Guardian, Snowden etc

[seawolf]

That must be the bits we don't see then since the bits we do see more frequently suggest they are barely competent enough to tie their own shoelaces.

 

Precisely the point. You DON'T see or hear about 99.999999999999% of what the NSA or GCHQ do and the "bits" you do see are usually when someone has really stuffed up their job.

 

I doubt many people in the 'general population' really think other nations are not out to protect their own interests just as much as their own nation is.

 

The "general population" lives in a fantasy world in this regard and what is being kept in the dark is far more than just nations protecting their own interests. I am speaking of things that occur regularly that would be sufficient for a declaration of war, and many citizens of those nations would demand such if they knew about them.

 

What I think Snowden was a little miffed about was quite the extent of the states snooping that was operating outside of legal oversight when the snooping is directed at the states own citizens.

 

This had been known about for years before Snowden, and was reported on by the press at least as early as 2008 based on information provided by some former low-level NSA employees who had worked in comms intercept sites. These intercepts are not operating outside of government (legal) oversight and are fully lawful. When the leaders of the US and UK abandoned the protections that were set out in USSIDs 18 and 9 and laws such as the Patriot Act and new Presidential Executive Orders (some public, some classified) were enacted by Bush and Obama (or that Obama saw fit to keep, so don't blame Bush for it all) the NSA and other intel agencies were given new guidelines and orders and are in fact operating legally and within their authority. Any denials to such by either government in that regard is complete BS. Presidents have been able to operate this way for decades, and even under Clinton there were some things going on and Executive Orders issued that many people would find rather "unsavoury". The point is don't blame the Intel Agencies for doing what they've been ordered to do by the leaders that the citizens have elected.

 

There are existing laws and procedures on the books for tapping communications of suspects who are entitled to the protection of the law of their own country. Apparently those laws are no longer fashionable and we have moved into a more Big Brother "Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear", mode.

 

Those laws were deemed to be too laborious and slow moving (by our elected leaders) to allow intelligence agencies with the ability to gather and respond adequately to real-time or near real-time intelligence, particularly in regards to terrorism. The requirement to obtain court orders and such for every proposed intercept does not work when dealing with terrorists in particular. If the government didn't take these actions and terrorist acts regularly hit our cities, planes, schools, hospitals, dams, power plants, military bases, etc. then the public outcry would border on open revolt. Governments are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. So, the laws have not been ignored, but have been superseded by new laws by leaders who legally have the power to enact such laws either publicly or privately (per the existing laws of the US or UK giving them the power to do so).

[pcstru]

Precisely the point. You DON'T see or hear about 99.999999999999% of what the NSA or GCHQ do and the "bits" you do see are usually when someone has really stuffed up their job.

I guess since there is naturally no evidence of this we will just have to take your word for it, you obvioulsy being in the know and all.

The "general population" lives in a fantasy world in this regard and what is being kept in the dark is far more than just nations protecting their own interests. I am speaking of things that occur regularly that would be sufficient for a declaration of war, and many citizens of those nations would demand such if they knew about them.

Right. So some examples and evidence would help, but let me guess, you could tell me but then you would have to kill me.

This had been known about for years before Snowden, and was reported on by the press at least as early as 2008 based on information provided by some former low-level NSA employees who had worked in comms intercept sites. These intercepts are not operating outside of government (legal) oversight and are fully lawful. When the leaders of the US and UK abandoned the protections that were set out in USSIDs 18 and 9 and laws such as the Patriot Act and new Presidential Executive Orders (some public, some classified) were enacted by Bush and Obama (or that Obama saw fit to keep, so don't blame Bush for it all) the NSA and other intel agencies were given new guidelines and orders and are in fact operating legally and within their authority. Any denials to such by either government in that regard is complete BS. Presidents have been able to operate this way for decades, and even under Clinton there were some things going on and Executive Orders issued that many people would find rather "unsavoury". The point is don't blame the Intel Agencies for doing what they've been ordered to do by the leaders that the citizens have elected.

I (personally) don't blame government agencies for things that are properly the responsibility of governments. IMO the routine surveillance by default of all citizens communications goes beyond the legislation which was crafted to deal with Terrorists. But in the brain dead "War on Terror", I've given up expecting governments to actually think that our freedoms are worth protecting and worth the price.

Those laws were deemed to be too laborious and slow moving (by our elected leaders) to allow intelligence agencies with the ability to gather and respond adequately to real-time or near real-time intelligence, particularly in regards to terrorism. The requirement to obtain court orders and such for every proposed intercept does not work when dealing with terrorists in particular. If the government didn't take these actions and terrorist acts regularly hit our cities, planes, schools, hospitals, dams, power plants, military bases, etc. then the public outcry would border on open revolt. Governments are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. So, the laws have not been ignored, but have been superseded by new laws by leaders who legally have the power to enact such laws either publicly or privately (per the existing laws of the US or UK giving them the power to do so).

 

Funny how we (in the UK) managed to live with the IRA for so many years (funded by lovely Americans) and didn't have to resort to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When I read your paragraph above it takes me straight into Orwell's 1984, the population fed fear of the Urasian menace to keep them compliant. We should instigate a two minute hate - everyone standing infront of their TV with pictures of OBL displayed for us to vent our hatred. Freedom, Justice, Privacy - if we throw those out we might as well let the terrorists win, although seeing as we are reigning death from the sky using unmanned drones in foreign countries we have not even declared war on, I'm not quite sure any more what makes them terrorists and us the good guys.

Edited August 23, 2013 by pcstru

[Theblacksheep]

What most people in the world fail to realise about the work done by the NSA and GCHQ is that they tend to deal with potentially volatile situations and dangerous events in the world rather quietly in the interest of protecting peace and order as much as possible.

 

Quietly protecting their interests, like the killing of journo's as Mannings video shows.

 

Protecting peace and order, my arse, someone has been watching too much 24. It amazes me the amount of people that will believe and try to justify any propaganda their government tells them to.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Theblacksheep

[sonofsanta]

I will never tire of quoting Benjamin Franklin on this topic:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[CyberNerd]

This might explain why they were so keen on getting hold of the files Miranda was carrying:

Exclusive: UK

[seawolf]

I guess since there is naturally no evidence of this we will just have to take your word for it, you obvioulsy being in the know and all.

 

Unless anyone else on this thread actually worked for the NSA for nearly a decade, then yes I suppose you will.

 

Right. So some examples and evidence would help, but let me guess, you could tell me but then you would have to kill me.

 

...or option B, I honour my word.

 

Funny how we (in the UK) managed to live with the IRA for so many years (funded by lovely Americans) and didn't have to resort to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When I read your paragraph above it takes me straight into Orwell's 1984, the population fed fear of the Urasian menace to keep them compliant. We should instigate a two minute hate - everyone standing infront of their TV with pictures of OBL displayed for us to vent our hatred. Freedom, Justice, Privacy - if we throw those out we might as well let the terrorists win, although seeing as we are reigning death from the sky using unmanned drones in foreign countries we have not even declared war on, I'm not quite sure any more what makes them terrorists and us the good guys.

 

The IRA killed around 1,800 people over a 30 year period with the majority of those being police or military personnel. Whereas 3,000 civilians died in a single morning due to terrorists flying airliners into buildings in 2001. If the IRA had ever resorted to such tactics the response would have been severe and aggressive I assure you. The conflict with the IRA was more the UK's civil war than a war on terror. It really is a pale comparison. I recommend visiting terrorist occupied areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, or Syria sometime if you're not quite sure what differentiates the US and UK from the terrorists. Might be an eye opener. I'm not saying that I agree with everything that has been done in the name of fighting terrorists, but you really don't understand their mindset and the things they have attempted to do in your country and many others, which have been stopped by good intel.

[seawolf]

Quietly protecting their interests, like the killing of journo's as Mannings video shows.

 

Protecting peace and order, my arse, someone has been watching too much 24. It amazes me the amount of people that will believe and try to justify any propaganda their government tells them to.

 

I didn't realise that was the NSA or GCHQ killing journalists in the videos...oh wait it wasn't. Never mind, bad example.

 

No, I'm speaking as someone with first person knowledge and many years of it. I wouldn't expect you to understand or accept what really goes on because much of it was a shock to me as a young, naive new agent. Let's just say the scales fell off of the eyes rather quickly and that several "respected" world leaders are exceedingly narcissistic and bordering on insanity.

[pcstru]

@ SecretSquirrel - I operate "Nullus in verbia"; evidence trumps all.

 

Not sure what you have in mind as to the "Terrorist" areas of Lybia, Iraq etc. The eye opener in Pakistan might be why the killing of innocent civilians (women and children) by unmanned drones operated by the USA, is not breeding more terrorists than it is. Iraq is a bit of a sore point in relation to "Terrorists" - there simply were none there until we invaded the country based on ... oh that's right, faulty intelligence, supplied by CGHQ and the NSA. Still, I suppose the subsequent deaths of a few hundred thousands Iraqi's as a result of that war is just so much collateral damage. Nothing to worry about and anyway, hell, we probably can't even hope to understand it anyway. Right?

[superatticman]

You could say the 'Iron Fist' of Dictators has been more successful at keeping certain countries in order than Western style governments have. As far as assisting them goes this is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Sit by and let the bloodshed continue and you are failing to do your bit to save humanity. However, get involved, then you are a warmonger and the resultant effect, even when the military action is over, is usually ever more bloodshed than before as there is no one about to stop armed gangs forming in the struggle for power. Of course if you do hang about with a large force, then you are accused of trying to bring back colonialism!

 

Either way, I'd much rather live in a Western Democracy, even if it does have its flaws.

[pcstru]

The IRA killed around 1,800 people over a 30 year period with the majority of those being police or military personnel. Whereas 3,000 civilians died in a single morning due to terrorists flying airliners into buildings in 2001. If the IRA had ever resorted to such tactics the response would have been severe and aggressive I assure you.

So you think if they had killed that number in that time, we would have had the right to fly bombing missions over Dublin, throwing LGB's into suspects cars? Perhaps we would have been justified in extending that to hunt down those who provided them havens and sponsored them with funds and weapons - we could have been targeting cruise missiles at little fund raising shindigs and if they hit, wiping out half of the New York Fire department! Oh the Irony.

 

The conflict with the IRA was more the UK's civil war than a war on terror.

 

Of course it was. How silly of me! They were rebels, freedom fighters, not Terrorists.

[pcstru]

Either way, I'd much rather live in a Western Democracy, even if it does have its flaws.

 

Personally so would I but the question might be why. The reasons generally involve words like freedom, justice, tolerance. When our states turn into bullies, when they torture and murder foreigners without legal oversight, when they imprison their own citizens and deny them access to legal process and representation; then I start to wonder.

[superatticman]

I'd say the two major reasons why most of us are happy to live in the Western World are:

 

Standard of living for the majority

Quality of life for the majority

 

I really don't think the ethics of Government are any real concern providing that the majority have a roof over their heads, access to healthcare, a chance to build a career etc. There will probably always be a small section of society that is marginalised. Sometimes this is courtesy of their own agenda, ie religious fanatics. Sometimes this is because of flaws in the 'system'. Either way most Western Countries provide a 'safety net' or an alternative path for those who are marginalised.

[seawolf]

So you think if they had killed that number in that time, we would have had the right to fly bombing missions over Dublin, throwing LGB's into suspects cars? Perhaps we would have been justified in extending that to hunt down those who provided them havens and sponsored them with funds and weapons - we could have been targeting cruise missiles at little fund raising shindigs and if they hit, wiping out half of the New York Fire department! Oh the Irony.

 

I never said it would give anyone the right, but an extreme response is most likely what would have occurred. You seem to have quite a hatred for any Americans who may have supported the IRA in deed or spirit. Much to my point about what would be going on in the world if the citizens of every nation really knew all that was going on between nations and the justice they would demand from their governments.

 

Of course it was. How silly of me! They were rebels, freedom fighters, not Terrorists.

 

civil war: [noun] a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

 

So, yes, of course it was.

Edited August 24, 2013 by seawolf

[seawolf]

Not sure what you have in mind as to the "Terrorist" areas of Lybia, Iraq etc. The eye opener in Pakistan might be why the killing of innocent civilians (women and children) by unmanned drones operated by the USA, is not breeding more terrorists than it is. Iraq is a bit of a sore point in relation to "Terrorists" - there simply were none there until we invaded the country based on ... oh that's right, faulty intelligence, supplied by CGHQ and the NSA. Still, I suppose the subsequent deaths of a few hundred thousands Iraqi's as a result of that war is just so much collateral damage. Nothing to worry about and anyway, hell, we probably can't even hope to understand it anyway. Right?

 

Now, I hate to burst your bubble, but that intel wasn't provided by the NSA. It was from the CIA. Always thought they were arrogant and sloppy myself. We did have verifiable (on ground) evidence of WDMs in Iraq up until late 1999, but since I left the agency in 2000 and the evidence presented was from 2003 I can't say. A lot can happen in three years time. I will say that Saddam went to great lengths to convince everyone that he had very dangerous capabilities, both to his enemies and his own people. Probably had something to do with ruling with an iron fist. If the fist has no iron, it can't rule very well, so I think Saddam probably did as good a job of framing himself on the WDMs as the CIA did.

 

You seem to think that I agree with the actions taken during the Iraq war and other conflicts or find the death toll acceptable. How you got that from my comments in defending the primary purpose of the NSA and GCHQ and what they do behind the scenes to protect the citizens of their respective countries is a stretch.

Edited August 24, 2013 by seawolf

[pcstru]

I never said it would give anyone the right, but an extreme response is most likely what would have occurred. You seem to have quite a hatred for any Americans who may have supported the IRA in deed or spirit.

I'm simply pointing out the the hypocrisy but I am of an age where I may well have very good reason for despising cowards who planted bombs indiscriminately targeting civilians. We could mention other terrorists the USA has supported. I believe they were quite chummy with one Osama Bin Laden, at one time supplying copious quantities of arms and money. That ... err, seemed to work out well.

civil war: [noun] a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

 

So, yes, of course it was.

 

Civil wars tend to involve rebel groups facing off against armies in pitched battles or skirmishes. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate by product of a civil war, civilians are not the actual target. The IRA targeted remembrance day gatherings with hidden bombs, the remote detonated devices besides marching bands and they secreted bombs in hotels targeting politicians. They set out to induce "Terror" in a population for political ends. If the word "Terrorist" does not apply to the IRA then it doesn't have much meaning.

 

Oh and the Éire is not the same country. You might whisper that to the NSA next time you visit so they can update their records.

[seawolf]

Civil wars tend to involve rebel groups facing off against armies in pitched battles or skirmishes. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate by product of a civil war, civilians are not the actual target. The IRA targeted remembrance day gatherings with hidden bombs, the remote detonated devices besides marching bands and they secreted bombs in hotels targeting politicians. They set out to induce "Terror" in a population for political ends. If the word "Terrorist" does not apply to the IRA then it doesn't have much meaning.

 

Then you don't have an understanding of the way war really works. It's not all pretty and neat where civilian casualties are minimised. In WW2 civilian casualties were very high on both sides, Germany bombed British citizens daily and the allies firebombed Japan (creating more civilian casualties than even the A-bombs). So, is that terrorism or war?I really wish people really understood this rather than the fairy tale world where it's possible for wars to be prosecuted entirely with surgical strikes and near zero civilian casualties if only we wanted to. There would be far fewer wars if the truth were understood.

 

Oh and the Éire is not the same country. You might whisper that to the NSA next time you visit so they can update their records.

 

Great, I'll let them know that Northern Ireland is no longer part of the United Kingdom....

[superatticman]

Never mind what has been, I see Obama and Cameron are promising a "serious response" if Chemical weapons are proven to have been used in Syria. One would have to assume this will be some kind of military action. Not really appropriate for the UK considering we have cut back our armed forces further since our last little foray into Libya?

 

We may well have the capability to take on the entire Syrian armed forces with what we have no matter how diminished we are. However that would more or less leave the UK defenceless given the slight chance that the conflict escalates into a full scale global conflict. Recent history suggests that these 'World Policing' scenarios do not escalate but you can never rule it out.

[pcstru]

Then you don't have an understanding of the way war really works. It's not all pretty and neat where civilian casualties are minimised.

You seem to have trouble understanding what is written. I didn't say "civilian casualties are minimised", I said they were a by product rather than the actual target. The IRA often deliberately, coldly, cynically targeted civilians. They were terrorist by their own admission, Seamus Twomey described their actions as "Terrorist Paramilitary". The goal was to force governance to become more and more severe - i.e to force the legitimate government have to resort to military rule, depriving ordinary citizens of their rights in order that they might be "safe". They deliberately targeted and killed civilians and as it happens, they were funded to a large part by USAians.

 

The point of this is that regardless of scale, we did not resort to depriving ordinary people of their rights using blanket surveillance of the "if you have nothing to hide you have noting to fear" mentality. We did not throw away our privacy and our rights to justice. We did not fly IRA prisoners off to Egypt to have them tortured. We did not lock them up in Guantanomo Bay like institutions without access to justice. We didn't fly drones over Dublin or New York and commit murder as we seem to be doing in Pakistan (a supposedly friendly country), Yemmen and Afghanistan! We didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater as we seem intent on doing now.

[pcstru]

Never mind what has been, I see Obama and Cameron are promising a "serious response" if Chemical weapons are proven to have been used in Syria. One would have to assume this will be some kind of military action. Not really appropriate for the UK considering we have cut back our armed forces further since our last little foray into Libya?

I think UK involvement mostly involves standing by the USA and yapping like a good puppy dog.

[seawolf]

You seem to have trouble understanding what is written. I didn't say "civilian casualties are minimised", I said they were a by product rather than the actual target.

 

Civil war is by definition a "civilian" war and civilians are the target because everyone capable of using a weapon of any sort is a potential or actual combatant. Look at Vietnam, Uganda, and all of the other nations that have had civil wars that involved child soldiers. There are no "clean" wars and therefore war should always be a very last resort under ALL circumstances, which was the subject of my original post.

 

Terrorism is an overused and ill-defined term because many tactics used during war are designed to produce maximum terror in the civilian population in hopes that it will break moral and cause the other side to give up (mass bombing of civilian and military targets in Germany one example). If the combatants are those of a nation state, it's deemed a "normal" war, but if they are stateless it's "terrorism". It's often just so much rhetoric.

 

point of this is that regardless of scale, we did not resort to depriving ordinary people of their rights using blanket surveillance of the "if you have nothing to hide you have noting to fear" mentality. We did not throw away our privacy and our rights to justice. We did not fly IRA prisoners off to Egypt to have them tortured. We did not lock them up in Guantanomo Bay like institutions without access to justice. We didn't fly drones over Dublin or New York and commit murder as we seem to be doing in Pakistan (a supposedly friendly country), Yemmen and Afghanistan! We didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater as we seem intent on doing now.

 

You don't know what your country was actually doing behind the scenes, but as long as you don't know it's ok though so that you can continue to maintain a superior mindset and look down upon the USA. I will leave you with your naive and incorrect view as I have better things to do than argue with you, especially as you didn't even seem to realise Northern Ireland was part of your nation, but tried to school me on my geography anyway.

Edited August 25, 2013 by seawolf

[SYNACK]

especially as you didn't even seem to realise Northern Ireland was part of your nation, but tried to school me on my geography anyway.

 

Umm, he said Éire, the Native name for Ireland, if referring to the original landmass then sure the UK had some nasty skirmishes and took the top chunk of it. If referring to the nation of Ireland then the perception of that has changed over time from being separate back to a unified view but there are all sorts of subtleties that are still being worked through.

 

At best your only part right similar to saying that Australia is part of the UK because it is still in the Commonwealth. All of your arguments seem to be based on the premise that you know better without providing any supporting evidence. I think the local term is 'put up or #$%& up' so unless you can drop some Snowden level leaks to back up your position you have no leg to stand on and are simply arguing your interpretation rather than from any factual standpoint.

 

The truth of the matters is largely unknown which is the point, all we can do is hope that they make better decisions behind closed doors than they make out in the open.

Edited August 25, 2013 by SYNACK

[pcstru]

I will leave you with your naive and incorrect view as I have better things to do than argue with you, especially as you didn't even seem to realise Northern Ireland was part of your nation, but tried to school me on my geography anyway.

 

I usually take the view that when discussion becomes what people did and did not say, it's over. Still I feel compelled to point out that I did not, as you seem to claim, say NI was not part of the UK. I said Éire - the Irish word for the State of Ireland. That's the large independent bit in the south of the island. I said it to try and make you think into the wider context of your "civil war". The political wing of the IRA was based in Dublin and the IRA were campaigning for a united Ireland. Éire (the state) imprisoned various members of the IRA for terrorist offences; the state did not support the IRA. And the IRA acknowledged this by saying that their campaign required a change of governance in the south as well as the north. But it was restaurants in Mayfair they bombed, not O'Connell street.

 

Still, one woman's terrorists is another woman's freedom fighter. You can call them rebels and the campaign a civil war as you will. When the Islamic Fundamentalists flew airliners full of people into buildings full of people, there were many in the world who celebrated it as a blow to the hegemony of the west. Many Muslims were of course disgusted - even in the likes of Palestine where US vetos have ensured the repression by Israel of the people in the West Bank and Gaza strip. I think the interesting question would be how that has changed as a result of US foreign policy since 9/11. Would more or less people find justification in such an act? Is US policy pacifying the world or creating more willing martyrs? I think there is good evidence for the latter.

 

On an naive and incorrect view - obviously I don't claim to have worked as a secret squirrel and have been occupying a lofty enough position in which I would have been privy to secrets which "would cause wars if they were known by the General population living in their fantasy land". Unfortunately I only get to judge based on evidence I can see - the extra judicial murder of people using unmanned drones, the rendition and torture of people suspected of involvement with 'terrorist' activity. The deliberate killing of journalists by the US army using Apache helicopters firing at medical crews who came to help. I can only imagine what you, secret squirrel, must have been privy to if those acts don't make people want to go to war. I have to say I find the whole appeal to 'argument by authority' rather amusing. You claim to be an authority but of course you can't tell us anything because it's secret, so we just have to take your word for it. How very ... convenient. And yet it seems odd that someone who was privy to such information would simply post it on some internet forum. Isn't it a bit of a risk for you? Won't you now go onto the Jihadsists target lists?

 

Back to the topic; again we do not (and may never) have the full facts of why David Miranda was detained under legislation aimed at combating terrorism. He was obviously not a terrorists and the information Snowden leaked is quite obviously available elsewhere. What I ask myself is does that action make me feel safer from terrorists or do I feel I'm more at risk from the state abusing their new found powers? Sadly, as with so much of the legislation and state actions since 9/11, it's the latter.

[seawolf]

.When the Islamic Fundamentalists flew airliners full of people into buildings full of people, there were many in the world who celebrated it as a blow to the hegemony of the west. Many Muslims were of course disgusted - even in the likes of Palestine where US vetos have ensured the repression by Israel of the people in the West Bank and Gaza strip.

 

The more you say, the more I can see that you have a general hatred for the US and appear quite fine with anything that harms the US.

 

And yet it seems odd that someone who was privy to such information would simply post it on some internet forum. Isn't it a bit of a risk for you? Won't you now go onto the Jihadsists target lists?

 

I likely have more to fear from people with angry, misinformed and prejudiced views like you than from any "jihadist". As to why I would comment on such subjects on a forum, I become frustrated seeing people make misinformed comments that are akin to someone finding a single page of Shakespeare's MacBeth and believing they then know the whole story. You see a couple of bad cops and then assume the whole police force is bad, corrupt, and operates in such a fashion. So, never mind, I've wasted my time as you will only believe what you think you've seen and wouldn't be likely to believe even DIRNSA himself if he told you to your face.

 

Back to the topic; again we do not (and may never) have the full facts of why David Miranda was detained under legislation aimed at combating terrorism. He was obviously not a terrorists and the information Snowden leaked is quite obviously available elsewhere. What I ask myself is does that action make me feel safer from terrorists or do I feel I'm more at risk from the state abusing their new found powers? Sadly, as with so much of the legislation and state actions since 9/11, it's the latter.

 

Yet...not nearly as unsafe as you would feel living in Pakistan. But, hey you just might get to experience it one day, especially if there are more like you showing so little support (more like extreme animosity) towards those dedicated to protecting you - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

[SYNACK]

I likely have more to fear from people with angry, misinformed and prejudiced views like you than from any "jihadist". As to why I would comment on such subjects on a forum, I become frustrated seeing people make misinformed comments that are akin to someone finding a single page of Shakespeare's MacBeth and believing they then know the whole story. You see a couple of bad cops and then assume the whole police force is bad, corrupt, and operates in such a fashion. So, never mind, I've wasted my time as you will only believe what you think you've seen and wouldn't be likely to believe even DIRNSA himself if he told you to your face.

 

Still nothing to back up your statements, just a unwavering view that you know better with nothing to back it up. I assume you mean the director of the NSA, do they actually that shortened form somewhere with an extreme ink shortage DIRLOLz

[seawolf]

Still nothing to back up your statements, just a unwavering view that you know better with nothing to back it up. I assume you mean the director of the NSA, do they actually that shortened form somewhere with an extreme ink shortage DIRLOLz

 

SYNACK - No one says "Director of the NSA" unless its a formal introduction. In any case, unlike Snowden or Manning I didn't steal what I had sworn to protect and don't intend to reveal still classified information. If I outlive my 75 year NDA I'll be happy to spill all. Some of us in this world still want to live honourably and keep our word.

 

Using your logic (and that of your cohort) if your grandfather gave you some sage advice to do or not do something based on hard earned experience, you should just ignore it because you can't trust without solid evidence (and experience isn't empirical evidence after all) - so, the only way to get that evidence would be actually doing the opposite and finding out for yourself. So, go ahead jump off the bridge and see if you get hurt since you won't listen to "unsubstantiated" advice. It's why the world's going for broke in the crapshoot of life anyway...