81–90 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[dead]
I don’t know what the context of this is (or its legitimacy), but what you’re implying is extremely offensive… especially to the Jewish members of my family who did fight in WWII under extremely anti-semitic leadership who would send them on missions first (not last!) that they thought were the most dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know what the context of this is (or its legitimacy), but what you’re implying is extremely offensive… especially to the Jewish members of my family who did fight in WWII under extremely anti-semitic leadership who would send them on missions first (not last!) that they thought were the most dangerous.
In what reasonable way is what you wrote an argument? Don’t be offended, be refuting .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[dead]
I don’t know what the context of this is (or its legitimacy), but what you’re implying is extremely offensive… especially to the Jewish members of my family who did fight in WWII under extremely anti-semitic leadership who would send them on missions first (not last!) that they thought were the most dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the leadership of this other organization selected? It sounds like a government agency by another name.
There are a number of ways to approach it. But even if it's just a different set of elected officials, you'd get inter-agency competition.
It has not gone well. It turns out the voters can’t be bothered to learn about more than a few top line races. Anything under that is either straight party line or random.
Why do we have to rely on Republicans to curtail the FBI's civil liberties violations? That's scary AF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know what the context of this is (or its legitimacy), but what you’re implying is extremely offensive… especially to the Jewish members of my family who did fight in WWII under extremely anti-semitic leadership who would send them on missions first (not last!) that they thought were the most dangerous.
That... is not anyhow related to the discussion, nor an argument for/against anything on this page. And thank you for your ancestors bravery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not a good take. There are many moral and political concerns with five eyes, but casting all international cooperation as “treason” discredits your position.
Casting spying as the only means of international cooperation is disingenuous.
Where in the world did you get that strange claim about what I said?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
5 eyes as a concept is essentially institutionalized treason. There’s no such thing as a friendly foreign intelligence service, their goals are directly against the interest of the American public/civilian world (which in theory our intelligence services work for) A CIA officer conspiring with GCHQ to defraud the United States should result in lifetime imprisonment.
That is not a good take. There are many moral and political concerns with five eyes, but casting all international cooperation as “treason” discredits your position.
Most US folks here on HN have some moral qualms with that, now imagine how rest of the world sees this, and how it makes us feel (our lives and rights are inferior to US citizens, a great way to build long term relationship as an example)