# " All we are saying is give peas, a chance ".
It's fitting that Nobel invented Dynamite, as this is a Dynamite thread.
I should have been a disc jockey. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Back on topic: whether you love him or loathe him, Snowden did not bring peace--his revelations caused Americans to distrust their own government and they sowed discord between countries. The prize should go to someone who actually tries to bring and maybe even succeeds at bringing people together.
Seiously, people like ISIS who have openly declared war against the West and People who worship Allah differntly from how they do have to be stopped. A part of that action must be military.
So I take it you have enlisted and are on your way to Syria?
I see no reason to serve in the military again, especially at my age.
Moving to China and Russia was not a good PR move for Snowden. Iceland or Paraguay would probsbly have let him in, but then what?
The US even forced a president's plane down and illegaly searched it when they suspected Snowden was on board. Snowden probably thought the US wouldn't dare to do something like that against China or Russia.
I think it goes beyond not being a good PR move. I think Snowden is a naïve attention seeker who didn't think anything through properly. The CIA has never been a boy scout organisation. Anyone who thinks that any major intelligence organisation in the world is squeaky clean is naïve. He voluntarily, willingly - and probably excitedly - accepted a job with the CIA, clearly he hadn't thought through what the CIA does. Did he have a genuine pang of conscience once he was there and saw what the CIA does, or did he simply become another Generation-Me spoiled brat who didn't like his job and decided to spit his dummy and go public? I'm not condoning what the CIA does but none of his revelations are in the slightest bit surprising to anyone with any interest in world affairs. There isn't a government out there that doesn't keep an eye on its own people and on its closest allies. Is it right? No. Does it violate our individual rights? Yes. Is it part of life in the world today? Regrettably yes. Do you really think any of the governments who learned they were being watched by the US were actually surprised? No. However, once it's made public, they have to act with indignance...and then they share single malts with their U.S. counterparts afterwards.
If Snowden was indeed horrified that the CIA was violating the very essence of the freedoms upon which the U.S. was built and thrives, there is no way on earth he could ever contemplate going to China or Russia, two countries in which those who speak out against the government are routinely harrassed at best and disappear at worst. Snowden's indignation would have been far more palatable had he indeed headed to Iceland. By seeking refuge in Russia, his actions pang to me of naivety, opportunism or a political agenda, not a desire to make the U.S. a better place.
I should add that I am a big supporter of whistleblowers, I just don't believe that Snowden qualifies for any acclaim for his actions.
What Snowden discovered the CIA/NSA is doing isn't just dirty, it's illegal and a major breach of the constitution. That level of surveilance is also a huge civil rights violation. We all know inteligence organiszations do morally questionably things, but this was about society sliding into an Orwellian regime.
I assume Russia and China do the same thing as far as their tecnology allows, they are without question dictatorships. But I think it's clear Snowden didn't plan to stay in China or Russia. If he could do it safely I bet he would move to Iceland or Paraguay tomorrow.
Back on topic: whether you love him or loathe him, Snowden did not bring peace--his revelations caused Americans to distrust their own government and they sowed discord between countries. The prize should go to someone who actually tries to bring and maybe even succeeds at bringing people together.
Civil rights and human rights is crusial to peace. If actually creating peace was a prerequisite, Martin Luther King or Dalei Lama shoudn't have gotten the prize either. While civil rights for ethnic minorities was (one of) the most important human rights issues in the 60's, the protection of privacy from surveilance is a burning issue today.
This is all beginning to sound like Pinko, commie, lefty talk !
and I'll have none of it. I hope any NSA agents reading this thread
Remember THUNDERPUSSY, is a friend of America, -{ and is NOT
Connected to any if these anti-American Government, and her
Security agencies sentiments.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Right you are, TP. No US inteligence agency has ever done anything wrong. In the unlikely case they ever will do wrong, they should be left to do their job! USA! USA! USA! )
Back on topic: whether you love him or loathe him, Snowden did not bring peace--his revelations caused Americans to distrust their own government and they sowed discord between countries. The prize should go to someone who actually tries to bring and maybe even succeeds at bringing people together.
Civil rights and human rights is crusial to peace. If actually creating peace was a prerequisite, Martin Luther King or Dalei Lama shoudn't have gooten the prize either. While civil rights for ethnic minorities was (one of) the most important human rights issues in the 60's, the protection of privacy from surveilance is a burning issue today.
Perhaps saying "bring peace" was wrong of me--my main point, though, is that Snowden's actions are entirely divisive in regards to cooperation, understanding, trust, etc. His are not actions designed to make the world a more peaceful place.
This is all beginning to sound like Pinko, commie, lefty talk !
and I'll have none of it. I hope any NSA agents reading this thread
Remember THUNDERPUSSY, is a friend of America, -{ and is NOT
Connected to any if these anti-American Government, and her
Security agencies sentiments.
I'm a pinko lefty (though not a commie), and proud of it. So there!
Back on topic: whether you love him or loathe him, Snowden did not bring peace--his revelations caused Americans to distrust their own government and they sowed discord between countries. The prize should go to someone who actually tries to bring and maybe even succeeds at bringing people together.
Civil rights and human rights is crusial to peace. If actually creating peace was a prerequisite, Martin Luther King or Dalei Lama shoudn't have gooten the prize either. While civil rights for ethnic minorities was (one of) the most important human rights issues in the 60's, the protection of privacy from surveilance is a burning issue today.
Perhaps saying "bring peace" was wrong of me--my main point, though, is that Snowden's actions are entirely divisive in regards to cooperation, understanding, trust, etc. His are not actions designed to make the world a more peaceful place.
I think the Nobel commitee feels lasting peace can best be reached through civil rights and international trust. The illegal NSA surveilance does the opposite.
I think the Nobel commitee feels lasting peace can best be reached through civil rights and international trust. The illegal NSA surveilance does the opposite.
I'm going to agree with HardyBoy on this one. Whilst Snowdens actions can be interpreted as heroic by some his actions are divisive and causes instability and distrust.
Not sure what I think of Whisteblowers. I don't think their motivation is as altruistic as they would make you believe.
I don't think Julian Assange is going to nominated for anything anytime soon.
As I said recently I don't think there is anyone who stands out this year. The world is in a mess.
I also would like to congratulate the two winners :007) They are both worthy winners.
There is talk that this is the last year Thorbjørn Jagland heads the Nobel Peace Committee. Especially after Obama got the peace prize many feel Jagland lacks the judgemet needed for the chairmanship. According to himself his only missgivings about giving Obama the prize was that Obama was a "too obvious" choice. The fact that no-one had nominated Obama leaving it to the members themselves to nominate the president should be a hint that Obama wasn't so obvious after all. Many also feel that the committee looks too much like a parliamentary committee with all its former ministers and prime ministers. Explaining to countries like China (boy, are they pissed off after a Chinese dissident was awarded the prize!) that the prize isn't awarded by the government doesn't get any easier due to the type of members the Nobel committe has. Alfred Nobel's testament stipulates that the Norwegian Parliament must chose the members of the Nobel committee, but must they chose among themselves? Perhaps fomer judges, members of NGO's, bishops, artists and other groops would be just as well suited for the job? As long as our pariliamen picks them there is no reason foreigners can sit on the committee too.
Comments
It's fitting that Nobel invented Dynamite, as this is a Dynamite thread.
I should have been a disc jockey.
Anyhow - Malala is a good choice for the real Nobel price.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I see no reason to serve in the military again, especially at my age.
What Snowden discovered the CIA/NSA is doing isn't just dirty, it's illegal and a major breach of the constitution. That level of surveilance is also a huge civil rights violation. We all know inteligence organiszations do morally questionably things, but this was about society sliding into an Orwellian regime.
I assume Russia and China do the same thing as far as their tecnology allows, they are without question dictatorships. But I think it's clear Snowden didn't plan to stay in China or Russia. If he could do it safely I bet he would move to Iceland or Paraguay tomorrow.
Civil rights and human rights is crusial to peace. If actually creating peace was a prerequisite, Martin Luther King or Dalei Lama shoudn't have gotten the prize either. While civil rights for ethnic minorities was (one of) the most important human rights issues in the 60's, the protection of privacy from surveilance is a burning issue today.
and I'll have none of it. I hope any NSA agents reading this thread
Remember THUNDERPUSSY, is a friend of America, -{ and is NOT
Connected to any if these anti-American Government, and her
Security agencies sentiments.
Nothing personal/political with Obama but hadn't actually done anything at that stage .... Always got the impression he was a bit embarrassed ;%
Not sure anyone deserves the peace prize this year. Most of the world is fighting and no one stands out as actually trying to end it ...
Perhaps saying "bring peace" was wrong of me--my main point, though, is that Snowden's actions are entirely divisive in regards to cooperation, understanding, trust, etc. His are not actions designed to make the world a more peaceful place.
Imagine the mess if he hadn't been overseeing the Middle East :v
I'm a pinko lefty (though not a commie), and proud of it. So there!
I think the Nobel commitee feels lasting peace can best be reached through civil rights and international trust. The illegal NSA surveilance does the opposite.
I'm going to agree with HardyBoy on this one. Whilst Snowdens actions can be interpreted as heroic by some his actions are divisive and causes instability and distrust.
Not sure what I think of Whisteblowers. I don't think their motivation is as altruistic as they would make you believe.
I don't think Julian Assange is going to nominated for anything anytime soon.
As I said recently I don't think there is anyone who stands out this year. The world is in a mess.
2014 Nobel Peace Prize. {[]
There is talk that this is the last year Thorbjørn Jagland heads the Nobel Peace Committee. Especially after Obama got the peace prize many feel Jagland lacks the judgemet needed for the chairmanship. According to himself his only missgivings about giving Obama the prize was that Obama was a "too obvious" choice. The fact that no-one had nominated Obama leaving it to the members themselves to nominate the president should be a hint that Obama wasn't so obvious after all. Many also feel that the committee looks too much like a parliamentary committee with all its former ministers and prime ministers. Explaining to countries like China (boy, are they pissed off after a Chinese dissident was awarded the prize!) that the prize isn't awarded by the government doesn't get any easier due to the type of members the Nobel committe has. Alfred Nobel's testament stipulates that the Norwegian Parliament must chose the members of the Nobel committee, but must they chose among themselves? Perhaps fomer judges, members of NGO's, bishops, artists and other groops would be just as well suited for the job? As long as our pariliamen picks them there is no reason foreigners can sit on the committee too.
I'm the best !