4 ms·

Phew - I agree. Just making sure I'm not completely insane here, and frankly the hero worship of him is really starting to creep me out. I worry that too many p

by bedhead 13y ago

Phew - I agree. Just making sure I'm not completely insane here, and frankly the hero worship of him is really starting to creep me out. I worry that too many people blindly see this as getting back at THE MAN without giving enough consideration to many other aspects of the ordeal. I think his actions while on the run are just pathetic. He's such a weasel, like a guy who sucker punches someone on the street then takes off. The to align himself with these other countries who in the grand scheme of things are far worse actors than the US takes some serious balls. I still get the sense that 90% of the reason he decided to pull this off was for selfish reasons, that he wanted the notoriety. EDIT - I suspect numerous downvotes will confirm the consensus

insuffi 13y ago
It IS getting back at the MAN, as well as the man's partners(including all the big corporations). He lets them/the man lie, and then exposes them/him.(I'm not saying corporations LOVE to cooperate with the government. It is however unacceptable to give them direct backdoors(see microsoft case).) I don't think the weasel simile is appropriate in this case. I don't think aligning himself with countries of questionable loyalty to his ideals is an inherently bad thing either - 1)It creates a sort of dichotomy, and increases the contrast between what the US portrays itself to be, and what it actually is(due to it using the same exact methods commie governments use) 2) Those are the only ones that will give him asylum, as the US is, after all, a G6 country. 3) It buys him more time(see 2.) to make decisions. But you have to look at the other side of this issue - not for a second has the U.S. played this game without dirty tricks. I didn't downvote you, however, I do think you watch US based media too much, judging from the rather overly simple argument. If not, then my apologies.
acqq 13y ago
How are those countries "far worse actors" except for you not living in one of them and therefore having a significant bias? Did any of these countries invade a country as big as Iraq based on plain manipulations? Can any country come even near in the number of dictators it supported? Just as a minuscule example of US foreign policies, have you ever heard about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état Or use of, practically, chemical weapons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange Or something current: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/11/to_protect_and_defend_obama_constitution http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/11/to_protect_... "Now in his second term, President Obama insists that his counterterrorism policies differ markedly from Bush's. However, there are far more similarities than differences with regards to: non-battlefield targeted killings (an estimated 50 under Bush, and 387 under Obama); indefinite detention of suspected terrorists (approved by both through executive orders); broad surveillance authorities (as former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden admitted on Sunday, 'NSA is actually empowered to do more things than I was empowered to do under President Bush's special authorization')"

by bedhead 13y ago

insuffi 13y ago

It IS getting back at the MAN, as well as the man's partners(including all the big corporations). He lets them/the man lie, and then exposes them/him.(I'm not saying corporations LOVE to cooperate with the government. It is however unacceptable to give them direct backdoors(see microsoft case).) I don't think the weasel simile is appropriate in this case. I don't think aligning himself with countries of questionable loyalty to his ideals is an inherently bad thing either - 1)It creates a sort of dichotomy, and increases the contrast between what the US portrays itself to be, and what it actually is(due to it using the same exact methods commie governments use) 2) Those are the only ones that will give him asylum, as the US is, after all, a G6 country. 3) It buys him more time(see 2.) to make decisions. But you have to look at the other side of this issue - not for a second has the U.S. played this game without dirty tricks. I didn't downvote you, however, I do think you watch US based media too much, judging from the rather overly simple argument. If not, then my apologies.

acqq 13y ago

How are those countries "far worse actors" except for you not living in one of them and therefore having a significant bias? Did any of these countries invade a country as big as Iraq based on plain manipulations? Can any country come even near in the number of dictators it supported? Just as a minuscule example of US foreign policies, have you ever heard about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état Or use of, practically, chemical weapons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange Or something current: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/11/to_protect_and_defend_obama_constitution http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/11/to_protect_... "Now in his second term, President Obama insists that his counterterrorism policies differ markedly from Bush's. However, there are far more similarities than differences with regards to: non-battlefield targeted killings (an estimated 50 under Bush, and 387 under Obama); indefinite detention of suspected terrorists (approved by both through executive orders); broad surveillance authorities (as former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden admitted on Sunday, 'NSA is actually empowered to do more things than I was empowered to do under President Bush's special authorization')"