501–510 of 510 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To play devil's advocate: things that sound minor like parking spaces are regularly the grist of intelligence operations. And the targets are rarely heads of state or other bigwigs — less-prominent people are easier to recruit, kill, harass, etc.
weren't there some intelligence operations during the vietnam war where "benign" peanut butter orders predicted troop movements?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a non-USAer, I strongly disagree. There are probably a handful of other countries watching you right now (in a broad, abstract sense) and the USA is the least of our concerns. There is a reason why nothing significant came out of it: every other country knows that this is happening (not exactly but roughly) and they know there are much worse problems to worry about, given other strong international players such as…
This isn't about removing the USA from the board, this is about letting the truth out. That thing we claim to base our democracies upon. Your argument boils down to giving up our supposedly better values in order to defeat the "evil guys". I also refuse to accept that our future is under the hegemony of any single nation. So far the only country we have proof of going for hegemony is the USA. Russia and China are con…
Russia is invading a neighboring country, and from talking to Lithuanians, the Russia people seem rather keen on returning to the "good old days" of the Soviet Empire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your claim being true (even tho your "tons of evidence" amounts to 1 weak case so far) or not, the opposite claim is a much stronger and compelling one. Leaking civilian killings or military abuse in wars prevent more from happening, thus saving lives and many of them. Sources? Abu Grahib for one. How did that leak cause anyone to die? It has probably saved lives or prevented further abuse by causing accountability.…
> Leaking civilian killings or military abuse in wars prevent more from happening, thus saving lives and many of them. maybe, maybe not, but completely irrelevant to the discussion, since we're evaluating one simple, objective, yes or no question you can find at the bottom of this post, not comparing anything > There's overwhelming evidence that leaks cause more good than they do harm same here as above: that's irrel…
> the opposite claim to >1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, is No.
I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall, so my claim is that it doesn't matter if leaks sometimes cause deaths as leaks save more lives than they take, especially the lives of innocents. And by the way my claim is 100% clear in all of my comments. If you choose to engage me then accept to debate my claim or stop wasting time.
> Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by an intelligence leak?
This is a ridiculous thing to debate on, and you know it really well. Next thing we're going to debate idiotic stuff like "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by drinking too much water?"
If all you cared about was "winning" the debate on a technicality, congratulations! Shame that it doesn't amount to anything in the real world.
If the point was to have a constructive discussion and gain some additional insight on the topic, then this was a complete waste of time, at least as long as you refuse to listen what other people have to say and fixate on a technicality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Leaking civilian killings or military abuse in wars prevent more from happening, thus saving lives and many of them. maybe, maybe not, but completely irrelevant to the discussion, since we're evaluating one simple, objective, yes or no question you can find at the bottom of this post, not comparing anything > There's overwhelming evidence that leaks cause more good than they do harm same here as above: that's irrel…
> maybe, maybe not, but completely irrelevant to the discussion, since we're evaluating one simple, objective, yes or no question you can find at the bottom of this post, not comparing anything > the opposite claim to >1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, is No. I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall, so my claim is that it doesn't matter if leaks sometimes cause deaths as leaks save mor…
No.
You're arguing with the claim that intelligence leaks have killed greater than 1 humans in history.
Everything else is a distraction from that question. If you can't agree on a common set of facts, like that one, you aren't ready to graduate to the next discussion, whether it be a comparative discussion of net benefits or anything else. And by the way that claim is 100% clear in all of my comments. If you choose to engage me then accept to discuss that claim or stop wasting time.
Your inability to acknowledge the simple truth of the claim we're discussing shows you to be the one treating this as a debate, and you're the one insisting on "winning" by refusing to acknowledge even a basic set of facts.
Until you can do that, you're not ready for the next topic, which, obviously, necessarily builds upon that shared set of facts. It's like trying to discuss the circumference of earth with someone who refuses to acknowledge it's round(ish).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> maybe, maybe not, but completely irrelevant to the discussion, since we're evaluating one simple, objective, yes or no question you can find at the bottom of this post, not comparing anything > the opposite claim to >1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, is No. I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall, so my claim is that it doesn't matter if leaks sometimes cause deaths as leaks save mor…
> I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall No. You're arguing with the claim that intelligence leaks have killed greater than 1 humans in history. Everything else is a distraction from that question. If you can't agree on a common set of facts, like that one, you aren't ready to graduate to the next discussion, whether it be a comparative discussion of net benefits or anything else. And by the way that claim…
"Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by having too vigorous sex?"
"Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by getting into a heated discussion about a stupid topic?"
"Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by riding a bike?"
I rest my case, this is a complete waste of time and I give it up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall No. You're arguing with the claim that intelligence leaks have killed greater than 1 humans in history. Everything else is a distraction from that question. If you can't agree on a common set of facts, like that one, you aren't ready to graduate to the next discussion, whether it be a comparative discussion of net benefits or anything else. And by the way that claim…
"Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by drinking too much water?" "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by having too vigorous sex?" "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by getting into a heated discussion about a stupid topic?" "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by riding a bike?" I rest my case, this is a complete waste of time and I give it up.
by failing to acknowledge the answer (again: "yes"), you fail to graduate to the next discussion, which, obviously, necessarily builds upon a shared understanding of facts
otherwise, it'd be like discussing the circumference of earth with one who fails to even acknowledge its roundness: you simply don't get to discuss the implications of the facts while you're arguing with those very facts
your own post above illustrates how bizarre it is that you're unable to acknowledge something so obviously true: should we expect you next to similarly refuse to acknowledge people have ever died from sex or bicycling or drinking too much water?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Julian assange is a hypocritical scam artist - says a bunch of nice sounding words about democracy, abuse of power and war and yet his actions, speaking louder than words, increased all of those.
his actions, indeed speaking louder than words. he showed how the American government is corrupted to the core and lawless and he is facing the consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It has a well-sourced Wikipedia page for crying out loud That well-sourced Wikipedia article doesn't say what you claim. Nowhere does it say the US government can access data on its own citizens from other Five Eyes countries. It says this: "So far, no court case has been brought against any US intelligence community member claiming that they went around US domestic law to have foreign countries spy on US citizens…
Yes, “we’ve found no wrongdoing.” The page does mention the canadian case and european fallout (though that with conflicting language). Your premise is faulty however—that something does not exist because there’s not a court case. - Of course they help each other, why would they even bother to get in touch otherwise? - Of course warrants are rubber stamped. - There’s no laws against using third party data. - No one e…
My premise is that something does not exist because there are no documents claiming it does. Snowden had the chance to leak such documents, but he did not. Despite that, you produced a conspiracy out of thin air as if Snowden had produced such documents.
> - Of course warrants are rubber stamped
Then why haven't we seen thousands of warrants to obtain data from other countries on US citizens used in prosecutions?
> Of course they help each other, why would they even bother to get in touch otherwise
They help each other by sharing intelligence in other countries, not by helping each other break their own laws.
> - There’s no laws against using third party data
Then why doesn't the government just read your email?
> This whole subthread is an immaterial pedantic angle and waste of time, and I won’t be returning here further.
The next time you post conspiracy theories on HN, I will be there.
Conscience is rarely a good thing.
Depends on what you consider good.
If you do not go by conscience, but use your own observation and feeling, you must will thyself not to fall for the wrong moral nor to value the wrong ethic. One learns and grows more without conscience.
Conscience depends on the source of which you trust and believe. If you are the source, that is not conscience but regular sciens, also called sentience. If your sentience is true to nature you have no need of conscience, also called sapiens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are your thoughts on big vs small govt?
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35923149
At this point, if I can export my contributions and not have my data locked up here, I will be happy to quit this site.