Wikileaks reveals global Surveillance system - Page 22

On August 14 2012 05:02 RancidTurnip wrote:

WE DON'T LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! The US has NEVER been a democracy!

On August 13 2012 23:36 Meril wrote:
Sorry, but I don't get how people can evaluate terrorism as huge issue. I would say its statistically irrelevant. Every 3 seconds someone dies cause of hunger. So many people die cause of cancer, traffic accidents... If every year there would be an 11. september, it would still be a very minor issue. If you want to save peoples lifes, help people in countries to produce food, invest in science to defeat illness. If you want to lower criminal rate then fight against social injustice. A normal person having everything they need to live a carefree life won't kill someone just for no reason. And if someone is crazy and decides he uses his kitchen knife to kill random people there is nothing you could ever do about that.
Now the bad thing about surveillance is that power in the hands of a few people has a very high chance to be abused. Also I got the impression that our society promotes immoral persons to high ranked jobs. I know 3 companies at marketing level and in each of them lying was the common case. If I meet a person at lets say a club and he says something I normally expect them to tell the truth. If you talk with a manager you should question every sentence he says. Lying just to get an advantage is just common practice.

On August 14 2012 05:24 Djzapz wrote:

It is and has always been. Your anger doesn't change facts, no matter how hard you try.

On August 14 2012 05:34 Zodiac107 wrote:

Isn't the US a Republic?

On August 14 2012 05:37 Whitewing wrote:


To clarify, a Republic is a representative democracy: it most certainly qualifies as a form of democracy.

On August 14 2012 04:52 zalz wrote:


Yes, and that was the wrong thing to do.

Then, when America went into the right direction, Al-Qaeda claimed it as one of the most important motivations for their existence.

Backing genocide is but one thing that the west will have to do in order to 'please' Islamic terrorists. The question is, are the appeasers ready to surrender that much?

Saying that America's foreign policy is to blame is a cop-out when you look at what these terrorists demand. Leaving other countries alone is going to mean watching genocides play out. This high and mighty attitude that America needs to "mind its own business," means standing by and watching evil play out.

When even something like having diplomatic relations with a nation is considered an invasion of the middle-east, you need to be intellectually honest and admit that the price to pay is a great deal higher than America just "minding its own business."



This is where you run into the problem of terrorism being ill-defined, allowing people to claim literally anything as being a terrorist act.

It kind of like how some people believe that Americans are literally slaves, because they have to work to earn their money. Is that a correct usage of the word slave? Not exactly, but the word is so broad that it is almost meaningless.

The same goes for America and terrorism. By its own definition, America does not engage in terrorism. By the definition of a tinfoil person, they support all the terrorism in the world.

Getting into that is one giant semantic clusterfuck. I do not nearly hate myself enough to subject myself to the tortureous process that is a debate about semantics.

On August 14 2012 05:47 Zodiac107 wrote:
One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

On August 14 2012 05:43 Zahir wrote:


Appreciate the response. I see no further reason to debate because, as you have said, our differences largely rest in semantics. So long as we can agree that America has pursued and supported highly immoral and destructive activities in the past, and should refrain from doing so in the future. I also think that the decision to stop needs to be made regardless of who is upset by it, be it neo cons or islamic terrorists. I think that with a more humane foreign policy, and less US support being thrown to terrorists (such as the jihadists used against ussr) terrorism will be heavily reduced. (you can choose to call them something other than terrorists if that is how your definitions work)

I do not know if terrorism or Mass murder will ever cease to be a problem though, particularly Given the increasing destructive capability of our technology. I am in favor of increased surveillance not merely to thwart terrorists, but other violent crimes as well. My main point is that i believe that law enforcement is much more capable of running surveillance responsibly when compared with the CIA, intelligence contractors and corporations. Since i see nothing in your stance to refute this, I see no reason to argue.

On August 14 2012 06:05 zalz wrote:


Only if you have a Newspeak understanding of the word freedom.

One small difference for example:

Dutch freedom fighters that fought the Germans didn't go out and blow themselves up in the middle of a market square in order to kill as many Dutch people as possible so they could establish a religo-fascist regime.

Just a small point where a Dutch freedom fighter and a Qutbist-terrorist are different.

On August 11 2012 11:01 Whitewing wrote:


Again, if you'd read my previous posts, it's not about being recorded, it's about who is doing the recording, and on what kind of scale, for what purpose. The issue is about private corporations recording massive amounts of people for some purpose. Also, for the record, if some dolt followed me around and recorded everything I did, he could easily get arrested for that and I could get a restraining order.

To be fair, I'm honestly not too concerned about it as it is now, but just be aware things could go downhill pretty easily if people just roll over for more and more power to the corporations and the government.

On August 14 2012 06:17 iloveav wrote:
This was clear in early 2000, when the Programs Echelon and some other i cant remmber were commented among hacker groups (we are not talking about hackers that make hacks for sc2, but the ones that can get into virtually any system).
Some of the most popular opinions now among those groups (some of them from annonymous, some from other sources), are for example that companies that stated they had a security breach and some of their data got stolen actually sell that information to various companies.

That would be a reason to why those security breaches never end up in some people going to jail and the information recovered.
Kinda like the massive viruses that exist only so you buy an antivirus program.

Another interesting story floating around there is that 9/11 was actually done by the CIA to get more funding.

Most of this stuff seems like paranoic stories, but the more you think about it, the more "it makes sence" if you think that rich people/people who control the world dont give a shit about general population (wich seems to be the general reality, just have a look at politicians...).