WikiLeaks founder chooses to blackmail

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

I argue for the sake of arguing, knowing full well that neither side is going to change their minds.

Very realistic; although if you wish to argue ad infinitum for the sake of arguing you may find that soon enough folks will just stop engaging with you; you may consider that a victory so enjoy it. Others in this forum could attest to that.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Yes to both questions. In the case of Abu Ghraib, the military justice system was already in the process of doing Article 32 hearings on the miscreants. Abu Ghraib should've ben kept under wraps until the Army deemed it necessary for it to come out. What those soldiers did to those thugs/murderors isn't representative of the Army, or the United States. Tracking. The Army was in the process of holding them accountable. This was one incident that shouldn't have gotten out. But it did, and the Anti Iraqi Forces upped their fight when they otherwise wouldn't have.

The waterboarding tactics should've also ben kept under wraps, for similar reasons.

Like I said earlier, there are things that shouldn't be getting out to the general public, especially if it has the potential to be the Cause Célèbre for the forces we're fighting against.

Honest and consistent and answer. Confirms that our world view is so far apart that your postulate that we won't convince each other is spot on.

WTF: Wasting money on trumped up wars is not something the public is in favor of. That is why you folks have to trump them up , to scare the public for funds. What , you can't handle the truth?

BULLSHIT!

Heh, now THAT was justified.

There's nothing "trumped up" about these wars. The events of 9/11 woke most of America up to a cold hard reality... that a hostile entity that's not defined by what we're used to defining an enemy... was waging a systematic war of attrition against us. The invasion of Afghanistan was never just about 9/11, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, etc. It was our country finally responding to this war. It's a real war that's not adequately captured by the name, "Global War on Terrorism."

I call it, "The Terrorist War to Exterminate Western Civilization and to Establish Global Radical Islamic Law".

Different wars. Afghanistan was justified; Iraq, which WTF is almost certainly discussing here, was trumped up.

Warlock technology: Afghanistan leaks revealed how to go after it

Perhaps to the general public but in the technology world (and I mean non-classified world) the weaknesses have been around for a while already. In other words he didn't reveal anything that someone wanting to go after it didn't already know or couldn't already find out easily.

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

I've made deployments to Somalia,

Were you there in '93? Just wondering.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Ansley

Were you there in '93? Just wondering.

I'm sure if he told you he would have to kill you and we would much rather you are alive.

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

I'm sure if he told you he would have to kill you and we would much rather you are alive.

I ain't skeered.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

I'm sure if he told you he would have to kill you and we would much rather you are alive.

LOL +1

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

PRECISELY! Are you reading this discreetgent?

You know, you guys would have a good point on this if it wasn't for the fact that: A) the operational aspects of Warlock were well know as far back as 2005, B) EDO (the makers of Warlock) had published the details of the feed-forward signal amplifier design for Warlock in a 2006 patent, and C) the Warlock system had been almost completely replaced by the more advanced Raytheon ICE system before Wikileaks released the Warlock report.

As usual, it's all smoke from you guys. There was nothing in the released Wiki document that people in the field didn't already know. Even if there had been the Warlock system had already been pulled from the field by the time it was released. It was only you - and the general public - who were still in the dark when that report came out.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

I've made deployments to Somalia, Former Yugoslavia, and Iraq. I've also deployed to Haiti in response to contingencies there.

Yeah? Well I deployed to Anfield Road after the Liverpool match last night. Who's the tough guy now?

And get this, how many of your "world travelers" can claim to be a Shellback? Probably little to none. Hint, you have to be in a part of the world the majority of the world's population has yet to go to to get that designation.

Hint: Some of us have more than a third grade education - and last time I checked crossing the line did not enhance the IQ or common sense of those who happened to do it. A few of us even have a little bit of knowledge about the military and war making. Shocking, isn't it?

Accordingly, hornbooks are not considered persuasive by courts and should be used only for background purposes

Really? Where I went to law school they taught us something different. Your concept of law (and long-arm statutes in particular) is seriously, seriously naive.

I don't mean to be demeaning, but it's pretty clear that you're way over your head here. I understand that you enjoy jumping onto the net and arguing for sake of arguing but you really need to stick to topic like swabbing the deck, cleaning the head, and other various skills that you picked up at sea and let the college boys handle the hard stuff. If you're going to come on here and insult people you're going to find that it comes back to you in large buckets - especially when you can't even control the urge to play with the font settings.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

RK--

You point to our revolution as an example, but I believe this can occur in most any civilization. It's just that we are more familiar with our own history. Examples:

The Magna Carta and eventual marginalizing of the monarchy.
The French Revolution
Ghandi and Indian Independence
The American Industrial Revolution and the Child Labor Laws (also the fight against company scrip)

I'm not as familiar with the history of African, Asian or South American nations, but I'm sure the same dynamics apply. Especially if you subscribe to some of the theories put forth by John Stuart Mill.

I believe that most societies work in cycles. There is peace, there is unrest/disaffection, there is eventual revolt, there is peace again. No society can live in constant turmoil, although some do so more than others. Even Cuba, under Castro, became a stable society.

In the end, if there is mob rule, it is only transitory. Society as a whole gravitates towards order.

Magna Carta 1215 to the Glorious Revolution 1688 = 473 years (to the American Revolution 1775 = 560 years)

French Revolution 1789 to the Treaty of Paris 1814 = 25 years (there was that one hiccup at Waterloo in 1815) resulted in restoring the Bourbon dynasty until 1848—when there was another revolution. Paris wouldn’t be the beautiful city it is were it not for the 1848 “mobs.”

The history of the American labor strikes against capital begin in 1619, and the violence really crescendoed after the Civil War: e.g., the Polish craftsmen strike 1619, the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, the "Molly Maguires" 1885, the Haymarket Riot 1886, the Pullman Strike in 1894, the Homestead Strike 1892, the "Ludlow Massacre" 1914, the Everett Massacre 1916 (aka “Bloody Sunday” to the “Wobblies”), the Centralia Massacre 1919 (the “Wobblies” again), the Battle of Matewan 1920 (great movie), Columbine mine massacre 1927, the River Rouge (Ford Motor Company) strike 1941, and the Federal air traffic controllers 1981 (to mention a few). I am fairly certain this is an ongoing struggle.

Indian independence movement is somewhat more convoluted. British dominion in India starts with the British East India Company’s victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Followed by the First Anglo-Mysore War (1766-1769), the Second Anglo-Mysore War, (1780-1784), the Third Anglo-Mysore War (1789-1792) and in the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799) when Tipu Sultan was killed. Then there is the First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–46) and then the Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848–49) to consider. Plus, the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 These armed conflicts would continue into the 1880s.

Coincidentally, there were mob uprisings in China. One of the bloodiest uprisings in history, along with the Russian Revolution of 1917, was the Taiping Rebellion which lasted from 1850 to 1864. More famous is the Boxer Rebellion (1898 to 1901) aka "Righteous Fists of Harmony" or "Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists" (called "Boxers" by the English and Americans). There is some degree of similarity between the Boxer Rebellion and our present conflict. Both were/are fired by anti-Western sentiment. Plus, both conflicts were/are publically condemned by the government(s) in power to pacify the Western press and diplomatic corps, but—behind the scenes—the Boxers, like the Islamist, were/are supported and encouraged the government(s) in power.

Another instance of mob rule occurred in 1979 in Iran. Of course, we all know what happened there. That rising of the mob resulted in a regime change in Iran—and in the U.S.

My point is that none of these events have led to any extended period of peace. The Pax Britannia was marred by the civil wars in Germany and Italy, the Crimean War, the Balkan Wars, the Boer Wars and the Zulu uprisings (who, like the Chinese and Indians, did not like British rule). U.S. cavalry units were engaged in a similar struggle against Native Americans in the West (1823-1890). And the U.S. had that little tango with Spain in 1898.

The conflict between Christian and Muslim is even longer. North Africa, during the age of St Augustine, was once Christian. Byzantium, now part of Turkey, was once Christian. Christianity had spread to India, but that region was also overrun by Islam. India was conquered. Indonesia and Malaysia were conquered. All of these regions were converted to Islam at the point of a sword. Islam tried to conquer Europe.

Moorish Muslims invaded the Iberian Peninsula early in the 8th Century and, under the Ottomans, gained a foothold in Southeastern Europe in the middle of the 14th century. It took the Spanish Christians 700 years to reconquer the Iberian peninsula. Christian Europe (principally Spain and Venice) defeated the Ottoman (Muslim) fleet at Lepanto in 1571 ending its naval preeminence. The Ottomans were checked in their march against Vienna in 1683 in a war that lasted until 1699. Greece finally regained its independence in 1832. During the Balkan Wars of 1812 and 1813, the Ottomans were driven out of Europe except for a toehold in Thrace: which modern Turkey still claims.

As you can see, it’s been a long, protracted struggle. We’ve enjoyed but a momentary respite in 1400 years of Islamic expansionism. It’s only been 90 years since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, and it’s been only 60 years since the emergence of Sayyid Qutb’s pan-Islamic dogma that took root and flowered in the 1950s. It is said, that Qutb is the architect for the ideas and policies adopted by modern terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.

We are in a conflict with people who despise us for our pop culture, our political tenets, and our religious beliefs. As long as Islamic governments play both sides in the conflict, like the Qing Dynasty did with the Boxers, the struggle will continue.

Whether we in the U.S. like it or not, we are players on the world stage. More than half a century ago, Pearl Harbor demonstrated—once and for all—that the U.S. could no longer use two oceans to hide from world events.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

[COLOR=red]Yeah? Well I deployed to Anfield Road after the Liverpool match last night. Who's the tough guy now?

A real man would do so in an Everton kit!

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

My point is that none of these events have led to any extended period of peace.

I see you must have gotten an "A" in world history.

Maybe I didn't express my thought as clearly as I might have, but I don't think we are in disagreement. I believe that these things go in cycles. Peace -> Disaffection (with government) -> Unrest -> Rebellion -> Peace.

As Hobbes and Locke point out, governments only have the power that the subjects cede to them. And the subjects can take back the power from time to time.

Lasting peace. I don't think we'll ever get there. But I do think we go through cycles where there is more peace than other cycles.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

A real man would do so in an Everton kit!

My mamma didn't raise no stupid kids!

I was also at Old Trafford for United/Arsenal a few days ago and sat in the Stretford End. That was an experience as well.

Sunday it's down to Chelsea wearing red. That's the one I'm really worried about. If I stop posting you'll know what happened.

I'm off to Oz after that to see the Ashes. Need something a little tamer after a week of running from hooligans.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I believe that these things go in cycles. Peace -> Disaffection (with government) -> Unrest -> Rebellion -> Peace.

As Hobbes and Locke point out, governments only have the power that the subjects cede to them.

Lasting peace. I don't think we'll ever get there.

“The natural state of men, before they were joined in society, was a war, and not simply, but a war of all against all” (“Bellum omnium contra omnes”). Therefore, “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” – Hobbes.

He does sum it up rather well.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Pax Britannia was marred by the civil wars in Germany and Italy, the Crimean War, the Balkan Wars, the Boer Wars and the Zulu uprisings (who, like the Chinese and Indians, did not like British rule).

Oops! I omitted the Franco-Prussian War (at least as important as anything else I listed).

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

During the Balkan Wars of 1812 and 1813, the Ottomans were driven out of Europe except for a toehold in Thrace: which modern Turkey still claims.

Should read: Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913 (I hate passing on incorrect info).

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Very realistic; although if you wish to argue ad infinitum for the sake of arguing you may find that soon enough folks will just stop engaging with you; you may consider that a victory so enjoy it. Others in this forum could attest to that.

That's what happened on other message boards. Once they stop engaging me, time passes, then the cycle repeats, either on this board, or another one. When I argue "indefinitely," it's not just with the current debate, but continued on the following debate. I'd be a hypocrite if I advocate that America continue fighting until we accomplish our objectives, then turn around and fail to do precisely that on a specific debate on a message board.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Honest and consistent and answer. Confirms that our world view is so far apart that your postulate that we won't convince each other is spot on.

Thanks for being one of the rare posters that acknowledges that fact. I'm usually the only poster, in a forum debate, openly admitting that both sides would stick to their positions, while the opposition denies it.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Different wars. Afghanistan was justified; Iraq, which WTF is almost certainly discussing here, was trumped up.

Remember, this is asymmetrical warfare. Anybody that assumes that Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror is making the wrong assumption... they're thinking in symmetrical warfare terms. They're also failing to understand the true nature of the war, and enemy, that we're engaging.

We had a cease fire agreement with Iraq. Their failure to abide by their end of the cease fire was enough justification for us to go in and invade. But we didn't, giving diplomacy a chance instead. In 2001, America woke up to reality, we're involved with an asymmetrical war. Enter Osama Bin laden, who was looking for WMD to cause more US casualties on US soil. Enter Saddam, who had every intention of fooling the UN, and having a full WMD inventory. Osama Bin Laden, meet Saddam. Saddam, meet Osama.

In Asymetrical Warfare, that's equivalent to being stuck in a room, flooded with flammable liquid, with a guy that's playing with matches. We had to go in. Iraq, given the asymmetrical warfare that we're involved in, made perfect sense. We HAD to go in, it was the logical next step in the War on Terror.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Perhaps to the general public but in the technology world (and I mean non-classified world) the weaknesses have been around for a while already. In other words he didn't reveal anything that someone wanting to go after it didn't already know or couldn't already find out easily.

Not everybody was privy to the weakness, not everybody was privy to "Warlock." Now that the classified cables have been released, it's more available, to more people, than before. That simply increased the threat against our forces. Regardless of how you put this, the Useful Idiot worked against our military's mission.

[discreetgent]

Charles, TTH, Mazomaniac, WTF anyone hear the tree fall in the woods?

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Ansley

Were you there in '93? Just wondering.

1994.