EU court ruling WTF
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
So when we call you on your crap, your response is to simply double down on the same baseless assertion, without providing the slightest shred of evidence?
I dunno, when something is on the news for months and the front page of newspapers, I kind of assumed you didn't need a citation. I mean, I guess I could link you to the New York Times, but then you'd probably ask me to build you a web browser or print out the pages and mail them to you. I'm not really sure where this little game of yours is going, but it doesn't seem like it would be a good use of my time to follow along, now would it?
@Mason Wheeler said:
Then again, I suppose that's to be expected from a global warming denier...
I'm sorry I offended your ancient religion. You're right though, even if the Church of Global Warming has no relevance to today's world, I understand why going through the rituals and uttering the prayers gives your mind comfort, so I apologize for offending you.
@Mason Wheeler said:
Yeah, because that's totally how we react in cases like that... oh, wait, it isn't. Morbs is just a moron.
I, uh.. what? What does the shooting down of a civilian airliner from Skorea have to do with France and Germany forcing down a US military aircraft? I'm trying to work with you here, buddy, but you're going to need to give me more to work with.
(As a side note, how would France force down any aircraft, let alone US military aircraft? I don't think it's the kind of thing where you can fix the situation by drinking a bottle of wine and then going on strike..)
-
@morbiuswilters said:
After he leaked critical intelligence information to China, Russia and Iran.
Source please.
-
@ender said:
@morbiuswilters said:
After he leaked critical intelligence information to China, Russia and Iran.
Source please.Wow, did this EU court ruling wipe out all your guys' Googles or what?
Here's the Wikipedia page. It details several of the intelligence operations against Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, etc.. that were revealed by Snowden. I believe you will notice that none of those are illegal domestic spying programs. In fact, the illegal domestic spying made big headlines, but it was only a tiny fraction of the intelligence that was leaked.
I'm pretty sure telling enemy countries like Iran and Pakistan, and enemy groups like al Qaeda how they are being monitored and how they can avoid detection constitutes treason. In fact, I'm absolutely certain that it does. That doesn't mean he will be charged with treason, unfortunately, but I'm curious what definition of treason you're working off of where giving aid to enemies does not qualify. If that's not treason, then please tell me what would qualify in your mind?
I look forward to your apology. I like fruit baskets, if you're feeling generous. No bananas, though. I do not care for bananas.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
So when we call you on your crap, your response is to simply double down on the same baseless assertion, without providing the slightest shred of evidence?
I dunno, when something is on the news for months and the front page of newspapers, I kind of assumed you didn't need a citation. I mean, I guess I could link you to the New York Times, but then you'd probably ask me to build you a web browser or print out the pages and mail them to you.
No, by all means, feel free to link me to the New York Times, if any actual evidence that he did what you are saying he did exists in the New York Times. But I've been following this story pretty closely, and what you're saying happened... it didn't happen.
And just to nip any further moronicity in the bud, evidence means evidence. Accusations by political figures or intelligence community members with no facts to back them up do not count as evidence.
@Mason Wheeler said:
Then again, I suppose that's to be expected from a global warming denier...
I'm sorry I offended your ancient religion. You're right though, even if the Church of Global Warming has no relevance to today's world, I understand why going through the rituals and uttering the prayers gives your mind comfort, so I apologize for offending you.
How can anyone, post-Katrina, say that this is not a relevant issue today? When even George W. Bush admitted that Global Warming is real, you look hopelessly behind the times. You do realize that, right?
@Mason Wheeler said:
Yeah, because that's totally how we react in cases like that... oh, wait, it isn't. Morbs is just a moron.
I, uh.. what? What does the shooting down of a civilian airliner from Skorea have to do with France and Germany forcing down a US military aircraft? I'm trying to work with you here, buddy, but you're going to need to give me more to work with.
It may have been a Korean airline, but the flight originated in New York, and the plane in question was filled with US citizens, including a member of Congress.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
That said, maybe the US can trade the EU (minus the UK.. or not, I don't really care) to Russia for a pack of smokes.
Come on, you're talking about 28 whole countries. We ought to be able to get more than a pack of smokes, like a case of caviar or a couple of mail-order brides, maybe three if we agree not to give them Spain and Greece.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@ender said:
@morbiuswilters said:
After he leaked critical intelligence information to China, Russia and Iran.
Source please.Wow, did this EU court ruling wipe out all your guys' Googles or what?
No, we're simply refusing to accept your crap. The burden of proof is on the accuser, as always.
Here's the Wikipedia page. It details several of the intelligence operations against Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, etc.. that were revealed by Snowden. I believe you will notice that none of those are illegal domestic spying programs. In fact, the illegal domestic spying made big headlines, but it was only a tiny fraction of the intelligence that was leaked.
You must be reading a different Wikipedia page than I did; the part where it talks about legitimate intelligence operations is the part that's only a tiny fraction, and in the cited sources, stuff like this shows up repeatedly: "At the agency’s request, The Times is withholding some details that officials said could compromise intelligence operations."
Besides, none of this actually validates your accusation, which is that Ed Snowden gave classified intelligence to agents of America's enemies. If there is anything whatsoever in the linked article to indicate that he delivered his documents to anyone except highly competent journalists, I didn't see it. You're the one who set up the goal posts. You don't get to move them now when we tell you to put up or shut up.
Or are you proclaiming the free press to be an enemy of the state when releasing leaked documents? Because it seems to me we've been over that before in this country...
I'm pretty sure telling enemy countries like Iran and Pakistan, and enemy groups like al Qaeda how they are being monitored and how they can avoid detection constitutes treason. In fact, I'm absolutely certain that it does.
Oh, I agree 100%. But you have not in any way demonstrated that he actually did that.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
How can anyone, post-Katrina, say that this is not a relevant issue today?
You do realize that there are fewer hurricanes today than in the past, right? And that Katrina was actually much smaller than the hurricanes that hit New Orleans in the past?
You know what? Nevermind. Nobody is trying to insult your fervently-held religious beliefs. Faith is really important to, uh, some people. The Flood (of New Orleans) is an important story to a lot of religions. Peace be unto you.
@Mason Wheeler said:
It may have been a Korean airline, but the flight originated in New York, and the plane in question was filled with US citizens, including a member of Congress.
So.. not at all the same as France and Germany forcing down a US military aircraft, then. Thank you for clearing that up.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
Come on, you're talking about 28 whole countries. We ought to be able to get more than a pack of smokes, like a case of caviar or a couple of mail-order brides, maybe three if we agree not to give them Spain and Greece.
Twenty-eight European countries. Look, if you want to try to negotiate a better deal with Vlad the Impaler, be my guest. Personally, I thought we were getting off lucky with the smokes..
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
No, we're simply refusing to accept your crap.
Why are you so angry? Don't be ashamed of your ignorance. There's nothing bad about being wrong--that's why pencils have erasers!
@Mason Wheeler said:
the part where it talks about legitimate intelligence operations is the part that's only a tiny fraction
Please explain why you think that is relevant, friend. Oh, I forgot, there's that law that says every Wikipedia article on intelligence leaks must give exactly the same coverage to a leak as the size of the leak itself...
@Mason Wheeler said:
"At the agency’s request, The Times is withholding some details that officials said could compromise intelligence operations."
Sure, and plenty of stuff was already released publicly. The page I linked you is full of intelligence.
@Mason Wheeler said:
which is that Ed Snowden gave classified intelligence to agents of America's enemies.
You're right, they probably don't read the paper, or watch the news, or read Wikipedia. I feel much better now. Here I was, concerned that legitimate intelligence operations had been compromised by a traitor, but you couldn't find the information on Google, so I doubt our enemies could. What a relief!
@Mason Wheeler said:
he delivered his documents to anyone except highly competent journalists, I didn't see it.
Who then made them public. Which is exactly what Snowden knew would happen.
@Mason Wheeler said:
Or are you proclaiming the free press to be an enemy of the state when releasing leaked documents? Because it seems to me we've been over that before in this country...
I think you think you made a point there, but I'm not sure what you think it was. A person who leaks information publicly is committing treason. The fact that you apparently don't know how words work is disheartening.
As for Daniel Ellsberg, he's a traitor. It's quite shameful that he wasn't publicly hung. I'm still willing to do it if someone wants to get my back. I even have some old, rusty barbed wire laying around.
@Mason Wheeler said:
Oh, I agree 100%. But you have not in any way demonstrated that he actually did that.
I agree. You were unable to find the information that was cleverly hidden on Wikipedia and the front page of the New York Times, so I sincerely doubt our enemies could, given that you are clearly so much smarter than they are.
I do find your definition of treason fascinating, though. Let's see if I understand this:
-
A man makes classified information about legitimate intelligence operations available only to enemies of his country: TREASON
-
A man makes classified information about legitimate intelligence operations available to enemies of his country and any competent person like Mason Wheeler who could find it with The Google (well..): NOT TREASON
So the main difference here appears to be that in the former case, nobody let you in on the secret. In the latter case, you could (hypothetically) find the information yourself, even if you aren't actually able to.
Please tell me more about your fascinating ideas!
-
-
Snark all you want. You have still failed to demonstrate that actual, legitimate intelligence compromising legitimate operations was made available to America's enemies, either directly or by being made public. Repeatedly asserting that it happened is not evidence. Also, just to head off the obvious next comment, confirmation of the existence of a program that does [insert program goal here, described in high-level terms with no operational details whatsoever] does not constitute a compromise of an operation, especially in cases where America's enemies have been aware for decades that such things were going on. That's possibly the biggest load of manure of all. Anyone who says "recent leaks have shown terrorists how we're listening in on their conversations, and so now they're able to circumvent it" needs to go away and let the adults talk; terrorists have known how we're listening in on them for years before any of these leaks started, as evidenced by their changing tactics to avoid surveillance years before any of these leaks started. (As documented in the leaked files, among other sources.)
you couldn't find the information on Google
Stop trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. You're the accuser.
I do find your definition of treason fascinating, though. Let's see if I understand this:
-
A man makes classified information about legitimate intelligence operations available only to enemies of his country: TREASON
-
A man makes classified information about legitimate intelligence operations available to enemies of his country and any competent person like Mason Wheeler who could find it with The Google (well..): NOT TREASON
You still have not demonstrated that this ever happened. Again, loudly asserting it is not evidence, and the burden of proof is on the accuser.
-
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
How can anyone, post-Katrina, say that this is not a relevant issue today?
You do realize that there are fewer hurricanes today than in the past, right?
Try telling that to the folks in New York, who got innundated by the tail end of a storm season that went al the way up to S. How many years in the past did it reach that far up the alphabet?
And that Katrina was actually much smaller than the hurricanes that hit New Orleans in the past?
This doesn't even pass the laugh test. From the FIRST FREAKING PARAGRAPH of the Wikipedia article:
Hurricane Katrina ... was the costliest natural disaster, as well as one of the five deadliest hurricanes, in the history of the United States. Katrina was the seventh most intense Atlantic hurricane ever, part of the 2005 season that included three of the six most intense Atlantic hurricanes ever (along with #1 Wilma and #4 Rita).
Care to try that again?
You know what? Nevermind. Nobody is trying to insult your fervently-held religious beliefs. Faith is really important to, uh, some people. The Flood (of New Orleans) is an important story to a lot of religions. Peace be unto you.
Yeah, because it must be something taken on blind faith, as opposed to, oh, I don't know, the consensus of every scientist to actually take a real look at the data.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
And that Katrina was actually much smaller than the hurricanes that hit New Orleans in the past?
This doesn't even pass the laugh test. From the FIRST FREAKING PARAGRAPH of the Wikipedia article:
Hurricane Katrina ... was the costliest natural disaster, as well as one of the five deadliest hurricanes, in the history of the United States. Katrina was the seventh most intense Atlantic hurricane ever, part of the 2005 season that included three of the six most intense Atlantic hurricanes ever (along with #1 Wilma and #4 Rita).
Care to try that again?
Be careful, "smaller" doe not mean "less deadly" or "less intense"....
I could shoot you with a .45 caliber....or throw a 36" beach ball.....The second is much bigger!!
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
Try telling that to the folks in New York, who got innundated by the tail end of a storm season that went al the way up to S. How many years in the past did it reach that far up the alphabet?
So, a government contractor blabs to the world about foreign intelligence gathering, and you deny this happened. Other government contractors, paid to find teh evil climate happenings say that we won't be able to detect a signal in EXTREME WEATHER for decades, and you're sure it's already happening and that anyone who can't see the signs like you do is crazy.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
This doesn't even pass the laugh test. From the FIRST FREAKING PARAGRAPH of the Wikipedia article:
Hurricane Katrina ... was the costliest natural disaster, as well as one of the five deadliest hurricanes, in the history of the United States. Katrina was the seventh most intense Atlantic hurricane ever, part of the 2005 season that included three of the six most intense Atlantic hurricanes ever (along with #1 Wilma and #4 Rita).
Care to try that again?
Why do you think that contradicts anything I said? There were several larger hurricanes that hit New Orleans within the last 100 years alone. I'm really sorry you are so hard of reading.. :(
@Mason Wheeler said:
Yeah, because it must be something taken on blind faith, as opposed to, oh, I don't know, the consensus of every scientist to actually take a real look at the data.
Sure you do, honey. Sure you do. pats the child on his sad little head
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
Be careful, "smaller" doe not mean "less deadly" or "less intense"....
I think he's heard "size doesn't matter" enough times that he completely missed the point..
But shame on you for insulting his religion. If the rituals give him comfort, who does that hurt? Sure, some of it may sound silly and ludicrously childish to us, but if working himself into a lather fantasizing about the Judgment Day makes him happy, then why not let him?
-
@boomzilla said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
Try telling that to the folks in New York, who got innundated by the tail end of a storm season that went al the way up to S. How many years in the past did it reach that far up the alphabet?
So, a government contractor blabs to the world about foreign intelligence gathering, and you deny this happened. Other government contractors, paid to find teh evil climate happenings say that we won't be able to detect a signal in EXTREME WEATHER for decades, and you're sure it's already happening and that anyone who can't see the signs like you do is crazy.
You're being a bigot. Sure it's not our cup of tea, but you can't attack a man's faith.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
Snark all you want. You have still failed to demonstrate that actual, legitimate intelligence compromising legitimate operations was made available to America's enemies, either directly or by being made public. Repeatedly asserting that it happened is not evidence. Also, just to head off the obvious next comment, confirmation of the existence of a program that does [insert program goal here, described in high-level terms with no operational details whatsoever] does not constitute a compromise of an operation, especially in cases where America's enemies have been aware for decades that such things were going on. That's possibly the biggest load of manure of all. Anyone who says "recent leaks have shown terrorists how we're listening in on their conversations, and so now they're able to circumvent it" needs to go away and let the adults talk; terrorists have known how we're listening in on them for years before any of these leaks started, as evidenced by their changing tactics to avoid surveillance years before any of these leaks started. (As documented in the leaked files, among other sources.)
Wow, that was a really long way to say "I didn't read the Wikipedia article."
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
Try telling that to the folks in New York, who got innundated by the tail end of a storm season that went al the way up to S. How many years in the past did it reach that far up the alphabet?
So, a government contractor blabs to the world about foreign intelligence gathering, and you deny this happened. Other government contractors, paid to find teh evil climate happenings say that we won't be able to detect a signal in EXTREME WEATHER for decades, and you're sure it's already happening and that anyone who can't see the signs like you do is crazy.
You're being a bigot. Sure it's not our cup of tea, but you can't attack a man's faith.
I'm not racist but I do rather like to eat food.
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
Try telling that to the folks in New York, who got innundated by the tail end of a storm season that went al the way up to S. How many years in the past did it reach that far up the alphabet?
So, a government contractor blabs to the world about foreign intelligence gathering, and you deny this happened. Other government contractors, paid to find teh evil climate happenings say that we won't be able to detect a signal in EXTREME WEATHER for decades, and you're sure it's already happening and that anyone who can't see the signs like you do is crazy.
You're being a bigot. Sure it's not our cup of tea, but you can't attack a man's faith.
I'm not racist but I do rather like to eat food.
Eating food is racist.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@topspin said:
They forced the aircraft of the president of (IIRC) Bolivia to landing to search the aircraft, suspecting it had Snowden on board.
Good.
@topspin said:
Imagine that, the diplomatic repercussions this should have. If Obama's Air Force One was headed to Germany and France would force it down and try to search it... Well, Secret Service would shoot anyone trying to enter, but you'd probably see this act as a declaration of war to begin with.
If Germany or France tried to force down an American aircraft, there'd be a massive, radioactive sea in the middle of Western Europe within the hour. And Europe would be a nicer place for it.
And that hipocrisy right there is why everybody in the world hates America.
Let 's all just hope soon you'll crumble under your own idiocy. (Or, if you guys believed in Darwin instead of ID, you've got it coming for you)Also, it's hilarious how you're always "is that really so hard for you to understand?" when you don't get shit at all. The apparent "the pigs are more equal than the other animals" was too hard for you to understand.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
Yeah, because it must be something taken on blind faith, as opposed to, oh, I don't know, the consensus of every scientist to actually take a real look at the data.
You'll never convince these two, whose opinion on this issue is as blinkered, ill-informed and partisan as their opinions on everything else beyond their own narrow domains of technical expertise. Call them on their amazing screeds of bullshit and they will reliably respond with insults and projected recitations of their own cognitive faults. Tragically, neither of them even seems to realize that this is what they're doing.
Props to you for your effort to maintain a civil tone and a strictly good faith line of argument so far; that's more than I've had the patience to sustain.
-
@flabdablet said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
Yeah, because it must be something taken on blind faith, as opposed to, oh, I don't know, the consensus of every scientist to actually take a real look at the data.
You'll never convince these two, whose opinion on this issue is as blinkered, ill-informed and partisan as their opinions on everything else beyond their own narrow domains of technical expertise. Call them on their amazing screeds of bullshit and they will reliably respond with insults and projected recitations of their own cognitive faults. Tragically, neither of them even seems to realize that this is what they're doing.
LOL. Come back when you buys have something better than models that don't work.
-
@topspin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
If Germany or France tried to force down an American aircraft, there'd be a massive, radioactive sea in the middle of Western Europe within the hour. And Europe would be a nicer place for it.
And that hipocrisy right there is why everybody in the world hates America.
Whatever. The reality is that you Euro-weenies aren't going to do that anytime soon. The Chicoms, OTOH...
@topspin said:
Or, if you guys believed in Darwin instead of ID, you've got it coming for you
"Believe in Darwin." Does anyone think he wasn't a real person? Do you think evolution really contradicts ID? Do you know, say, the Catholic Church's position on evolution?
@topspin said:
The apparent "the pigs are more equal than the other animals" was too hard for you to understand.
Most of us get it. It's flabdablet's co-dummies at PMSNBC who couldn't figure that one out.
-
@boomzilla said:
LOL. Come back when you buys have something better than models that don't work.
Fuck off.
-
@boomzilla said:
Do you know, say, the Catholic Church's position on evolution?
I do, because I'm a former Catholic. I was taught that God created man just how he is, but the animals (which man is not) evolved. Oh, and people have souls but animals don't. There was even a diagram, like a Venn diagram but vertical with triangles instead of circles. The bottom triangle was beings with physical form, the top triangle was spiritual beings (cherubim, seraphim...) and man stood alone in the little diamond intersection of the two.
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
LOL. Come back when you buys have something better than models that don't work.
Fuck off.Yeah, I know.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@boomzilla said:
Do you know, say, the Catholic Church's position on evolution?
I do, because I'm a former Catholic. I was taught that God created man just how he is, but the animals (which man is not) evolved. Oh, and people have souls but animals don't. There was even a diagram, like a Venn diagram but vertical with triangles instead of circles. The bottom triangle was beings with physical form, the top triangle was spiritual beings (cherubim, seraphim...) and man stood alone in the little diamond intersection of the two.That's interesting, but kind of wrong. Sounds like a simplification for children. Most of that doesn't really apply to evolution, anyways.
-
@boomzilla said:
@joe.edwards said:
Oh it's very wrong. Oh, you mean wrong as in not representative of the Catholic belief system. The article you linked says that it was refined over time (I got out a while back) and also that the church has no official stance on the matter. Sounds like there's a considerable amount of difference of opinion among Catholics.@boomzilla said:
Do you know, say, the Catholic Church's position on evolution?
I do, because I'm a former Catholic. I was taught that God created man just how he is, but the animals (which man is not) evolved. Oh, and people have souls but animals don't. There was even a diagram, like a Venn diagram but vertical with triangles instead of circles. The bottom triangle was beings with physical form, the top triangle was spiritual beings (cherubim, seraphim...) and man stood alone in the little diamond intersection of the two.That's interesting, but kind of wrong. Sounds like a simplification for children. Most of that doesn't really apply to evolution, anyways.
I brought the soul thing up because it was presented to me as another way man is not classified as an animal, and also one of the first teachings I disagreed with strongly enough to start looking for alternative viewpoints.
-
@boomzilla said:
"Believe in Darwin." Does anyone think he wasn't a real person?
"believe" was of course a simplification and not literal,Do you think evolution really contradicts ID? Do you know, say, the Catholic Church's position on evolution?
Does evolution contradict Christianity? No.
The people who want ID to be taught as an alternative "theory" (it's not a theory) to evolution think so. They made it up specifically for this.
The catholic church accepted the Big Bang Theory as a possible way Creation could have happened. Saying earth is 6k years old does contradict pretty much everything in science. Don't tell me, tell the people who demand evolution out of school. (Apologies if I threw too many different of your lunatics into one category)Why do you let retards make school curricula (and laws) based on that? Oh yeah, you're a nation full of them.
