NSA Watchdog Slams Snowden

[Coswar]

I would like to think that we wouldn't be interested in going to war, but I doubt that will happen. It's very unlikely that we will get rid of the active military, seeing as we're still one of the greater powers in the world. 

Oh yes me too, I hope that the threat of the army is enough. I just hope that the rest of the world can be just as civilised 

[afa7336]

Who cares how much money Snowden made? It has no relevance to his actions.

One of what people? He killed no kids, so don't go off on an extreme hypothetical to try to prove a point... I believe that when an action has more benefits than negatives it is worth doing it, and it is up to each person to decide whether or not the benefits outweigh the negatives.

There are always negatives to doing something. A show in the UK called "The Real Hustle" tells people how to avoid being conned by showing them how the cons are performed - Some people will see how the con is performed and then take steps to avoid it, and small number will attempt to use the cons(but far less than avoid it). It is a fact of life that there are negatives to everything.

As I said above : I understand that he had other options to try to get changes made, but do you honestly believe that the NSA would allow half as much of the information that Snowden leaked to be put in the public domain. Lets use one of your hypotheticals - if my boss was beating people would go to him to complain about him beating people? The NSA would have made some minor changes to how they worked, (perhaps only if it caught media attention) and then the public would have been left in the dark just as much. What he did has given a lot of coverage to these issues, with many other organisations under scrutiny as a result. And hopefully some reform will come of all this.

Actually, the bus and kids was an example of giving people a pass because they did something wrong. I never once mentioned that it was Snowden. Interesting you tied it to him, and tried to make it seem like I was accusing Snowden of killing kids. Interesting indeed. You don't say "yeah, he did something wrong that hurts our Country, but its okay because he revealed something else".

Again, I think you miss the entire point of having IGs. That's exactly what IGs are for, its there for this EXACT reason we have them! Snowden knew, or should have known this, but didn't want to use them.

But lets go with your analogy of your Boss, since you brought it up. Do you run to the media right away and tell them all that your boss is doing? Or do you go to HIS Boss, or the Police? Going to either HIS Boss (who would in turn call the police) or the Police (if his boss failed to handle it) would be the right course of action in this case, going to the media without taking these steps would involve you getting lawyers and facing some legal action (ever read some of the stuff employers have you sign?) and termination from your company. And of course if that didn't resolve it, here in the US we have something called the ESC or Employment Security Commission whose job is kinda like the IGs job, and if there is a huge issue you can go to them. If there is a safety issue, OSHA. Interesting how your argument just fell apart in one fail swoop.

As for how much money he made... it goes to something called creditability and truthfulness. Lawyers destroy people all the time over lies they tell, how is me pointing this out anything other then that?

But I have extremist views, so you know, I am a horrible person for wanting to protect this Country from all enemies Foreign AND Domestic.

[jonasa97]

Actually, the bus and kids was an example of giving people a pass because they did something wrong. I never once mentioned that it was Snowden. Interesting you tied it to him, and tried to make it seem like I was accusing Snowden of killing kids. Interesting indeed. You don't say "yeah, he did something wrong that hurts our Country, but its okay because he revealed something else".

 

Again, I think you miss the entire point of having IGs. That's exactly what IGs are for, its there for this EXACT reason we have them! Snowden knew, or should have known this, but didn't want to use them.

 

But lets go with your analogy of your Boss, since you brought it up. Do you run to the media right away and tell them all that your boss is doing? Or do you go to HIS Boss, or the Police? Going to either HIS Boss (who would in turn call the police) or the Police (if his boss failed to handle it) would be the right course of action in this case, going to the media without taking these steps would involve you getting lawyers and facing some legal action (ever read some of the stuff employers have you sign?) and termination from your company. And of course if that didn't resolve it, here in the US we have something called the ESC or Employment Security Commission whose job is kinda like the IGs job, and if there is a huge issue you can go to them. If there is a safety issue, OSHA. Interesting how your argument just fell apart in one fail swoop. 

 

As for how much money he made... it goes to something called creditability and truthfulness. Lawyers destroy people all the time over lies they tell, how is me pointing this out anything other then that?

The problem here is that the NSA has no Boss. It's become too powerful to be told by anyone what to do and that is the main reason it is receiving so much criticism. Therefore your argument doesn't work. (Feel free to "prove" me wrong)

 

EDIT: go get a profile picture!

[fade]

But I have extremist views, so you know, I am a horrible person for wanting to protect this Country from all enemies Foreign AND Domestic.

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2050100/nsa-admits-employees-spied-on-loved-ones.html

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/

 

The system is already being abused.  Could you imagine if it stayed in secrecy the abuses that we would have never known about?  The American people have the right to know what their government is doing.  You keep on bringing up hypotheticals because you can't name one death that came out of this being exposed.  The only thing hurt was our credibility with other countries and if it wasn't Snowden it would have been someone else.  It would have been exposed eventually.  

[afa7336]

The problem here is that the NSA has no Boss. It's become too powerful to be told by anyone what to do and that is the main reason it is receiving so much criticism. Therefore your argument doesn't work. (Feel free to "prove" me wrong)

 

EDIT: go get a profile picture!

 

Actually, thats what the IC IGs are for, if you haven't read what I posted on what they do! If there was an issue that Snowden felt needed addressing that was his recourse he should have taken! Of course, through all the reporting that people do, that still gets muffled somehow and the IC IGs are treated like crap even though they are independent of the NSA and its there JOB to handle this. Why don't you propose to your duly elected officials to do away with the IGs office then, because if we are skipping over it, its a waste of manpower, money, and time. Notice it doesn't say NSA IG on the DNI page, it says IC (Intelligence Community) IG (Inspector General).

 

Oh and I think we all need a reminder of the Manning incident. Everyone said it was okay to leak it, he was doing the right thing... Guess where his leaks were found? The late Usama Bin Ladens' compound. Sometimes you don't know what you do will end up helping who. This is the problem with people not understanding how dangrous of a game this is.

[Trip]

 

But lets go with your analogy of your Boss, since you brought it up. Do you run to the media right away and tell them all that your boss is doing? Or do you go to HIS Boss, or the Police? Going to either HIS Boss (who would in turn call the police) or the Police (if his boss failed to handle it) would be the right course of action in this case, going to the media without taking these steps would involve you getting lawyers and facing some legal action (ever read some of the stuff employers have you sign?) and termination from your company. And of course if that didn't resolve it, here in the US we have something called the ESC or Employment Security Commission whose job is kinda like the IGs job, and if there is a huge issue you can go to them. If there is a safety issue, OSHA. Interesting how your argument just fell apart in one fail swoop. 

 

 

See the problem here is your definition of "The Media". I know the media in the US for example is more about stating rash opinions and commenting on what clothes Sarah Palin is wearing today (as is much in the Murdoch Media Empire) but in the UK it's run slightly differently, granted we do indeed have our Murdoch run papers, but we also have independent news. The Guardian, The Independent, The New Statesman, The BBC, all of these news companies are for the most part unbiased media organisations.

 

So what does this mean exactly? We'll take your analogy of "The Boss" again, as it seems everyone's drawing on it. What if you work for the Police department, your boss is hitting people? Who do you turn to? The police? You have no one to turn to, because if you did you'd get fired, or in this case sent to prison etc etc. What about going to a committee, well you don't have any evidence your boss is hitting you so yeah, not much they can do about it either. So who's next, well let's speak to the press someone who can get the message out and bring up public debate.

 

In a more civilised world all it comes down to is a balance between "Public Security" and "Press Freedom". In the UK we need a free press, they're often called "The Guardians" or "The voice of the people", and our job (I say our as I am training as a Journalist) as much as it is, is to expose those bosses who hit each other, to bring attention to areas which otherwise the members of the public would miss, we provide transparency for a government that is otherwise constantly fighting to remain opaque. Before Edward Snowden and The Guardian's revelations about any of this, I would suspect very few would have known much if anything about the GCHQ in Britain, the data they were hoarding, or the methods they were using in collaboration with the NSA. And because of this revelation it has many people, like you and I doing our research on the subject and writing about it and discussing it, bringing attention to whether it is necessary or not. 

 

All in all Press Freedom is vital to a transparent government, and a transparent government should both keep it's people informed and serve them. Something which our government (speaking as a British Citizen) has not done, and as such reform is and will take place in regards to this. We're just very fortunate to have the ECHR at the end of the day Article 8 The right to a private and family life (including correspondence) and Article 10 The right to expression, which allows us with these freedoms. 

 

 

 

 

On a personal note, your arguing style is insulting, it doesn't add anything to the conversation and insulting people isn't going to change their opinions, nor make them believe you're in the right, it just makes you look like a bit of an arse.

[Coswar]

Actually, the bus and kids was an example of giving people a pass because they did something wrong. I never once mentioned that it was Snowden. Interesting you tied it to him, and tried to make it seem like I was accusing Snowden of killing kids. Interesting indeed. You don't say "yeah, he did something wrong that hurts our Country, but its okay because he revealed something else".

 

Again, I think you miss the entire point of having IGs. That's exactly what IGs are for, its there for this EXACT reason we have them! Snowden knew, or should have known this, but didn't want to use them.

 

But lets go with your analogy of your Boss, since you brought it up. Do you run to the media right away and tell them all that your boss is doing? Or do you go to HIS Boss, or the Police? Going to either HIS Boss (who would in turn call the police) or the Police (if his boss failed to handle it) would be the right course of action in this case, going to the media without taking these steps would involve you getting lawyers and facing some legal action (ever read some of the stuff employers have you sign?) and termination from your company. And of course if that didn't resolve it, here in the US we have something called the ESC or Employment Security Commission whose job is kinda like the IGs job, and if there is a huge issue you can go to them. If there is a safety issue, OSHA. Interesting how your argument just fell apart in one fail swoop. 

 

As for how much money he made... it goes to something called creditability and truthfulness. Lawyers destroy people all the time over lies they tell, how is me pointing this out anything other then that?

I wasn't saying that you said Snowden killed kids, I was saying that it didn't matter, because you were just inventing a extreme hypothetical to prove a point. Neither you nor I can say how much the leaks hurt the US- because we have no idea how much China, etc already knew about these things.

As for what you said about the boss analogy- you are right, but what if the boss I am talking about is the head of the police, and the people who you could confide in all have strong ties and allegiance to him. We do not know who had control of who- and he could have ended up having a severe car crash if he told the wrong people. Regardless, he created a far bigger discussion about the topic by going to the media- which is just as important as actually leaking the documents. what he did has forced Google, Yahoo, Facebook to reveal how many requests for data they get, it has forced UK agencies to reveal information on tracking internet data and many more high profile talks that I can't remember. None of this would have happened if he had gone to his superiors.

[Paralectic]

Snowden made even us people realise America contains alot of liars and the spying is just pathetic.

[Coswar]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2050100/nsa-admits-employees-spied-on-loved-ones.html

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/

 

The system is already being abused.  Could you imagine if it stayed in secrecy the abuses that we would have never known about?  The American people have the right to know what their government is doing.  You keep on bringing up hypotheticals because you can't name one death that came out of this being exposed.  The only thing hurt was our credibility with other countries and if it wasn't Snowden it would have been someone else.  It would have been exposed eventually.  

Like I said, every piece of information can be used in a bad way, and several years from now there would be no freedom as these agencies got bolder and bolder. Well said.

[afa7336]

I wasn't saying that you said Snowden killed kids, I was saying that it didn't matter, because you were just inventing a extreme hypothetical to prove a point. Neither you nor I can say how much the leaks hurt the US- because we have no idea how much China, etc already knew about these things.

As for what you said about the boss analogy- you are right, but what if the boss I am talking about is the head of the police, and the people who you could confide in all have strong ties and allegiance to him. We do not know who had control of who- and he could have ended up having a severe car crash if he told the wrong people. Regardless, he created a far bigger discussion about the topic by going to the media- which is just as important as actually leaking the documents. what he did has forced Google, Yahoo, Facebook to reveal how many requests for data they get, it has forced UK agencies to reveal information on tracking internet data and many more high profile talks that I can't remember. None of this would have happened if he had gone to his superiors.

 

 

See the problem here is your definition of "The Media". I know the media in the US for example is more about stating rash opinions and commenting on what clothes Sarah Palin is wearing today (as is much in the Murdoch Media Empire) but in the UK it's run slightly differently, granted we do indeed have our Murdoch run papers, but we also have independent news. The Guardian, The Independent, The New Statesman, The BBC, all of these news companies are for the most part unbiased media organisations.

 

So what does this mean exactly? We'll take your analogy of "The Boss" again, as it seems everyone's drawing on it. What if you work for the Police department, your boss is hitting people? Who do you turn to? The police? You have no one to turn to, because if you did you'd get fired, or in this case sent to prison etc etc. What about going to a committee, well you don't have any evidence your boss is hitting you so yeah, not much they can do about it either. So who's next, well let's speak to the press someone who can get the message out and bring up public debate.

 

In a more civilised world all it comes down to is a balance between "Public Security" and "Press Freedom". In the UK we need a free press, they're often called "The Guardians" or "The voice of the people", and our job (I say our as I am training as a Journalist) as much as it is, is to expose those bosses who hit each other, to bring attention to areas which otherwise the members of the public would miss, we provide transparency for a government that is otherwise constantly fighting to remain opaque. Before Edward Snowden and The Guardian's revelations about any of this, I would suspect very few would have known much if anything about the GCHQ in Britain, the data they were hoarding, or the methods they were using in collaboration with the NSA. And because of this revelation it has many people, like you and I doing our research on the subject and writing about it and discussing it, bringing attention to whether it is necessary or not. 

 

All in all Press Freedom is vital to a transparent government, and a transparent government should both keep it's people informed and serve them. Something which our government (speaking as a British Citizen) has not done, and as such reform is and will take place in regards to this. We're just very fortunate to have the ECHR at the end of the day Article 8 The right to a private and family life (including correspondence) and Article 10 The right to expression, which allows us with these freedoms. 

 

 

 

 

On a personal note, your arguing style is insulting, it doesn't add anything to the conversation and insulting people isn't going to change their opinions, nor make them believe you're in the right, it just makes you look like a bit of an arse.

 

Since you guys are both drawing on the police analogy, lets run with it.

 

First if your boss is a cop, there is the Internal Affairs that handles complaints like these. If your boss is the Chief of Police, as extreme as that sounds, you have two options. Internal Affairs again (Which is independent just like the IC IGs actually, and while they are cops, their job is to police the police. They are the most hated cops around actually, for some ODD reason they've costed cops their jobs and lives and thrown many in prison.) Or you can take it higher and that is what the State level and above is for. Take it to the FBI, SBI, other agencies (Sheriffs office, etc.). If you took it to the media first, you better be prepared for legal action against you and the shit storm that will follow. Snowden would rather try to play the victim when he is anything but one.

 

"He could have had a severe crash" And I've been accused of thinking its the 1950's, making things up and all kinds of things, but damn!

 

This is the issue, your saying he had no choice, but he had many choices. If for instance he didn't want to go to the IC IGs, he still could have gone to members of Congress... Based on the shit storm, you'd think he would have found an ally or two. Yet, he didn't, he went off half cocked all to hell.

[Coswar]

See the problem here is your definition of "The Media". I know the media in the US for example is more about stating rash opinions and commenting on what clothes Sarah Palin is wearing today (as is much in the Murdoch Media Empire) but in the UK it's run slightly differently, granted we do indeed have our Murdoch run papers, but we also have independent news. The Guardian, The Independent, The New Statesman, The BBC, all of these news companies are for the most part unbiased media organisations.

So what does this mean exactly? We'll take your analogy of "The Boss" again, as it seems everyone's drawing on it. What if you work for the Police department, your boss is hitting people? Who do you turn to? The police? You have no one to turn to, because if you did you'd get fired, or in this case sent to prison etc etc. What about going to a committee, well you don't have any evidence your boss is hitting you so yeah, not much they can do about it either. So who's next, well let's speak to the press someone who can get the message out and bring up public debate.

In a more civilised world all it comes down to is a balance between "Public Security" and "Press Freedom". In the UK we need a free press, they're often called "The Guardians" or "The voice of the people", and our job (I say our as I am training as a Journalist) as much as it is, is to expose those bosses who hit each other, to bring attention to areas which otherwise the members of the public would miss, we provide transparency for a government that is otherwise constantly fighting to remain opaque. Before Edward Snowden and The Guardian's revelations about any of this, I would suspect very few would have known much if anything about the GCHQ in Britain, the data they were hoarding, or the methods they were using in collaboration with the NSA. And because of this revelation it has many people, like you and I doing our research on the subject and writing about it and discussing it, bringing attention to whether it is necessary or not.

All in all Press Freedom is vital to a transparent government, and a transparent government should both keep it's people informed and serve them. Something which our government (speaking as a British Citizen) has not done, and as such reform is and will take place in regards to this. We're just very fortunate to have the ECHR at the end of the day Article 8 The right to a private and family life (including correspondence) and Article 10 The right to expression, which allows us with these freedoms.

On a personal note, your arguing style is insulting, it doesn't add anything to the conversation and insulting people isn't going to change their opinions, nor make them believe you're in the right, it just makes you look like a bit of an arse.

You have to get a balance between Free speech and public safety, and organisations such as GCHQ and NSA have abused their right to decide the levels of both of these factors. The Guardian is an amazing newspaper, and without it there would be so much more corruption than there is. Afa needs to realise that this type of spying and control is something that you would read about happening in Russia, who use their information to capture and lock up individuals who speak against the government. I don't want my government having this kind of power.

Since you guys are both drawing on the police analogy, lets run with it.

First if your boss is a cop, there is the Internal Affairs that handles complaints like these. If your boss is the Chief of Police, as extreme as that sounds, you have two options. Internal Affairs again (Which is independent just like the IC IGs actually, and while they are cops, their job is to police the police. They are the most hated cops around actually, for some ODD reason they've costed cops their jobs and lives and thrown many in prison.) Or you can take it higher and that is what the State level and above is for. Take it to the FBI, SBI, other agencies (Sheriffs office, etc.). If you took it to the media first, you better be prepared for legal action against you and the shit storm that will follow. Snowden would rather try to play the victim when he is anything but one.

"He could have had a severe crash" And I've been accused of thinking its the 1950's, making things up and all kinds of things, but damn!

This is the issue, your saying he had no choice, but he had many choices. If for instance he didn't want to go to the IC IGs, he still could have gone to members of Congress... Based on the shit storm, you'd think he would have found an ally or two. Yet, he didn't, he went off half cocked all to hell.

If he had gone to any of those people he would not be allowed to speak about the things he had seen , as they were all classified. I might sound like I am being conspiritual, but really I'm just thinking that even in the Police force there is corruption. But again, there is not point us making up theories... because he didn't do these things and we have no idea why. Perhaps he tried to and was shouted down, perhaps he was too scared or perhaps he knew how much of an attention grabber it would be. Who knows? All I know is that talks between America and China could do far more damage in a day than Edward Snowden has in a year.

[afa7336]

If he had gone to any of those people he would not be allowed to speak about the things he had seen , as they were all classified. I might sound like I am being conspiritual, but really I'm just thinking that even in the Police force there is corruption. But again, there is not point us making up theories... because he didn't do these things and we have no idea why. Perhaps he tried to and was shouted down, perhaps he was too scared or perhaps he knew how much of an attention grabber it would be. Who knows? All I know is that talks between America and China could do far more damage in a day than Edward Snowden has in a year.

 

Classified programs are classified and people can't speak to them? What a shock!

 

And so what if there is corruption on a police force, there are people in place to investigate and take care of it, just like there are IC IGs meant to take care of it in the Intelligence Community.

 

And are you sure about that? I'm sure if Snowden leaks the right information China could be highly pissed off. He's shown a capacity already to not keep things that should remain secret secret.

[Coswar]

Classified programs are classified and people can't speak to them? What a shock!

 

And so what if there is corruption on a police force, there are people in place to investigate and take care of it, just like there are IC IGs meant to take care of it in the Intelligence Community.

 

And are you sure about that? I'm sure if Snowden leaks the right information China could be highly pissed off. He's shown a capacity already to not keep things that should remain secret secret.

...

Perhaps he thought that this issue was too important for he to be silenced, if investigations didn't go his way. Lets agree to disagree, because you're getting a bit arsey about it. In my opinion more good than harm has come about because of this.

[afa7336]

...

Perhaps he thought that this issue was too important for he to be silenced, if investigations didn't go his way.

 

Wow, so lets take what you said to the legal realm, because we're talking about wide sweeping things here.

 

I stole this data from my employer because I thought they were going to punish me for going to the police about my boss doing some bad things. But instead of going to the police, I gave it to the media because I thought things wouldn't go my way if I reported it through proper channels. I just ignored reporting it to the proper people... Yeah, try that in any job and see what happens to you.

 

FYI, Snowden never really had access to said data, he hacked most of it. And planned to hack it before gaining employment at BAH.

[Coswar]

Wow, so lets take what you said to the legal realm, because we're talking about wide sweeping things here.

 

I stole this data from my employer because I thought they were going to punish me for going to the police about my boss doing some bad things. But instead of going to the police, I gave it to the media because I thought things wouldn't go my way if I reported it through proper channels. I just ignored reporting it to the proper people... Yeah, try that in any job and see what happens to you.

 

FYI, Snowden never really had access to said data, he hacked most of it. And planned to hack it before gaining employment at BAH.

No other job has as much control over the public, or as much importance to peoples lives. He gave information to the public about things that should not have been happening- being done by the people who are supposed to stop these types of things, not do them.Idc how he got the information, but I'm glad he did. And I'm glad I live in Ireland, where we don't have surveillance agencies capable of this monitoring.

[afa7336]

Yea ok

Like I said, I'm not going to argue with you, it's pointless.

Your facts are from biased sources, so yes you have a source, but no evidence.

Your arguments are all fine based on what you've stated to be "facts."

What I'm disputing is that what you're stating to be fact, actually is fact.

 

I'm still waiting for you to give me specifics, or do you just like saying things without proof? I've offered to give proof to things you question, yet you won't tell me what.

 

FYI, if you call me extremist, I wonder what you call Al Qaeda or what you called Usama Bin Laden. Especially considering I'm not even defending someone who put everyones lives at risk every time he leaks something new.

 

 

No other job has as much control over the public, or as much importance to peoples lives. He gave information to the public about things that should not have been happening- being done by the people who are supposed to stop these types of things, not do them.Idc how he got the information, but I'm glad he did. And I'm glad I live in Ireland, where we don't have surveillance agencies capable of this monitoring.

 

So what you are saying is that everyone should be able to leak information to the media, no matter the harm it causes to a Country even if its only a single thing that matters to you? Wow, people call me extremist, but you Sir take the cake. You'd risk the lives of everyone so one little thing can come out, that is crazy and dangerous as hell. I hope and pray that the next thing doesn't turn into causing a war. Though, Russia looks poised to start one without it. Good old Russians that are caring for good old Snowden.

[rentaspoon]

I'm still waiting for you to give me specifics, or do you just like saying things without proof? I've offered to give proof to things you question, yet you won't tell me what.

I'm still waiting for the source that China wants to help the Scots, cos I can only find about them offering help to the Welsh, which they declined.

[afa7336]

I'm still waiting for the source that China wants to help the Scots, cos I can only find about them offering help to the Welsh, which they declined.

 

 

Wow... Okay, let me quote what I TYPED since obviously you skimmed over it rather then read it. I'll bold my words so its more clearer so maybe this time you will comprehend what I typed up.

 

We don't need hypotheticals since we already know its happening, that's the point. I don't have to imagine since they ARE doing it AND putting lives at risk... you know publishing American Soldiers names among the many other things.

 

And the UK doesn't have enemies? Seriously, you really want to go with THAT? What the hell are you on about! Man you really are living in a small little bubble. I guess the whole "using the Scottish Independence to undercut UK power" was never said then? Isn't it sad, as an American I know more about the UK threats then Her own citizens. How about North Korea, Iran, China, Syria, Islamic Extremists... didn't you have problem not long ago with a few extremists and one of your own Soldiers was killed? Of course, nah, no enemies at all! Then you have Abdul Waheed Majeed, who was a British Born Muslim that did some nasty things recently and is thought to be taught by a radical cleric. Huh, ain't that interesting. But nope, we're Switzerland over here in the UK, nothing to see here!

 

Notice NOT ONCE did I relate the two together. Actually the reference to using the Scottish Independence is a reference to Argentina and getting the UK out of the "Five" and installing themselves. Something reported by the British Government I might add, wanna call me a lair on that too?

 

Make more sense now, or do I need to explain in little little words that are easier then what I have done before and now? If you're going to call me a lair, you might want to have something to actually back it up with instead of lies of your own! Interesting how that worked out there, isn't it. 

[rentaspoon]

Wow... Okay, let me quote what I TYPED since obviously you skimmed over it rather then read it. I'll bold my words so its more clearer so maybe this time you will comprehend what I typed up.

Notice NOT ONCE did I relate the two together. Actually the reference to using the Scottish Independence is a reference to Argentina and getting the UK out of the "Five" and installing themselves. Something reported by the British Government I might add, wanna call me a lair on that too?

Make more sense now, or do I need to explain in little little words that are easier then what I have done before and now? If you're going to call me a lair, you might want to have something to actually back it up with instead of lies of your own! Interesting how that worked out there, isn't it.

Actually I wasnt calling you a liar I was looking for a good read, I didnt skim over originally its just been a while and had work and a 7 month old who refused to go to sleep last night.

But thanks for reminding me, can I have the source?

[afa7336]

Actually I wasnt calling you a liar I was looking for a good read, I didnt skim over originally its just been a while and had work and a 7 month old who refused to go to sleep last night.

But thanks for reminding me, can I have the source?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9616006/Britains-enemies-will-exploit-Scottish-independence-to-cut-UK-power.html

 

There ya go, it was said by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the MPs.

 

The interesting thing is, on page one I go into it a little.

[rentaspoon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9616006/Britains-enemies-will-exploit-Scottish-independence-to-cut-UK-power.html

There ya go, it was said by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the MPs.

The interesting thing is, on page one I go into it a little.

Thank you.

TBH That is a lot of properganda atm and that I feel it's part of it. The Scots deserve independence and the last time we went against them it didn't end well.

You never mess with the Scots

[afa7336]

Thank you.

TBH That is a lot of properganda atm and that I feel it's part of it. The Scots deserve independence and the last time we went against them it didn't end well.

You never mess with the Scots

 

I'm not arguing that they don't deserve independence or anything like that. When people start saying the UK doesn't have any enemies, I'll use it to show that they do. It shouldn't deter them from trying to get independence if they want it, but it does show that you can't claim no enemies.

 

Heads up though, we might be heading into Ukraine. Looks like Russians (residents of Ukraine supposedly) wearing fatigues and carrying automatic weapons have stormed the regional parliament in Crimea and raised the Russian flag. I say supposedly because of two key factors, Russia is sheltering the ousted President AND Russia just so happens to have a Naval Base right there, while launching armed interceptors to patrol the border. Along with saying they will respond to "defend the rights of its compatriots and react without compromise to any violation of those rights." Eyewitness reports put them as Russian speakers (no surprise considering the region), but were wearing uniforms with no markings. Along with docking warships in Cuba.

[Coswar]

I'm not arguing that they don't deserve independence or anything like that. When people start saying the UK doesn't have any enemies, I'll use it to show that they do. It shouldn't deter them from trying to get independence if they want it, but it does show that you can't claim no enemies.

 

Heads up though, we might be heading into Ukraine. Looks like Russians (residents of Ukraine supposedly) wearing fatigues and carrying automatic weapons have stormed the regional parliament in Crimea and raised the Russian flag. I say supposedly because of two key factors, Russia is sheltering the ousted President AND Russia just so happens to have a Naval Base right there, while launching armed interceptors to patrol the border. Along with saying they will respond to "defend the rights of its compatriots and react without compromise to any violation of those rights." Eyewitness reports put them as Russian speakers (no surprise considering the region), but were wearing uniforms with no markings. Along with docking warships in Cuba.

I read an article on BBC news about that, and they had not said that the Russians were storming the parliament because they were part of the military. They seemed to be a separate group to the Russians in the Naval base. Oh and btw, many Scots do want to stay part of the UK and I'm not so sure if it will pass when the referendum comes around...

[afa7336]

I read an article on BBC news about that, and they had not said that the Russians were storming the parliament because they were part of the military. They seemed to be a separate group to the Russians in the Naval base. Oh and btw, many Scots do want to stay part of the UK and I'm not so sure if it will pass when the referendum comes around...

 

Well, they are supposedly Russian Separatists. I give it a 50/50 thats what they are and not Russians. When you take all the current facts in, and the fact that Putin is old school KGB and I am sure remembers what the KGB did in Afghanistan.

[MasterJV]

@LinusTech This type of news should be put in a different part of the forum. Always ends up in political arguments and disagreements. Just my opinion