Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s Open Wound

edwardsnowden.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–349 of 349 posts

Re: America’s Open Wound

#341

Post by HyperSane »

scottLobster wrote: post #157
HyperSane wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He very vocally defended Russia while they were building up to the invasion and then became completely silent after they invaded. I wouldn't be surprised if Snowden doesn't actually have the password to his Twitter account and can only post Putin approved tweets.

A lot of people, including establishment "experts" didn't think Russia was going to invade and called US estimations war-mongering. Also it's probably not a good idea to antagonize the people holding you hostage, he's one hospital trip away from falling out a window. Snowden is clearly trying to be as effective as he can in spreading his message, given his conditions. He's already sacrificed any semblance of a normal…

"A lot of people, including establishment "experts" didn't think Russia was going to invade and called US estimations war-mongering."

And they were all proven definitively wrong, the only war mongerer is Putin, who just escalated his invasion of Ukraine by ordering a partial mobilization. If you think that the GRU doesn't have the password for Snowden's twitter then you are very gullible.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#342

Post by zmgsabst »

roflyear wrote: post #170
zmgsabst wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not different: It’s literally the start of the video, where they dim the lights to get that dark scene. Tell me you didn’t watch your own source without telling me you didn’t watch your own source, LOL

They are massively different, from the lighting, to the framing, to the aspect ratio, to the emotion Biden is displaying. You're just a troll.

Yes — the photo is a particular moment from that speech. Obviously characteristics of the photo change with a different camera.

You’re outright lying that the lighting is different: they immediately dim the lights at the start of that video to get the dark red scene.

I have some serious questions why you’re trying to get people to “ignore their lying eyes” and dismissing people who are pointing out that photo matches the scene intentionally created at the start of the video as trolls.

I don’t find that genuine.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#343

Post by somenameforme »

AdamH12113 wrote: post #340
somenameforme wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything can be made to seem something other than what it is from some angle or another - or some quote or another. The best of intentions can be turned into the worst, and the worst into the best. The question is one of intent. So I'll ask you. This [1] is the CSPAN coverage, which as close as one to get as definitive. And it is effectively identical to all other coverage as well. Do you genuinely believe the long z…

It didn't look particularly creepy to me to begin with. I linked to the wider-angle photos to show what the overall lighting of the building was designed to look like. The close-up video of Biden speaking is pretty standard, I agree. I looked at the C-SPAN video and saw the same crappy background lighting and the same on-the-fly attempt to fix it, along with occasional crowd shots of people in folding chairs politely…

I'll close with one final note. Try to imagine this was otherwise identical setup, and even an identical speech. The only thing we'll change is that instead of the speaker invoking 1 day of riots in an effort to demonize his political opponents, it was instead a Republican speaker invoking the years of riots prior with the same motivation.

If you genuinely believe what you're saying here, then you would hold those exact same opinions in such a scenario.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#344

Post by tinco »

roflyear wrote: post #337
tinco wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yeah, of course she could have just been murdered by the enemies she acquired naturally as an 8 year old.

That's not what I'm asking at all. I'm asking if she was purposefully targeted (assassination) or if she was in a house where other's were the targets (seems to be the case). Why be a jerk?

Because it doesn't matter. Who cares if they were specifically to kill her, which is loathsome, or that they were there to kill her family and were so ruthless they didn't bother to spare her. Either situation speaks to the general immorality of the organization.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#345

Post by fit2rule »

canjobear wrote: post #31
hunglee2 wrote: post #3

it is not clear what could be done should an intelligence agency turn rogue, and become operationally independent from the government. It's basically a non-democratic power centre which - because it is not subject to elections - will always outlast any politician, and because of the nature of the work, has vast powers of direct and indirect influence. Good job that this is not the case in the US

Is CIA rogue? Many of the morally upsetting acts documented here (killing an 8 year old girl, spying on the American people) seem to have been ordered by officials in the elected government.

No post body was provided.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#346

Post by fit2rule »

eternalban wrote: post #308
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just prompts more questions, he lauds Allen Dulles: > Allen Welsh Dulles (/ˈdʌləs/, /ˈdʌlɪs/; April 7, 1893 – January 29, 1969) was the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), and its longest-serving director to date. As head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the early Cold War, he oversaw the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, the Lockheed U-2 aircraft progra…

There are two general critical approaches to a spook agency (thank you Elizabeth I): One is that they are fundamentally evil prone, by very nature of the task. This is your take. It's a plebe take. (I'm a plebe so no offense intended! /g) The other is that the power elite in a society typically reach an understanding on how things are done. And CIA basically is breaking that understanding, via undisclosed 'scope cree…

No post body was provided.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#347

Post by britzkopf »

sbf501 wrote: post #181
britzkopf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe most judgements share some common edges with some fallacious logical forms, and yet retain some validity. Your argument, for example, has some commonality with what I would call the "fallacy" fallacy, in which one finds an insignificant echo of a fallacy in another's view and dismisses the entirety of what they have to say.

You invented a meaningless term called a fallacy fallacy and then committed exactly that. /Chef's kiss/

Reread the first sentence very carefully. The second sentence defines (i.e. gives a "meaning" to) the term.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#348

Post by carapace »

scottLobster wrote: post #328
carapace wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But by saying that aloud and apparently in earnest you have revealed that you are someone whose beliefs and opinions on the matter are not worth considering. You should not be allowed to run the CIA nor should anyone who thinks like you.

Are you okay? I'm simply describing the way things are, and to some degree or another always have been. Good thing you're not in charge, your idealism would quickly turn to anarchism and despair if you saw how the sausage is made. You'd bring the whole house down on all our heads just to spite it.

I thought about not replying, but there's a slim chance that I may be able to help you out.

You're living in a hell. The gates of your hell are not locked nor guarded, you can leave whenever you want, but you have to realize that you're in hell before you can realize that there's a better place to be.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#349

Post by Chris2048 »

slg wrote: post #336
Chris2048 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So his option was to roll the dice and hope it turned out like CM? Doesn't sound like that was the wrong choice - you are assuming he would have been pardoned. Arguably even CM didn't get leniency (from the courts) - the president overrode the court. > his decision was wrong from both an ethical Why ethical?

Manning's "crime" was much more severe than Snowden initial "crime". Snowden was more targeted and has a much better case at being a true whistleblower. Manning dumped a bunch of unrelated documents, many of them having little public value. Snowden did a better job of limiting the scope to specific issues. That suggests he would receive better treatment from politicians and the legal system. However he fled the count…

> That suggests he would

Perhaps Snowden disagrees. It's easy to say what he did wrong with no skin in the game.

Everyone also said it was obvious J Depp was going to lose his second case against Amber on the basis that American courts are harder to win in that the British court he already lost in. Look how that turned out.

> breaking the law is an important part of civil disobedience

Protesting unjust laws and whistleblowing are different things. A WB is still effective even when anonymous - this was not "civil disobedience", nor "break[ing] a law that conscience tells him is unjust" in the same sense as civil rights issues.

> To quote MLK

you could very easily quote any number of murdered civil rights leaders. Martyrdom isn't a very convincing argument.

> MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail was so powerful was because it was written from Birmingham Jail

Nice that strategy worked out. Suggesting choosing any other strategy is unethical, or going to jail is some kind of "fight", is nonsense. Do you think the same ethos applies to protesting genocide, or does protesting government with long jail sentences have some kind of honour to it?

Post reply on HN