yes we need a balance of powers in the world - we need national strength and unity, but this applies to all countries, not just to the U.S.! Collections of power, as happens with govt, attract more power abusers than benevolent dictators, unfortunately. For this reason, a one world government would be doomed from the outset. We need a strong Russia, a strong America, and strong small countries etc. It's the only hope for any long term semblance of balance. If the world we a single U.S.A.W. entity, Snowden could never have happened. Of course Snowden required a courageous individual too, but it would have required someone willing to actually give up the rest of their life if there were no possbility of sanction anywhere in the world. You might reconsider your push to have someone other than yourself somehow prove that the CIA's actions over the decades have not been in U.S. best interests, or that this is a relevant question!

On 6/17/15, Tim Beelen wrote:

On 6/16/2015 9:16 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On 6/17/15, Tim Beelen wrote:

...

On 6/16/2015 7:13 AM, John Young wrote:

...

WikiLeaks WikiTweets only .05% of Snowden documents have been declassified for release by the spy-micking hoarders, out of nearly 1M. Cryptome tallies 7% of Guardian's magically variable 58,000 or .02% of DoD's defense industry mass overkill 1.7M. The reason for this is the work that /all/ of these institutes do. It is bigger then what an individual or, is some cases, a small group can accomplish. And can easily be undermined if details are published. Who is it to say that what CIA has been doing is not in U.S. best interest. You? Me? You just bought not only the false presumption, but a logical impossibility - without knowledge in detail of the CIA's actual actions, I am unable to prove their violations.

So, you have no knowledge of all the details of the CIA's actions, but you are sure that they consist of violations? Is that right?

By the way, the CIA is under congressional oversight. That is where accountability ends. They don't have to explain themselves to you.

How effective is this oversight? I think the vast majority Members of Congress in general do not have the cognitive skills to understand the issues that the CIA creates. Let alone come to an agreement on how to handle the agency.

To summarize the problem: the CIA is has about 20.000 employees. Which is substantially bigger then in the 1950s where they had maybe about 4-5.000. They are an intelligence office. They started out gathering intelligence, gained intelligence gathering capabilities and now have capabilities to operate independently to some extent for some years.

Now, we know they spy on Congress. Manipulate congress. Overthrow governments.

And somehow you presume such things are in the best interests of the USA? Good luck convincing people on that one...

Steer elections. But who controls them? With no oversight they basically do 'whatever' and 'whatever' is quite a dangerous thing to do. Now, in hindsight, I don't care if they go around the world and bully people into playing nice. But that is besides the point.

The problem is the culture. Recent breaches of security contractors have shown that information technology information gatherers (ITIG) employs a lot of clowns. Like you, you want a polarized version of the world where the CIA is bad.

What I want is for "loose cannon power wielders" to principle the fuck up. Overthrowing governments does not mesh with my idea of principle, nor human rights, nor national strength, dignity, rule of law - not a damn thing I hold important. There appears to be abundant evidence over the years that the US is throwing its political, economic and military might around, all over the world, just being a bully, without respect for ethics, principle, national sovereignty, dignity, human rights, without even respect for the rule of law and as a total hypocrite to its own past behaviour - compare Kosovo actions to Ukraine dialog. Sure, in principle we can say "every one is doing their best". Well, their best is not fucking good enough, since almost no one (it appears) sacrifices personal convenience for their greater ideals and principles, and somewhere up the chains of command those with "genuine power" run amok far too often. By all means dear CIA and CIA apologists (and NSA, FBI, USAGOV, ANY_OTHER_ENTITY), publicize your good outcomes and your stands for what we common folk consider principles, human rights, fairness and the like. Give us hope. Give us stories of the great democtratic benefits you've brought to the countries whos governments you've successively installed, overthrown, installed, overthrown. Love to hear genuine positivity facts. Facts to the contrary ('negative' outcomes) abound by incontrovertible evidence or for thinking men and women, incontrovertible conclusion. Bring on the CIA is Wonderful for The World facts. Please! I really, really want to believe the world is in better shape than it bloody well appears to be! Demonstrate the three letter agencies of USAGOV that have upheld, rather than violated, human rights around the world (hell, even in their own country!). From where we peasants sit, those in power continue to justify their every apparent misdeed somehow - 'the end justifies the means' perhaps? Meanwhile the world goes to hell in a hurry. Since the far less than admirable 'means' predominate, over and over and over again.

Just bad. And by your own admission you don't even care what they do, you are just looking to punish them. That is not a data

Find some other idiot's mouth to put words in. This one's evidently failed to raise the tone of this particular dialog. Good luck with your thesis and here's hoping others can do a better job of bringing something higher to this world. Zenaan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking "Once you set up a covert operation to supply arms and money, it's very difficult to separate it from the kind of people who are involved in other forms of trade, and especially drugs. There is a limited number of planes, pilots and landing strips. By developing a system for supply of the Contras, the US built a road for drug supply into the US." Former CIA agent David MacMichael[1] "

"People aren't against you, they are for themselves." is a much greater truism then trying to find reason in foreign politics or actions of governments. And if these sensible "Russian" ideas proliferate wherever you're from, why do you live in a country that does not even have a unified military and has Generals that do however they please? Like fucking around in Ukraine? I hope you don't have massive cognitive dissonance over that fact. On 6/17/2015 11:20 AM, Александр wrote:

_Some very important words by Zenaan Harkness (zen@freedbms.net mailto:zen@freedbms.net):_

...

There appears to be abundant evidence over the years that the US is throwing its political, economic and military might around, all over the world, just being a bully, without respect for ethics, principle, national sovereignty, dignity, human rights, without even respect for the rule of law and as a total hypocrite to its own past behaviour - compare Kosovo actions to Ukraine dialog.

Sure, in principle we can say "every one is doing their best". Well, their best is not fucking good enough

Give us hope. Give us stories of the great democtratic benefits you've brought to the countries whos governments you've successively installed, overthrown, installed, overthrown.

Demonstrate the three letter agencies of USAGOV that have upheld, rather than violated, human rights around the world (hell, even in their own country!). From where we peasants sit, those in power continue to justify their every apparent misdeed somehow - 'the end justifies the means' perhaps? Meanwhile the world goes to hell in a hurry. Since the far less than admirable 'means' predominate, over and over and over again. *and the picture of "Russia wants war" - awesome.

Zenaan, i am very sorry, that my English is not good enough for serious discussions and i don't have time. But there you are! Sometimes, you just write my thoughts (which are not on English :)). So this time, at least, i must say thank you. I salute you. I often read such sensible ideas on Russian, but rare, very rare on English. I don't know who you are from, but if you are from the "west", - congratulations! You are free from the "USA-WEST propaganda machine".

The truth must be spread (it's not high flown words). Although it's not a guarantee of changes, but it might be a very important step toward it. The hatred, the hypocrisy and the lawlessness of the US must be stopped. Or, at least, minimized. With bold English speakers like you are, there is hope.

Thank you very much again. On behalf of all people, that want peace, cooperation and justice. Instead of money, lies, influence and a constant search for enemies (like the US representatives and their watch dogs).

With respect, Alexander.

2015-06-18 1:21 GMT+09:00 John Young :

Urging war to protect sacred cows is cloaked as protecting one's own version of civilization but is actually protecting one's own militarization -- the oldest fucking religion of professional fucking.

Spies, patriots and leakers are pimps for this rampant and ancient STD, the infected bastards emitted to contaminate and ravage the planet.

They're just being practical. No point getting mad about it; evolution selects for practical; you will not win without being more practical.

On 6/17/2015 12:21 PM, John Young wrote:

civil liberties (secular religion), the favorite excuse to whip up public dissent and futile debate.

The main way the Lords of War have their way is to heighten national security pathology through overt and covert intervention of spies, agents, fronts, academics, bloggers, speakers, journalists, publishers, social media, mail lists, bars, bedrooms, backrooms, staterooms, drone cubicles, Third Worlds, Fourth Estates and Fifth Dimensions.

Civil liberties actually supersede religion. In very much the same way that my God supersedes your Civil Liberties. I get what you're getting at but I don't agree. Ah, "Civil Liberties" we could could treat them as semantics but really, they are quite the pillar of society and a lot more tangible and concrete to which a religion is not a particularly grand substitute. "bars, bedrooms, backrooms, staterooms, drone cubicles, Third Worlds, Fourth Estates and Fifth Dimensions." I like that arrangement of words. Is it yours? Can I have it?

On 6/17/2015 12:59 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On 6/18/15, Tim Beelen wrote:

...

"People aren't against you, they are for themselves." is a much greater truism then trying to find reason in foreign politics or actions of governments. When no straightforward reason for a government's foreign political actions is evident, nor becomes evident over time, and this lack of sanity evidences itself decade in, decade out, then what legitimacy can said government truly have besides "might is right"?

"Tim," your rhetoric speaks loudly. I think that for the most part we're on the same page. The only thing is, is that, there is a reason a lot of these things happen the way they are decided upon by impressionable people basing their decisions based on wrong information. Or people trying to prolong the status quo.

And the way I get exposed to things are different. I'm not trying to cloud the issue. It's just that you don't want/can/able to see what drives (bad) decision makers. I actually do know why certain decisions are being made by investigating usually the person who made them. A great example is the current head of the the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen. I have predicted how she is going maneuver current policy and what she is pushing for by reading her husband's research with a 100% accuracy. No magic involved. And I don't even understand the economics behind it, or her or her husband's reasoning! And I'm absolutely sure they don't either!!! Because it makes no fucking sense. Anyway, sorry for my digression, but I'll tell you anyway. She and her husband have convinced themselves that there is a hard correlation between minimum wage and inflation. And instead of controlling the inflation by in or decreasing the money supply they raise the minimum wage. Which increases unemployment. But at least controls inflation. So she is a-ok to fuck over a bunch of Americans in order to control inflation. Because unemployment is not a controlled variable in her big experiment. TA-DAH. Now I can argue until my hands fall off with you on how that is A-OK or NAY-OK. But this woman is like three times my age it seems. Much better looking and soft-spoken unlike me. So. We'll just have to fucking stick with her no-solution. So the straightforward reason is hereby given. The alternative is raising interest rates which will crash/panic Wallstreet. Now I could go give you a straight-ass-forward reason as to why Georgy Herbert needed money for fighting in Guatemala, but you'd say it is a bad reason and it gets us nowhere. I just suggest they defund the CIA for those particular programs that are retarded. CAN WE HAS NO MORE CONTRAS PLEASE. Can we agree on fucking just that. CIA let them go back to solely intelligence and let the federal police or the military take care of the rest. Which is something they are currently doing anyway.

...

And if these sensible "Russian" ideas proliferate wherever you're from, why do you live in a country that does not even have a unified military and has Generals that do however they please? Like fucking around in Ukraine? Perhaps a bit more reading for you? Or do you really intend to back that the USA is the principled, honourable, fair and reasonable example we (the rest of the world) should all be drinking from? No, and I'm no hypocrite either, because I understand you fully. Regardless, a hypocrite usually has a valid point. That is why people don't like 'm. You can concede to the point I'm making without entertaining my world view.

...

I hope you don't have massive cognitive dissonance over that fact. Nope. None here. Feel free to try some form other then sarcasm - perhaps empathy, or rationality..

That is rude.

What I see is a world where the power players (lead by example principally by the US since WWII) cause/foment much human strife around the world. Yes. I agree. Governments/ "other countries" are "pretty good at digging their own graves" you say? My, what big rationale you have... Eh, who cranked out the machinery that won the second world war again? I missed the part where the US still holds the moral high ground? Seriously ... I missed that part. I get that it might be difficult looking out from within... I don't speak about a moral high ground. I so -want- those who hold power to live to a higher "moral" standard - hell, any standard that we "mere peasants" (like, what the fuck would we know?) can perceive consistently as being worthy of some, or any, admiration. How about stop referring to yourself as a peasant. Members of Congress, your King or Queen or representative maybe shit and piss like the rest of us. The main difference between you and me is that you hold these big institutions to your own standard.

I don't expect the CIA to operate on my watch.

I find the world a rather sad place, in far too many ways. It saddens me greatly that the United States of America has sacrificed her international good will to such an extent as is the case. Maybe. But all that abuse of rights got you things like Google (could not have existed under European privacy laws), Apple (Foxconn), NASA (Nazi scientists), IBM (more Nazis), Microsoft (US-centric patent abuse, unfair business practices). I.e.: You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Expect hope and empathy from me, but no sympathy. Individual humans must wake up, and begin to take individual and human stands. Stands of compassion, justice, principle. Yea, I'll put that on the list-- right next to the second coming of Jesus. Please. To the best of your ability, take the words of your founding fathers to heart. Live as best you can in the heritage that was intended for you. And encourage as many others to do likewise. Yea, if you think that Thomas Paine was nice but he is everything but a

And I don't share your sterilized worldview where everything outside of the U.S. is so humane and everyone has the best intentions. Actually, it's quite the opposite. popular guy, so forget it. Most of them were slave owners with such ancient antics that I'd have to severely paraphrase them in order not misconstrue their intentions or how they really thought about the world.

I suspect significant turmoil in the years to come, and I do not envy any one who must suffer such consequences. It's just a hunch I have. When power fails and the lights go out, people get scared of the dark, of the uncertainty.

Everything has cycles, nations no less.

Good luck, you (and the whole world) may need it, Zenaan True.

On 6/17/15, Tim Beelen wrote:

...

On 6/16/2015 9:16 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On 6/17/15, Tim Beelen wrote:

...

On 6/16/2015 7:13 AM, John Young wrote:

...

WikiLeaks WikiTweets only .05% of Snowden documents have been declassified for release by the spy-micking hoarders, out of nearly 1M. Cryptome tallies 7% of Guardian's magically variable 58,000 or .02% of DoD's defense industry mass overkill 1.7M. The reason for this is the work that /all/ of these institutes do. It is bigger then what an individual or, is some cases, a small group can accomplish. And can easily be undermined if details are published. Who is it to say that what CIA has been doing is not in U.S. best interest. You? Me? You just bought not only the false presumption, but a logical impossibility - without knowledge in detail of the CIA's actual actions, I am unable to prove their violations. So, you have no knowledge of all the details of the CIA's actions, but you are sure that they consist of violations? Is that right?

By the way, the CIA is under congressional oversight. That is where accountability ends. They don't have to explain themselves to you.

How effective is this oversight? I think the vast majority Members of Congress in general do not have the cognitive skills to understand the issues that the CIA creates. Let alone come to an agreement on how to handle the agency.

To summarize the problem: the CIA is has about 20.000 employees. Which is substantially bigger then in the 1950s where they had maybe about 4-5.000. They are an intelligence office. They started out gathering intelligence, gained intelligence gathering capabilities and now have capabilities to operate independently to some extent for some years.

Now, we know they spy on Congress. Manipulate congress. Overthrow governments. And somehow you presume such things are in the best interests of the USA?

Good luck convincing people on that one... No, we know that it's not necessarily in the best interest of stability,

...

Steer elections. But who controls them? With no oversight they basically do 'whatever' and 'whatever' is quite a dangerous thing to do. Now, in hindsight, I don't care if they go around the world and bully people into playing nice. But that is besides the point.

The problem is the culture. Recent breaches of security contractors have shown that information technology information gatherers (ITIG) employs a lot of clowns. Like you, you want a polarized version of the world where the CIA is bad. What I want is for "loose cannon power wielders" to principle the fuck up. Yes. Agreed. Overthrowing governments does not mesh with my idea of principle, nor human rights, nor national strength, dignity, rule of law - not a damn thing I hold important. Not much of a government then eh? This is mostly semantics. As a non-ISIS-supporter I'd like to see ISIS' governing body overthrown and

There appears to be abundant evidence over the years that the US is throwing its political, economic and military might around, all over the world, just being a bully, without respect for ethics, principle, national sovereignty, dignity, human rights, without even respect for the rule of law and as a total hypocrite to its own past behaviour - compare Kosovo actions to Ukraine dialog. Simply not true. Transgressions yes. But to put it like that is

Sure, in principle we can say "every one is doing their best". Yes, great starting point. Well, their best is not fucking good enough, since almost no one (it appears) sacrifices personal convenience for their greater ideals and principles, and somewhere up the chains of command those with "genuine power" run amok far too often. Actually, more specifically it's a concentration of power in the hands of a few (1?) individual(s). By all means dear CIA and CIA apologists (and NSA, FBI, USAGOV, ANY_OTHER_ENTITY), publicize your good outcomes and your stands for what we common folk consider principles, human rights, fairness and the like. Give us hope. Give us stories of the great democtratic benefits you've brought to the countries whos governments you've successively installed, overthrown, installed, overthrown. European diplomacy works only because of NATO. And NATO is U.S. Firepower to put it bluntly. Love to hear genuine positivity facts. The fact that Putin understands that projecting power without repercussions is so delicious. You really want to be at the mercy of a

On 6/17/2015 10:15 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: people outside of the U.S. or the U.S. for that matter. Apart from creating a unipolar world. And how the status quo serves the U.S. Which, not unlike smoking cigarettes causes cancer but reliefs my anxiety. Not saying that the CIA causes cancer. But I'm also not saying that the CIA functions in the best interest of the US. But I don't even think we want to have this discussion. their constituents heading in a different direction. But yea, that might mean your principles take a hit. polarizing the issue. How many pin France as the steward of the Vietnamese conflict? How many pin the ECB as the steward of growing inequality in Greece? Cases of kids fainting from malnutrition? With all their economists they could not reliably tell Greece was never fit to join the Monetary Union? Europe's unilaterally dropping the ball on Ukraine, and in very recent history, Kosovo. that person? Talk about concentrated power....

Facts to the contrary ('negative' outcomes) abound by incontrovertible evidence or for thinking men and women, incontrovertible conclusion.

Bring on the CIA is Wonderful for The World facts. Please! I really, really want to believe the world is in better shape than it bloody well appears to be!

Demonstrate the three letter agencies of USAGOV that have upheld, rather than violated, human rights around the world (hell, even in their own country!). From where we peasants sit, those in power continue to justify their every apparent misdeed somehow - 'the end justifies the means' perhaps? Meanwhile the world goes to hell in a hurry. Since the far less than admirable 'means' predominate, over and over and over again. "The World" is very good digging it's own grave.

...

Just bad. And by your own admission you don't even care what they do, you are just looking to punish them. That is not a data Find some other idiot's mouth to put words in. This one's evidently failed to raise the tone of this particular dialog.

Good luck with your thesis and here's hoping others can do a better job of bringing something higher to this world. Zenaan Surely, you understand why they did this? There is a perfectly good rationale for running these kind of operations. It's just that you're miffed about the fact that you're not able to do anything about it.

So if you're part of some impotent government that does not know how to, or wants to project power, instantly you're at the mercy of institutions of governments that can. No amount of tree-hugging or moral high ground is going to save you from extinction. And it's not all that bad. It's mostly power-play and politics really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking

"Once you set up a covert operation to supply arms and money, it's very difficult to separate it from the kind of people who are involved in other forms of trade, and especially drugs. There is a limited number of planes, pilots and landing strips. By developing a system for supply of the Contras, the US built a road for drug supply into the US." Former CIA agent David MacMichael[1] "

Really, I did not know that. And this yet another reason as to why Congress needs to stop paying their bills. Making it sound awesome like you just did is not what I'd hoped for however :D \m\ METAL CONFETTI /m/ On 6/17/2015 12:07 PM, Razer wrote:

On 06/17/2015 05:53 AM, Tim Beelen wrote:

...

They (the CIA)started out gathering intelligence, gained intelligence gathering capabilities and now have capabilities to operate independently to some extent for some years. Understatement of the century-to-date: Operate independently? They operate THE largest government funded mercenary army in the fucking world. The WHOLE of the Yemen drone wars program AND in SOMALIA too (They're 'just black people'. Not too much news on that front) and so much other mayhem is DIRECTED BY THE CIA NOT THE PENTAGON, and it's contractors such as DynCorp, which has a fleet of C-130 gunships with chainguns that can push the plane sideways through the sky when fired and turn cars into metal confetti.

I thought that DynCorp was Blackwater re-branded. But they are something totally different! Revenue in 2010 was 3 billion. Wow. Business must be booming. I wonder what it is that costs 3 billion. From operational income of 120mil in '08 to 3 bil revenue in '10 means what? With 17.000 employees they are about as big as the CIA. So, maybe, if they reserve 2 bil for paying them employees, so they they pay pretty well; around 120k. The rest is write-offs on their 1.5 Bil in equipment. Which takes about three years. Sounds about right. Leaves about 400mil for operations. Basically moving stuff, and acquisitions. WHAT ARE THEY DOING? That reminds me of a guy I knew. Big guy. Ex- Blackwater employee. Nice guy. Told me that they go to war because they had too much equipment and bullets and stuff. Inane, right? On 6/17/2015 4:57 PM, Razer wrote:

On 06/17/2015 09:31 AM, Tim Beelen wrote:

...

Really, I did not know that. And this yet another reason as to why Congress needs to stop paying their bills.

Making it sound awesome like you just did is not what I'd hoped for however :D

\m\ METAL CONFETTI /m/

That decription came from the MSM news (McClatchy I believe) describing a DynCorp C-130 strafing of a column of cars thought to contain the International Court Union government driving down a Somali road.

The article contained the information that the column of cars was strafed in that manner for TWO DAYS leaving nothing but 'metal confetti'.

Later it was found out (because of resurfacing in the media of the ICU government's people) that the cars DID NOT have any of the fleeing ICU officials in them.

Target practice.

RR

...

On 6/17/2015 12:07 PM, Razer wrote:

...

On 06/17/2015 05:53 AM, Tim Beelen wrote:

...

They (the CIA)started out gathering intelligence, gained intelligence gathering capabilities and now have capabilities to operate independently to some extent for some years. Understatement of the century-to-date: Operate independently? They operate THE largest government funded mercenary army in the fucking world. The WHOLE of the Yemen drone wars program AND in SOMALIA too (They're 'just black people'. Not too much news on that front) and so much other mayhem is DIRECTED BY THE CIA NOT THE PENTAGON, and it's contractors such as DynCorp, which has a fleet of C-130 gunships with chainguns that can push the plane sideways through the sky when fired and turn cars into metal confetti.

On 6/17/2015 12:51 PM, grarpamp wrote:

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Tim Beelen wrote:

...

By the way, the CIA is under congressional oversight. As the lawmaking and big picture entity, yes.

...

That is where accountability ends. On most things, no. Operationally the CIA reports to the DNI who reports to the President. Unless something goes wrong there, or is sufficiently big, Congress won't know, and even then it's usually only four or eight people. And when it comes to that, the VP (recently ahem Cheney) stands for the President and orders that Congress is not informed... for eight years on things like assasination programs. Ah, I stand corrected. Anyway, I think this is BAD.

...

They don't have to explain themselves to you. Well of course they don't, you let them do that, that's why your government sucks. Yes, my government is not what I would put in power. But I don't have much influence (any, really) over who and what get's chosen around here. So, to assume that I have anything to do with it is stretching reality a bit. But you're welcome to shoot them a mail and tell them how you feel about all of it.

Or come and tell 'm in person. The U.S. is wonderful place, safe to travel. You make the appointment and I'll buy you a beer after you've had your disappointment. So, it's not like I 'let' them. I am not the one they ask how I feel when the CIA decided they want to torture or murder Harry, Mo or Barry for information. They don't even bother telling me really. And to be honest I think they'd rather keep it a secret from me. And remember that chart of US military bases that that other guy put up. Who is 'letting' them really, because even if it was me, and it isn't. It would be me and everyone else. Because there is such a thing as vested interests. And as the saying gos: Rome wasn't build in a day. But it sure as hell burned down in one.

You're suggestion that next time I'm doing my groceries I dispute the tax? I'm a conscionable objector to taxes? Does it work like that in your country? On 6/17/2015 2:39 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

2015-06-18 2:44 GMT+09:00 Tim Beelen mailto:tim@diffalt.com>:

Yes, my government is not what I would put in power. But I don't have much influence (any, really) over who and what get's chosen around here. So, to assume that I have anything to do with it is stretching reality a bit. But you're welcome to shoot them a mail and tell them how you feel about all of it.

"Don't blame me! I only pay them taxes!"

You're conflating a bunch of things. You can't have a criminal organization without crime, which require illegality, which requires laws which require a governing body. A government usually does not declare itself illegal so, no, it's not going to be a criminal enterprise. You're just being pedantic. On 6/17/2015 3:33 PM, Juan wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:53:55 -0400 Tim Beelen wrote:

...

So, you have no knowledge of all the details of the CIA's actions, but you are sure that they consist of violations? Is that right?

Of course. Government is a criminal organization, by definition.

That's all you need to know about it.

...

By the way, the CIA is under congressional oversight. That is where accountability ends. They don't have to explain themselves to you.

How effective is this oversight? I think the vast majority Members of Congress in general do not have the cognitive skills to understand the issues that the CIA creates. Let alone come to an agreement on how to handle the agency.

To summarize the problem: the CIA is has about 20.000 employees. Which is substantially bigger then in the 1950s where they had maybe about 4-5.000. They are an intelligence office. They started out gathering intelligence, gained intelligence gathering capabilities and now have capabilities to operate independently to some extent for some years.

Now, we know they spy on Congress. Manipulate congress. Overthrow governments. Steer elections. But who controls them? With no oversight they basically do 'whatever' and 'whatever' is quite a dangerous thing to do. Now, in hindsight, I don't care if they go around the world and bully people into playing nice. But that is besides the point.

The problem is the culture. Recent breaches of security contractors have shown that information technology information gatherers (ITIG) employs a lot of clowns. Like you, you want a polarized version of the world where the CIA is bad. Just bad. And by your own admission you don't even care what they do, you are just looking to punish them. That is not a data driven assessment, it's just operating on assumptions. Which is what the U.S. Government's foreign policies are based on. Which is why I know that either a. the CIA does not hold it's information gathering capabilities to a professional standard, or b, they listen to clowns.

And this brings us back to the CIA who is SUPPOSED TO JUST FUCKING BE MIDDLE MANAGEMENT. Instead they gave middle management a gun and told them to go fix things in the world. Middle management has always been decorated five U.S. flags, with sprinkles with red white and blue and enough U.S. jingoism to fill a stadium. I.e. it created the CIA.

Now I assume, as a Congressional committee, that every time you ask the CIA for a report on a foreign issue they do a little sing and dance and ask for more money to go solve it. Because the following things are *always* valid: a. They can claim they have limited capabilities to get men on the ground. and b. With the right people and equipment and amount of cash Congress does not have to send in the military if things get really nasty if they solve it for them.

Other then that I don't think people working for the CIA are that different from the majority in that they polarize the world to preserve their sanity: They want every Arab to be bad. And actively want to know everything about them, just to make them look bad. They know that ever Congress Member or committee might not vote in their best interest, so everyone needs to be manipulated.

And if I had a track record of overthrowing governments, fixing elections and operating with impunity overseas because foreign governments *allow* them. I'd be feeling pretty awesome about myself too. All the while they are operating under the grace of congress.

This is not the only institute that grew out of control in the United States.

And the fact that I don't sleep well is that even if I printed this piece of text on a piece of paper and went around congress and tacked it on each of their foreheads it would not change anything. It is just that to be make a person aware of a problem does not give them the skills or knowledge to deal with it.

And really, all congress has to do is take the gun away from middle management. This ofc is a bad analogy. I believe everyone should be able to carry a gun if they please.

...

Are you suggesting CIA, NSA, FBI, etc ought do what they will, except ath someone is able to say that what they've been doing is not in U.S. best interest? That sounds inane.

I am not even in U.S. nor a U.S. citizen - to me your statement sounds highly problematic and indicative and problematic nationalist think. Yes. I like my country. I has lots of nice people. Yes we need a balance of powers in the world - we need national strength and unity, but this applies to all countries, not just to the U.S.! Considering what you said about the problems with nationalistic think in your last paragraph I take this as an admission you're well versed in doublethink. Collections of power, as happens with govt, attract more power abusers than benevolent dictators, unfortunately. For this reason, a one world government would be doomed from the outset. We need a strong Russia, a strong America, and strong small countries etc. I don't need a stronk Russia. Russian culture is not conducive to how I'd like people to run things. Emphasis on people. Not the government. It's the only hope for any long term semblance of balance. If the world we a single U.S.A.W. entity, Snowden could never have happened. Of course Snowden required a courageous individual too, but it would have required someone willing to actually give up the rest of their life if there were no possbility of sanction anywhere in the world. The Ed event would still have happened. It is just the retarded notion that to be make a person aware of somehow gives them the insight to deal with it. You might reconsider your push to have someone other than yourself somehow prove that the CIA's actions over the decades have not been in U.S. best interests, or that this is a relevant question! I frankly don't care. I just don't want them to have the ability to muck things up. Because it kinda proves they have issues. I don't mind them doing good for the wrong reasons. It's doing bad for the right reasons.

The CIA has very well funded issues. VERY WELL FUNDED... VERY WELL... VERY... WELL... funded? And if they don't get the funds directly they start running dope and sell guns.

So, CIA's issues are a domestic issue. So I'm pointing my finger at Congress. And since this is a democracy I'm kinda limited to the rule of the majority.

So did they pass a resolution as such that I'm unaware of? Is there an international court that is willing to persecute? And also because first and foremost the U.S. does not acknowledge The Hague. But the EU does acknowledge US laws. Which is nice. So, did they pass a resolution or not? On 6/17/2015 4:49 PM, Razer wrote:

On 06/17/2015 01:28 PM, Tim Beelen wrote:

...

You're conflating a bunch of things.

You can't have a criminal organization without crime, which require illegality, which requires laws which require a governing body. A government usually does not declare itself illegal so, no, it's not going to be a criminal enterprise.

Expecting criminals to adjudicate themselves as such is a little beyond the pall so lets cut to the chase here, based on one criminal action for the moment. The US subscribes to the UN charter and what passes for international law, which to a huge extent the US had a guiding hand in shaping.

The UN allowed the United States leeway to literally invade Iraq based on evidence presented known to be lies at the time they were told, by almost everyone in the US government in a position to authorize policy, diplomatic OR war-related, on Iraq

The US government and all of it's executives committed a criminal act under international law by invading Iraq under false pretenses and therefore IS an international criminal enterprise that continues to this day in that country by our continued, and eternal (at least until the oil from there and Iran runs out) presence.

It was a rhetorical question; no they did not come up with a binding resolution. That is how the UN enforces policy. Binding resolutions. So, my point is, what is the point of having international laws that no one is willing to enforce. There is no ignoring plain facts. You just did not get it. Stop smoking lettuce. On 6/17/2015 7:20 PM, Juan wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:33:27 -0400 Tim Beelen wrote:

...

So did they pass a resolution as such that I'm unaware of?

So little Timmy is ignoring plain facts.

Completely unsurprising.

...

Is there an international court that is willing to persecute?

And also because first and foremost the U.S. does not acknowledge The Hague. But the EU does acknowledge US laws. Which is nice.

So, did they pass a resolution or not?

On 6/17/2015 4:49 PM, Razer wrote:

...

On 06/17/2015 01:28 PM, Tim Beelen wrote:

...

You're conflating a bunch of things.

You can't have a criminal organization without crime, which require illegality, which requires laws which require a governing body. A government usually does not declare itself illegal so, no, it's not going to be a criminal enterprise.

Expecting criminals to adjudicate themselves as such is a little beyond the pall so lets cut to the chase here, based on one criminal action for the moment. The US subscribes to the UN charter and what passes for international law, which to a huge extent the US had a guiding hand in shaping.

The UN allowed the United States leeway to literally invade Iraq based on evidence presented known to be lies at the time they were told, by almost everyone in the US government in a position to authorize policy, diplomatic OR war-related, on Iraq

The US government and all of it's executives committed a criminal act under international law by invading Iraq under false pretenses and therefore IS an international criminal enterprise that continues to this day in that country by our continued, and eternal (at least until the oil from there and Iran runs out) presence.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tim Beelen wrote:

You can't have a criminal organization without crime, which require illegality, which requires laws which require a governing body. A government usually does not declare itself illegal so, no, it's not going to be a criminal enterprise.

You're just being pedantic.

Others have addressed that. Murder is illegal and unethical. So is spying on people without individualized probable cause and warrant. As are many other things that are going on.

And also because first and foremost the U.S. does not acknowledge The Hague.

That's because US ways and crimes are suspect, and to acknowledge anything other than itself would end up making it accountable. So US refuses to do so and spins against it... a classic political play and an effective dodging mechanism, at least until your crimes become too heinous or universally disliked. The slow calculated drip of Snowden style leaks is effective in beating the drum of dislike.

But the EU does acknowledge US laws. Which is nice.

Post WWII sentiments and endeavours to future partnership are fine. But like FVEY, that doesn't need to include being the US's cowardly bitches, sockpuppets and whores on everything.

So did they pass a resolution as such that I'm unaware of? Is there an international court that is willing to persecute? Everything has cycles, nations no less.

It's true, as the world moves along, every part of it goes in cycles. The US has been engaging in illegal surveillance of the entire world, detaining people in hellholes indefinitely without charge or compensation, TORTURING and MURDERING innocents (and others) without trial, at will... including its own people on its own land. Overseas it's gone from partnering in liberating those of faith in the 1940's to killing them in the 2000's. The US is pretty good historically, some examples shown in the videos. Yet regardless of whether that's still true or is somehow changing overall... right now, a portion of its machine is in a cycle of NOT doing good things to others or itself. This is a time (say ever since 2000) when, just as the US has been known for lending a helping hand to the world, the world now needs to stand and impart a good hand upon the US. Because the US apparently hasn't been able to correct some of its bad ways on its own in over 15 years. It's past due for a spanking, not soundbites. Humans are pretty good peer to peer... it's just that their meta entities of Governments, Corporations, Religion and Society often run astray in groupthink and need corrected now and then. And if the world can't lend correction to simple MURDER, well what then? Good luck correcting anything cpunks care about. We are the ones who make a brighter day so let's start giving. And if spying, murder, datamining, restraints on crypto and free speech don't resonate with whoever would do the spanking (not least the politicians of the world), Africa's poor are still starving. http://qz.com/430637/the-worlds-poorest-people-need-help-not-bickering-from-... http://www.metrolyrics.com/we-are-the-world-lyrics-usa-for-africa.html

On 6/17/2015 5:03 PM, Juan wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:28:47 -0400 Tim Beelen wrote:

...

You're conflating a bunch of things.

You can't have a criminal organization without crime, which require illegality, which requires laws which require a governing body. A government usually does not declare itself illegal so, no, it's not going to be a criminal enterprise.

You're just being pedantic.

Government is a criminal organization because its 'agents' commit crimes.

No, the valid and legitimate definition of crime doesn't come from your masters. For example, if the psychos at the top(i. e. government) say that smoking lettuce is a 'crime' that doesn't make it a crime. Likewise, if your government says that murdering people for fun like the US military does is 'legal' that doesn['t make it so.

You should stop smoking lettuce. Just because you think something is not a crime does not not make it not a crime. And I don't think 'murdering people for fun' is the USMC charter. It might be your observation but also generally not true for actual marines. And actually not true in any sense. So. There's that.

I'm not being pedantic, I'm pointing out your obvious circular 'logic'. Lack of it actually.

My logic is not circular you need to look up the words in a dictionary as opposed to just attributing arbitrary definitions to 'm We're not talking about games so it's probably definition 1 for illegal. A government is self-explanatory and might be construed as morally wrong. But to apply that to any government actually makes nos sense. And the way you're talking you're probably are an anarchist. Which is also a form of government directed usually by direct democracy. illegal /adjective/ il·le·gal \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈlē-gəl\ : not allowed by the law : not legal : not allowed by the rules in a game government noun, gov·ern·ment often attributive \ˈgə-vər(n)-mənt, -və-mənt; ˈgə-bəm-ənt, -vəm-\ : the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc. : a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc. : the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc. criminal /adjective/ crim·i·nal \ˈkri-mə-n^ə l, ˈkrim-nəl\ : involving illegal activity : relating to crime : relating to laws that describe crimes rather than to laws about a person's rights : morally wrong

Wait, you were whining about what the russian government does, right? And on what grounds? Whatever the russian gov't does is 'legal' and 'not criminal'....because they say so! It might be legal, but it's definitely not moral. Which makes it criminal. See? That's your 'theory' at work. Not a very clever theory, I might add.

You're the inane one here. Juxtaposing random shit, yelling that all governments are criminal enterprises like it means something. HUMANITY IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE BECAUSE IT'S AGENTS COMMIT CRIMES. That obviously makes no sense because not all humans are agents that commit crimes. Neither do all agents of governments commit crimes.

...

On 6/17/2015 3:33 PM, Juan wrote:

...

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:53:55 -0400 Tim Beelen wrote:

...

So, you have no knowledge of all the details of the CIA's actions, but you are sure that they consist of violations? Is that right? Of course. Government is a criminal organization, by definition.

That's all you need to know about it.

On 6/17/2015 7:19 PM, Juan wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:28:27 -0400 Tim Beelen wrote:

...

You should stop smoking lettuce. Just because you think something is not a crime does not not make it not a crime.

I don't smoke lettuce. My example was meant to teach you the basics of morality - something you seem unable to grasp. I know you don't smoke lettuce. So, pay attention : human/natural rights exist PRIOR TO ANY FUCKING GOVERNMENT. I concede to that point.

Enve a retarded 'american' should know this if he bothered to check basic americunt propaganda like the 'declaration of independence' Dude, that is racist. I think. Calling all Americans cunts. Such a big geographical area too. North, South.

...

And I don't think 'murdering people for fun' is the USMC charter. That's what the shitbags do, however. So what you think about some nonsensical 'charter' has less than zero relevance.

...

It might be your observation but also generally not true for actual marines. And actually not true in any sense. So. There's that.

There's what? There's a neocon in this mailing list? Basically anyone you actually get to meet and say hello to. What do you

...

And the way you're talking you're probably are an anarchist. Which is also a form of government directed usually by direct democracy. Well, at least you figured out that I'm an anarchist, although funnily enough you don't seem to know what anarchy is.

...

government directed usually by direct democracy. Nope, that's not anarchy. Okay, lets try Bakunin, because for a guy who does not no anything about Anarchism I sure know about him. He claims to "organize from below,

So, I happen to know a few people that are marines. They don't like killing and are generally very agreeable. Would you like to meet one? think they are? Big bad bulky continuously angry men? through local structures interlinked on a federalist basis". I agree with Bakunin on this point. It also happens to be a form of direct democracy. Can also be considered to be a government without stretching the term in any way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism Oh, crikey, federalism is a form of government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy Oh fuck, it is mainly used by a horde of anarchist writers :D

...

...

Wait, you were whining about what the russian government does, right? And on what grounds? Whatever the russian gov't does is 'legal' and 'not criminal'....because they say so! It might be legal, but it's definitely not moral. Which makes it criminal. See? That's your 'theory' at work. Not a very clever theory, I might add.

You're the inane one here. Juxtaposing random shit, yelling that all governments are criminal enterprises like it means something.

It's a basic truth, sonny. It may mean nothing to government worshiping psychos/neocons, but...it is still true.

Yea, all hail the state. The great provider.

...

HUMANITY IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE BECAUSE IT'S AGENTS COMMIT CRIMES.

No, your wrong analogy only shows that you don't know what you're talking about or are plainly dishonest. Or both.

No no, I'm not dishonest. It's just that you're polarizing. You can't find an individual to blame like a proper anarchist. So you blame a group. Like a fucking Nazi.

...

That obviously makes no sense because not all humans are agents that commit crimes. Neither do all agents of governments commit crimes.

Yes they do, to varying degrees. They are all funded with stolen money for starters.

Well, that's a stretch since, well I can type my fingers raw with anarchist examples of governments, either in literature or in actuality.

...

...

...

On 6/17/2015 3:33 PM, Juan wrote:

...

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:53:55 -0400 Tim Beelen wrote:

...

So, you have no knowledge of all the details of the CIA's actions, but you are sure that they consist of violations? Is that right? Of course. Government is a criminal organization, by definition.

That's all you need to know about it.

On 6/17/2015 8:31 PM, Juan wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:57:35 -0400 Tim Beelen wrote:

...

...

So, pay attention : human/natural rights exist PRIOR TO ANY FUCKING GOVERNMENT. I concede to that point. Fine. Now work out the logical conclusions that follow from that premise. Here's one : any violation of such rights is criminal. Well, it's not necessarily immoral. So not necessarily criminal. Even your own dictionary definition of anarchy provides mentions a government. Albeit a minimal one. Governed you are. Whether it's by consensus, opt-in or otherwise.

...

So, I happen to know a few people that are marines. They don't like killing and are generally very agreeable. Would you like to meet one?

Not really. And I happen to live outside the direct 'jurisdiction' of the US government. Now, if you want to send one of your friends, unarmed, to my house, I might talk to him. From a safe distance and while pointing a gun at him, just in case. -.-

...

...

...

It might be your observation but also generally not true for actual marines. And actually not true in any sense. So. There's that. There's what? There's a neocon in this mailing list? Basically anyone you actually get to meet and say hello to. What do you think they are? Big bad bulky continuously angry men?

They are people who kill other people when ordered to. That's all that counts.

? There is lots of that going around amongst humans. How do you suggest people defend themselves against /any /hostile force? Do you think that calling it a militia makes a difference? Having trained defenders of your homestead is no bad thing. It's actually quite smart. Confusing them with lies and propaganda and making them shoot people that are innocent /is/ repugnant and immoral. But being confused or ignorant is not inherent to the institute . It's something that happens through lack of education and indoctrination through faith institutes (religion). Humans are fallible and on top of that, programmable. Many of them suffer from a massive, violent even, cognitive dissonance if you talk about what they are actually doing. Once you turn back on the cause and effect part of their humanity it's all tears, anger and confusion. PTSD, shitty coping mechanisms. And you just put them all in a hole, categorizing like a common Nazi.

...

...

Nope, that's not anarchy. Okay, lets try Bakunin, because for a guy who does not no anything about Anarchism I sure know about him. He claims to "organize from below, through local structures interlinked on a federalist basis". I agree with Bakunin on this point. It also happens to be a form of direct democracy. If individuals are free to NOT participate in such organization if they wish, then yes, it's anarchy.

If individuals are subjected to such organization against their will then no, that's not anarchy, bakunin or not.

And since you like dictionaries

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism?s=t

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism 1*:* a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY; i.e.: Government as in a society's organizational form, but not it's authority. I.e. Direct Democracy.

"a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty. "

Oops. Government and anarchy just happen to be mutually exclusive concepts. (That of course shouldn't be news...)

Government OR governmental restraint. Government non-the-less. Learn to read you illiterate :D But yea, I agree that for the sake of the argument they could be considered mutually exclusive. If you want to abolish government. Which is kind of strange because every form of anarchism usually has an adjective regarding it's organization. Federated, syndicalists. All of them are organized in some fashion shape or form. Now, I don't mind NOT calling that form a form of government. But I don't want to confuse people in to thinking that anarchism is some kind of synonym for chaos.

J.

"Blakley, a former Marine who had been stationed in Afghanistan," http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/06/south-carolina-deputy-charged-with... Yeah, the typical american psycho has trouble understanding what '(in-)voluntary' means.

2015-06-18 11:25 GMT+09:00 Zenaan Harkness :

...

group. Like a fucking Nazi.

Godwin's Law!

We might want to think of some hypothetical adversaries. Fiction may not be taken so very seriously as the nazi's - but at least we will get better accuracy in describing certain risks of government, discrimination, etc. Then Godwin's can be put to a peaceful rest, and discussion can do away with the hard-to-pin-down concept-cluster that is National Socialism.

On 06/17/2015 03:28 PM, Tim Beelen wrote:

You should stop smoking lettuce.

Sorry to interject but I read alot of geopolitical mayhem related 'news' every day and to stay focused, if not sane, I smoke lettuce at every opportunity. It's so much more fun to 'connect-the-dots' that way, and as far as thinking 'outside the box', smoke enough of the Leafy Greens I've been smoking and all of a sudden... A flash of inspiration... Why think OUTSIDE the box. Let's just assume there is no "Box".