WikiLeaks - Official Thread

Good stuff coming from his emails.



Basically, Bank of America went to the US DOJ to ask about going after Wikileaks to try and stop any potential BoA leaks coming out. The DOJ gave them the phone numbers for some private security firms and instructs them to avoid speaking directly to the firms and to just bring lawyers into the room and talk to the lawyer, letting the other side overhear, so it all is protected by lawyer/client privilege and not subject to discovery in any lawsuit. Security experts make lists of Wikileaks supporters and sympathetic journalists who need to be "dealt with" slowly in various ways that don't suggest a pattern. One of those happens to be Anonymous because of their DOS attacks against Visa/MC. And then, yeah

And also the emails talk about how they need to "disrupt" Glenn Greenwald and make him choose between "professional preservation and cause" (and anyone who has read GG knows which choice he would make). It's pretty sinister stuff but at the same time I find comfort in the fact that these people are incompetent buffoons.

Goddamn this shit is fucked up. I don't understand how anyone could defend what the US gov is doing.

No word of a lie, that Aaron Barr guy tried to add one of my ex-girlfriends to his facebook. I wonder if he was combing for Anonymous in British Columbia.

I don't like sharing a name with People That Suck.

Mildly related to the topics in the thread. Some in the government are trying to put a ban on or restrict companies from tracking people online. One day we might have to say good by to these wonderful banner ads on TNL that know when to sell Compass tampons.

http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/...erves-derailed

Another interesting fact from this article, apparently Apple can work faster than the pentagon.

Quote:

---

Just how slow does the government move? "It currently takes the Pentagon 81 months to field a new information technology system. The iPhone was developed in just 24 months," the deputy defense secretary said during his speech at the RSA security conference.

---

That story about the government telling Bank Of America about firms to contact in regards to wikileaks, AND the shit about that fuck head being destroyed by Aynonmous was on the Colbert Report tonight

The Guy Fawkes mask flashed over Colbert's face during the Greenwald interview as well.

Vid:

http://ca.gawker.com/5769950/colbert...a-hornets-nest

was there more to the interview than what was shown? I remember the dude not being there when they came back from the break

This isn't the first time this has popped up through Wikileaks; but it shows how overbearing our govt is becoming to the rest of the world.

http://torrentfreak.com/us-threatene...ng-law-120105/

The same I believe was done to Sweden; it's also a shame that no one is really talking about Wikileaks anymore, as Visa etc slowly cripple them with the financial stranglehold placed on it. Not to mention the false allocations of sexual misconduct.

I don't think those allegations were ever proven false. They were convenient, really convenient, but that's it.

does anyone really care what the guy did with his dick?

Only if it wikileaked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

it's also a shame that no one is really talking about Wikileaks anymore, as Visa etc slowly cripple them with the financial stranglehold placed on it. Not to mention the false allocations of sexual misconduct.

---

I've been keeping score.

Wikileaks 1
The Man 587,249

Yeah, but the loser in the end is us.

That link you posted was gross Thief.

Gross how? torrent freaks is usually pretty good on this stuff (though their bias is obvious).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

does anyone really care what the guy did with his dick?

---

Certainly, if he raped someone that would be a black mark against him.

That wouldn't change the fact that Wikileaks was unquestionably a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

I don't think those allegations were ever proven false. They were convenient, really convenient, but that's it.

---

True or false, they were bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

Certainly, if he raped someone that would be a black mark against him.

---

Didn't it end up being one of those "he had sex with me after two drinks and I regretted it the next day when I sobered up" kind of rapes?

I think it was like it's illegal to have sex without a condom over there.

Let's face it, the entire allegations stink of political clout. Someone found two girls he had some relations with in some form, paid them, and created a story. As far as conspiracies go this one is pretty damn likely.

It's true, they aren't even charging him with anything. They want him extradited for questioning. Who the fuck ever heard of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal Kaboom

It's true, they aren't even charging him with anything. They want him extradited for questioning. Who the fuck ever heard of that?

---

They want him extradited to some place that will them ship him off to the US, which will them ship him off to Gitmo.

Look, the whole think stinks. As I pointed out. I was just saying the allegations haven't been proven false.

This is how people in power squash opposition. Sex scandals are an easy way to do it. Ask Eliot Spitzer. But in the end, Spitzer did what he was accused of doing. And Spitzer's crimes weren't 1/100th of what they got on Assange.

How do I vote against this?

Vote against what? SOPA?

Write a letter to your Congressman

This Government abusing its power. I want to stop that. Third party I guess?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony

This Government abusing its power. I want to stop that. Third party I guess?

---

Ron Paul. Barring that, Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul? LOL. Ron Paul's position is NO campaign finance laws. So, basically, companies can do whatever the fuck they want to get their chosen fuckhead into office. The Ron Paul position would make this problem immeasurably worse.

The only acceptable POV on this is pure socialism - public financing of campaigns, and only public financing. No campaign donations, no PACs, no "super PACs", just the government hands over a check to every candidate who spends it how they see fit.

edit: You Ron Paul idiots seem to really have no idea that:
1. Ron Paul's vision of unfettered corporate power has been tried before in this country, and it sucks balls.
2. Ron Paul is basically a tenther that has no problem handing over the power to oppress from the feds to the states. The link below has Ron Paul vigorously defending the right of Texas to ban gay sex. That sounds like freedom to me!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Much of the power huge corporations have comes from the regulations themselves. In many cases removing the regulation removes power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

The only acceptable POV on this is pure socialism - public financing of campaigns, and only public financing. No campaign donations, no PACs, no "super PACs", just the government hands over a check to every candidate who spends it how they see fit.

---

This is my idea as well... but it just can't work.

Who gets the money? Right now I don't run as a Republican because I can't afford it. If it was public money handed out? Don't know if I'd take a shot or not. But the point is I might. Millions of people might. So what do you do when the Republican presidential primary alone has 20,000 candidates asking for ad money? Even if you could fund them all, imagine the mess in the primary debates and elections. It would be pure noise.

So maybe you only give money to 10 candidates. Who are the 10? How do you choose? Vote on 'em? Better regulate the finances of THAT election. Then you're right back to the beginning...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

Much of the power huge corporations have comes from the regulations themselves. In many cases removing the regulation removes power.

---

What makes you think that making the companies more powerful by removing restrictions from their operations would actually make them... less powerful?

Like I said, these shitty ideas were tried before. They resulted in huge monopolies, endemic corruption, poisoned food, indentured servitude, companies that paid employees with scrip instead of real money, child labor, employee abuse, etc. The whole reason why labor unions arose was to combat corporate power of the Gilded Age. The whole reason we got food safety laws was because companies were serving up dead rats and human bones in sausages. The whole reason why drugs need to be approved is because charlatans were selling poison as medicine. Read a book on the late 1800's one of these days.

These ideas have been tried. They result in a shitty society that benefits only the rich and powerful. We got rid of it, yet for some reason a bunch of nobodies like you want to bring it back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

This is my idea as well... but it just can't work.

---

The parties nominate the people. The "seriousness" of a party is already defined in law, so there can't be a Cheebs Party or whatever getting federal money.

How the parties decide to nominate is their own business. If they want to turn it into a clown show they can go right ahead. But once you get to the actual election level... no more.

As one example going with toy makers again:
Mattel writes a law saying that you have to use these materials and have to perform this testing because think of the children.

The law passes. The public does not know Mattel wrote it. From the outside, it looks like it is reigning Mattel in making sure they put out a safe and tested product.

In the real world, the law doesn't change the way Mattel runs things in any meaningful way since they wrote it themselves, and the tests and materials that are peanuts to a giant like Mattel are expensive insurmountable walls to any smaller toy company. Every single little guy dies out. Mattel gains power. In fact, that actually happened. Think of all the toy makers from the 70's and 80's. Think of all that are left. I think it might be Mattel and Hasbro.

This is what it is like in almost every regulated industry.


Back to the election thing: What do you mean let Republicans sort the nomination out themselves? We already don't let them run free on that one. Where do the millions for the Republican primaries come from, and how do you avoid 20,000 Republicans asking to get in on it?

And if you still think regulations don't give tremendous power to the industries being regulated, google Jack Abramoff

http://www.maartensz.org/log/2011/NL111112a.html

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/05...influence.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

This is what it is like in almost every regulated industry.

---

And in an unregulated industry, Mattel does whatever the fuck they want. Lead in toys? It takes years before brain damage in kids is known. Money gets made today.

Okay, now, Mattel may not do that, because they are Mattel. But sure as shit a lot of other companies will, in industries less visible and less safety-oriented as children's toys.

Again, how do I know that? Because it's been done before!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

Back to the election thing: What do you mean let Republicans sort the nomination out themselves? We already don't let them run free on that one. Where do the millions for the Republican primaries come from, and how do you avoid 20,000 Republicans asking to get in on it?

---

What I mean is that Republicans can pick their nominee any way they see fit. If they want to drop gazillions of dollars to pick the one idiot they want to represent their party they can do so. But once it gets to the national level they shouldn't do that anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

And in an unregulated industry, Mattel does whatever the fuck they want. Lead in toys? It takes years before brain damage in kids is known. Money gets made today.

---

But Mattel can STILL put lead in their toys. They wrote the law. They either know how to get around it, or can put the lead there in a totally legal manner, or whatever. I don't know. I didn't write it. You don't know. Congress doesn't know. Nobody knows. Except Mattel. Whether they choose to put the lead there or not is another matter. But you better damn well believe that they can.

Quote:

---

What I mean is that Republicans can pick their nominee any way they see fit. If they want to drop gazillions of dollars to pick the one idiot they want to represent their party they can do so. But once it gets to the national level they shouldn't do that anymore.

---

So after the bought and paid for elections at the Republican and Democrat level, you now have two bought and paid for candidates running with nice safe public money in the general election. How is that better? Still bought and paid for, AND we lose tax money.

This is all theoretical, obviously. But look, all a contribution is, is the present value of a favor. The amount of money that flows in for the general is huge compared to a primary, because... there's less candidates. Once it's down to 2, then everyone basically makes a bet. That's where the real money is. Romney will be commanding huge sums because he won the primary and he's one of the last two.

I don't know the exact details. What I do now is that campaign spending is obscene and out of control. Thanks to Citizen United it is going to be even more obscene this year. This needs to stop.

How can anyone honestly think that a Wall Street free of any regulation would be a good thing?

I mean seriously people.

Well, cheebs isn't completely wrong about regulation in regards to industry, helping larger industries. That is actually pretty well known and documented. It is covered in just about any level of business education when you start discussing "barriers to entry" in regards to entering a market. "meeting current regulations" is a barrier or entry that must be met.

An example: Electronics. Any electronic device that plugs straight into a wall must meet UL approval before being sold in the US market. The UL approval process cost about 6 to 8 thousand dollars per product. This process must be redone and resubmitted every time you change a component in a design. So if I release an amplifier or video game console that plugs straight into the wall, I have to have at least 6k to get it UL approved. If me or my design team change something in the device that will make it better, while the device is still in production, I have to get the design re-approved. Even if it is just one part. It could be a chip in the output of a console. Or changing one tube to another for an amp. *poof* there goes 6k.

This has proven to be a serious barrier of entry for the music equipment industry. The landscape of music equipment manufactures has changed little in the past 30-40 years. The big American and UK dogs are mostly the same as they were in the 60s/70s. New "big" players are almost 99% foreign companies that got started in their own countries. They got big before they had to deal with our mess. One exception might be Line 6, but they got big by offering their modeling "pods" which are conveniently "wall wart" powered and thus do not need UL approval. On a related note, most of the innovation and new companies in music with home bases in the US and UK develop battery powered devices exclusively because devices that are ran off of low 9 volts DC do not need UL approval. Small DC power devices have zero regulations necessary to be sold on store shelves.


On a related note, this is one reason why we still see so much innovation in web and software based business models. The barriers of entry are relatively small. There are few government regulations and the equipment necessary for production is relatively cheap. I could technically make a website, program or phone application from my house with a 200/300 $ computer. If I wanted to make iPhone aps, I would just need to pay the 100 fee, and apple would do the rest of the work for me. This is insanely cheap compared to traditional manufacturing that requires IP protection, overhead, labor, equipment, storage, shipping, etc. You could drop 100k easy before getting one simple physical product out the door.

Oh, and while I'm talking about it. You can save money on UL by letting china do the UL approval process. If you have some kind of guaranteed work agreement they will do it for about 600$ Just one more way that foreign labor is cheaper than US labor.

Yeah, those sweat shops are awesome aren't they.

I can't be bothered to read that bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

Yeah, those sweat shops are awesome aren't they.

---

No. They do suck.

This isn't a black and white issue. UL is important. There is a reason old people always warn you to turn shit off when you leave the house or leave a room. It used to be kind of common for people to burn their houses down with shitty made appliances. Heaters, electric blankets and other shit could possibly short out and light your house on fire.

But it does cost money to meet safety standards and for a third party to confirm that you met them. That is the reality. And that reality makes it harder to get into manufacturing. Most people don't have that kind of capitol.


I don't really know what the answer is. I don't want my house to burn down. But I'd also like it if new manufactures sprung up, under new companies. But that isn't going to happen so long as 1 new product costs like at least 10-20k in just legal requirements.

I've been used as a lab rat by pharmaceutical corporations since I was 9.

There is literally nothing I can do about it.

And that's one of our more "regulated" industries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

How can anyone honestly think that a Wall Street free of any regulation would be a good thing?

I mean seriously people.

---

It may not be such a good thing, but it's basically all government involved now. We may have regulations that are supposed to "protect" the public, but most of Wall Street has their hands deep in main-stream politicians pockets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

Well, cheebs isn't completely wrong about regulation in regards to industry, helping larger industries. That is actually pretty well known and documented. It is covered in just about any level of business education when you start discussing "barriers to entry" in regards to entering a market. "meeting current regulations" is a barrier or entry that must be met.

An example: Electronics. Any electronic device that plugs straight into a wall must meet UL approval before being sold in the US market. The UL approval process cost about 6 to 8 thousand dollars per product. This process must be redone and resubmitted every time you change a component in a design. So if I release an amplifier or video game console that plugs straight into the wall, I have to have at least 6k to get it UL approved. If me or my design team change something in the device that will make it better, while the device is still in production, I have to get the design re-approved. Even if it is just one part. It could be a chip in the output of a console. Or changing one tube to another for an amp. *poof* there goes 6k.

This has proven to be a serious barrier of entry for the music equipment industry. The landscape of music equipment manufactures has changed little in the past 30-40 years. The big American and UK dogs are mostly the same as they were in the 60s/70s. New "big" players are almost 99% foreign companies that got started in their own countries. They got big before they had to deal with our mess. One exception might be Line 6, but they got big by offering their modeling "pods" which are conveniently "wall wart" powered and thus do not need UL approval. On a related note, most of the innovation and new companies in music with home bases in the US and UK develop battery powered devices exclusively because devices that are ran off of low 9 volts DC do not need UL approval. Small DC power devices have zero regulations necessary to be sold on store shelves.


On a related note, this is one reason why we still see so much innovation in web and software based business models. The barriers of entry are relatively small. There are few government regulations and the equipment necessary for production is relatively cheap. I could technically make a website, program or phone application from my house with a 200/300 $ computer. If I wanted to make iPhone aps, I would just need to pay the 100 fee, and apple would do the rest of the work for me. This is insanely cheap compared to traditional manufacturing that requires IP protection, overhead, labor, equipment, storage, shipping, etc. You could drop 100k easy before getting one simple physical product out the door.

Oh, and while I'm talking about it. You can save money on UL by letting china do the UL approval process. If you have some kind of guaranteed work agreement they will do it for about 600$ Just one more way that foreign labor is cheaper than US labor.

---

Just make an external power brick and get it approved. Don't change the design of the power supply. No more recurring fee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kedawa

Just make an external power brick.

---

This is what most do. That is why most new gear is in pedal form or software related.

But that doesn't solve the problem of getting things that have to be ran off of 120 Vac aproved. No one is going to buy a power amp that runs off a little 16v wall wart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

So after the bought and paid for elections at the Republican and Democrat level, you now have two bought and paid for candidates running with nice safe public money in the general election. How is that better? Still bought and paid for, AND we lose tax money.

---

Well, other parties have a much better chance of competing for starters.

The person with the most money wins 95% of the time. Why not see what happens when they have an equal amount of money?

Don't vote.

None of these people represent you and your views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icarusfall

Don't vote.

None of these people represent you and your views.

---

I have one view, which is not this corporate government complex apparently. I want that view represented. And I want to know, however little it might help, how I can throw my vote somewhere towards removing that.

Set a cop on fire.

violence doesn't achieve much. The governments of the world know how to deal with violence pretty well. They have police and militaries.

People used to think that the best choice was then to change the world with ideas and peaceful protest. I'm not even sure that will do anything anymore. People with money have gotten really good at ruining the message of other people.

Set a lot of cops on fire.

They'll kill you before you can.

This is one reason that terrorism on foreign soil is so stupid. Single acts or a couple of loosely connected acts of violence don't achieve anything. At the most, you piss a large something other off and they make it their job to destroy you and those associated with you.

I promise you the ratio of people I can kill before they kill me is a vast gulf.

Only one way to find out.

When the time is right I'm prepared to kill.

You should be prepared to kill at all times.

The time is always right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icarusfall

I promise you the ratio of people I can kill before they kill me is a vast gulf.

---

But what will it achieve? He wanted to achieve something specific. I don't see how any kind of mass killing on your part would achieve what he wants.

Killing people isn't even hard. Any one of you could figure something out in minutes.

Example. Figure out the break or lunch time of any school. Get an 18wheeler, drive straight through the children. They will all be bunched together and unable to get out of the way. Could possibly work for a mall or sporting event. Double damage if you get an 18wheeler with a flammable substance in the trailer.

Dump a lot of salt in a pool. Connect a high voltage line to the pool at peek time.

Get a bulldozer. Armor it with concrete. Find a crowd. Maybe something like a state fair where people couldn't hear you or easily get out of the way.

Any kind of bomb in any major amusement park in the summer.

Blow a couple gas trucks up at the middle top of a major dam.

Bomb on some railroad tracks.



See how easy that was to think up? But what would it achieve? Not positive change. The government would just pass new regulation in whatever related thing so they won't appear unaffected to voters.

No matter how much anger and hate you have in you for whatever ruling partying, you have to realize that any kind of super violent action will be counter productive.

Like flying a plane into a building?

I reported that last post to the FBI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

Like flying a plane into a building?

---

Well yes. That would be a prime example of what I'm talking about.

What did we learn from 911? Their side didn't really get any positive shit out of it. And it turned most people above 35 into scared assholes who want to regulate everything.

Nothing positive came out of 911. Not a single thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave is ok

I reported that last post to the FBI

---

I take it you're one of the good germans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

Well yes. That would be a prime example of what I'm talking about.

What did we learn from 911? Their side didn't really get any positive shit out of it. And it turned most people above 35 into scared assholes who want to regulate everything.

Nothing positive came out of 911. Not a single thing.

---

Their side made America waste trillions of dollars and turned it into a police state for the cost of a few flying lessons. I'd say it worked out ok for them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave is ok

Their side made America waste trillions of dollars and turned it into a police state for the cost of a few flying lessons. I'd say it worked out ok for them

---

That isn't a positive gain for them. It may be emotionally fulfilling for a few select individuals, but as a group of people, or a religion, or country(s) they are worse off for it.

Are they?

Yes. Everyone involved is worse off.

It was undoubtedly the goal of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists who follow Sayyid Qutb's philosophy. I know this because the man said that was his goal.

If Osama Bin Ladens plan was to bankrupt America, he was very successful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

Nothing positive came out of 911.

---

Have you not seen the the Hulk Hogan .gif?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

Their side didn't really get any positive shit out of it.

---

Have your read a newspaper in the last 5 years? The entire point was to rally people against American culture in the middle east, to see America as an enemy, and to oppose more westernized leaders in the region via revolution. They got EXACTLY what they wanted: An increasingly fundamental, anti-American Middle East that is ready and willing to overthrow its leaders.

Remember, before Al Qaeda ever attacked any Americans, they tried to start a revolt in Egypt, and they failed. Fucking with us was just a means to an end, and now that end has been realized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

An increasingly fundamental, anti-American Middle East that is ready and willing to overthrow its leaders. .

---

But that isn't a positive. They are not better off for achieving that.


Look at this way. If a crackhead shoots someone to get money to buy crack, and I say that didn't do anyone any good, are you going to argue that it did the crackhead good? Knowing that he is an addict and the crack will further lead to his own destruction?


It doesn't matter if some crazies got what they wanted. That area of the world is fundamentally worse off for it. You can not make an argument for how the middle east is better off for becoming more fundamentalist and anti-American.

The attack wasn't by the entire middle east, so their best interests shouldn't play into it. The people who commited the atrocity and those who are aligned with them got exactly what they're after, and the world is a better place for it in their eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arjue

The people who commited the atrocity and those who are aligned with them got exactly what they're after, and the world is a better place for it in their eyes.

---

Their opinion doesn't factor into this. They don't need what they want. Being a king of shit only makes you a king of shit. You guys want to say "but they are kings!" but you are forgetting that is only of a shit pile.

WHAT IN THE HOLY FUCK... I FEEL DIZZY.

lol.

Amazing. I am honestly amazed. I skipped, read icarus's post, went back, and wow.

I am pretty amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

Their opinion doesn't factor into this. They don't need what they want. Being a king of shit only makes you a king of shit. You guys want to say "but they are kings!" but you are forgetting that is only of a shit pile.

---

In their view, those goals (which I sincerely doubt you'd be able to convince them are, in fact, a "shit pile") were indeed a necessity. Looking at the issue from their perspective doesn't mean you're condoning their actions or beliefs. Indeed, part of the problem is that very few of us endeavor to understand them at all before sticking our collective nose in their business. Nobody is arguing that increased fundamentalism is better for the region, only that the extremist minority ultimately got what they were after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No One

extremist minority ultimately got what they were after.

---

Getting what they were after doesn't translate into them being better off. It is possible to desire and pursue things that are self destructive.

Saw off your hands.

You'll be better off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

Getting what they were after doesn't translate into them being better off. It is possible to desire and pursue things that are self destructive.

---

I agree completely, but I don't think anyone was arguing that they're better off. Only that they more than likely see it that way themselves. When your worldview is shaped by a perpetually tense, oppressive and often dangerous environment, as well as a radical belief system that will settle for no less than the complete annihilation of your enemies, taking a step back and looking at the big picture in a logical way is probably not in the cards.

I don't know what your or anyone's problem is.

I said everyone is worse off. And no one has (or will be able to) given a good argument of how the terrorist are better off. Getting what you wanted != better off.

I wasn't accusing them of not getting what they were after. Them getting what they were after is the point. They got it. Now they are worse off than when they started.

This shit isn't hard. You're all being intently difficult.

:doubt:

I don't really know how to explain it any more simply and succinctly than I already have.

Well, it didn't take you long to find the tar baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

I don't know what your or anyone's problem is.

I said everyone is worse off. And no one has (or will be able to) given a good argument of how the terrorist are better off. Getting what you wanted != better off.

I wasn't accusing them of not getting what they were after. Them getting what they were after is the point. They got it. Now they are worse off than when they started.

This shit isn't hard. You're all being intently difficult.

---

How are they worse off? They're fine, but now the entire world takes everything they say more seriously. They are fine.

We haven't been actually fighting them for the past 10 years, most of them peaced out to Pakistan as soon as we invaded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave is ok

How are they worse off? They're fine, but now the entire world takes everything they say more seriously. They are fine.

We haven't been actually fighting them for the past 10 years, most of them peaced out to Pakistan as soon as we invaded.

---

I think his point was that they're worse off because it's pretty established at this point that we're not afraid to kill the shit out of some brown people, which I agreed was a valid position. Then he argued that we were wrong and it was a valid position, and I'm pretty sure I now have post-traumatic stress disorder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No One

I think his point was that they're worse off because it's pretty established at this point that we're not afraid to kill the shit out of some brown people, which I agreed was a valid position. Then he argued that we were wrong and it was a valid position, and I'm pretty sure I now have post-traumatic stress disorder.

---

I'm arguing that people like Frog is wrong.

If we can all agree that they are worse off, there was no point in Frog asking me if I had read a paper or going on and on about all the things the Terrorist achieved. If we all know that the things they got are destructive to them and the people around them, there is zero point to his post. Its like "THEY GOT ALL THIS STUFF!!!....that is bad for them."


I get the feeling that some people have made the assumption that being the leader of a terrorist organization is like being Cobra Commander and the leaders are off spending extended weekends at Cobrala.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fe 26

I get the feeling that some people have made the assumption that being the leader of a terrorist organization is like being Cobra Commander and the leaders are off spending extended weekends at Cobrala.

---

Sometimes, when you are passionate about something, the results are more important than your personal comfort.

The results are the worst part of all.

That is a matter of opinion.

I would say people living in a country ruled by religious fanaticism are better off dead, and the rest of us are better off without them.
It's all good.

Really? Decent people live in those countries too, you know.

It's an act of mercy.

I'm just being crass

So, anything still going on with this

People are too busy rioting over Mass Effect 3's ending to care.

I'm not.

Shit happens in ME3.

They sort of fizzled when they were supposed to release some major information a few times last year but never did.

The man won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GohanX

The man won.

---

You're paying attention to the wrong news sources.