HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JackRiddler » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 71 Next »

JackRiddler

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 22,712

Journal Archives

Wrong, they have a record of who looked.

If they sent texts, they have a list of the numbers to which they sent the texts. Please do not attempt again to misinform us about this self-evident fact.

This data won't be wiped, since nothing need ever be wiped any more.

Numbers receiving texts can be automatically be matched to phone accounts & identities, and form a database for possible future exploitation.

The data can also be graded according to how long people looked - which doubtless matches roughly with consumer demographic profiles.

Many other demographic markers (sex, for example) don't require individual identification. (Not that identification is impossible, only that they're claiming they didn't do it in this case, of course.)

They can choose to sell the database at any later point. For charity, even. If anyone complains about such practices, they're supporting violence against women.

Stunt promo usurps and trivializes real issue.

Media whores (most of whom would as easily promote Halliburton or Monsanto if the money was right) congratulate themselves for being so noble and smart.

Some PR manager gets a prize and acts like they're Momma Theresa or Harriet Tubman.

Further push-advertising intrusion within public space legitimated.

In subsequent buzz, anyone who doesn't express wonderment at this nonsense is accused of being insensitive to important issue, or of supporting violence against women.

Apologists predictably dispense platitudes about technology being value-neutral. The demonstration of new surveillance technology is altogether harmless and if you don't think so, you're paranoid!

(Okay, so the facial scanners in this case may not have done bio-recognition and individual targeting. Surveillance cameras already do, and future billboards obviously will!)

Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine

Source: Der Spiegel (English edition), March 6, 2015.



(...)

On that same day, General Philip Breedlove, the top NATO commander in Europe, stepped before the press in Washington. Putin, the 59-year-old said, had once again "upped the ante" in eastern Ukraine -- with "well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery" having been sent to the Donbass. "What is clear," Breedlove said, "is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day."

German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn't understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn't the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

The pattern has become a familiar one. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.

The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda." Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove's comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.


Read more: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-concerned-about-aggressive-nato-stance-on-ukraine-a-1022193.html


Details the German government's rift with the hardliners within the U.S. government and NATO, like Nuland and Breedlove, who are massively exaggerating (or fabricating) Russian state intervention in the Ukraine. While Germany works to negotiate a peace, this narrow faction are going all-in for the Kiev government and driving toward a confrontation with Moscow. This has Germans and Europeans alarmed, and the appearance of such a piece in Der Spiegel of all places is very big news.

Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine

Source: Der Spiegel (English edition)

(...)

On that same day, General Philip Breedlove, the top NATO commander in Europe, stepped before the press in Washington. Putin, the 59-year-old said, had once again "upped the ante" in eastern Ukraine -- with "well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery" having been sent to the Donbass. "What is clear," Breedlove said, "is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day."

German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn't understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn't the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

The pattern has become a familiar one. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.

The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda." Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove's comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.

Read more: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-concerned-about-aggressive-nato-stance-on-ukraine-a-1022193.html



Details the German government's rift with the hardliners in the U.S. and NATO, like Nuland and Breedlove, who are massively exaggerating Russian state intervention, seemingly driving toward a confrontation with Moscow that has the Germans alarmed. The appearance of such a piece in Der Spiegel is big news.

Kill the messenger!!!

The thread topic is none of the distractions you want to bring in. There are Nazi movements across Europe, Hindu supremacists are in the Indian government, and asteroids orbit the sun - so what?

This thread is supposedly about ISIS. It is not about your Reagan-worthy fantasies about how Dem Liberals Blame America for All Bad Things. Your rhetoric is petty, self-pitying, shameful and very right-wing, but that is also beside the point.

On the topic of this thread:

The current existence and territorial position of an Islamist paramilitary in Iraq and Syria is the product of the war of aggression launched by the states of U.S. and U.K., which shattered the secular Iraqi nation and contributed to the eventual dissolution of Syria. There would be no ISIS holding territory without the U.S.-U.K. destruction of Iraq. Furthermore, something like ISIS was the predictable result of the 2003 war of aggression.

A lot of bad, violent ideologies dating back hundreds and even thousands of years are still floating around, including Christianisms in the Crusader mode and a version of Judaism that advocates genocide against Arabs. So? Ideologies are not actors in history. They become relevant through context and agency.

Furthermore, any readers above fifth-grade level and with the slightest sense unblinded by their own ideology will have no trouble figuring out which of the two of us is refusing to "tax the brain," refusing to listen or to respond relevantly, and ignoring elementary logic and facts. Thanks for playing and deal with it.

That's a false label. I merely remember what just happened.

The Wahhabi ideology indeed arose centuries ago, which directly contradicts your argument. Twenty years ago, its adherents did not hold territory within Iraq or Syria, and had no prospects of doing so. There may have been little likable about them, but clearly, they were less extreme. There was no Islamist army able to threaten Baghdad. So what happened? The nation-state of Iraq was destroyed from without in an act of direct state aggression upon another state, one that is without parallel in the last 30 years. The fact that you call this enormous crime a "cock-up" already speaks volumes about your mindset: America, she doesn't commit crimes, she can only make mistakes in a rough world where others are the bad guys.

That's the situation with ISIS. There's no need to answer your silly questions about completely unrelated matters, some of which are FOXNEWS-level attempts at mockery (tsunamis, ha ha). These betray an extreme America-centrism. Why? Because you seem to be easily wounded by the facts, when these show the responsibility of the government you happen to identify with. It's no different than when Reagan claimed Democrats always "Blame America first." (It's not the "America" per se, that's an abstraction. We're talking about a system of political economy, policy, business models, and a variety of actors who have indeed contributed to phenomena like climate change - and the rise of ISIS.)

Stop arming the world.

These questions only seem to be asked of the public after the latest monster only "we" can slay has already arisen as a consequence of earlier U.S. policy (inadvertantly, unintentionally, intentionally, oops as a necessity). The question is why did the United States and U.K. governments destroy the nation of Iraq in an act of aggressive war, thereby causing millions of refugees to flee mostly into Syria? Remember that? Why did these same governments follow up some years later by intervening to assure the destruction of Libya? Why do they arm and support the Gulf states, some of the most oppressive and aggressive regimes in the world, whose direct support for the most extreme factions in Syria and Iraq gave rise to ISIS?

Related, why did the U.S. government devise and force a policy on Mexico that led to an insane drug war in which tens of thousands of people have been murdered, often with the same barbarity (mass beheadings, for example) as in the ISIS-controlled territory?

Stop helping to set up future conflicts and wars around the world. Stop allowing private interests to profit from these by way of arms sales and debt.

Stop!!! You must vote for the Lady from Goldman Sachs!

Because... Jeb Bush!

With us or against us!

I have seen the propaganda campaign.

Hollywood A-list films are not just movies, they are accompanied by large-scale propaganda campaigns that often cost more than the production of the movie itself and reach a far greater number of people through unsolicited commercials, talk-show interviews, media buzz, awards bullshit, etc. etc.

The campaign is bigger than the movie. It also conveys a message. We all know how to read commercials, which contain content. The message in the case of the propaganda campaign for "American Sniper" is crystal-clear. It's fair game for discussion, regardless if one has seen the movie.

In this case, the commercials also happen to suggest an incredibly maudlin and disgusting movie, one that I would not choose to pay for from among the hundreds of movies released each year. But that's a minor matter.

More relevantly, we are talking about a monster engaged in a monstrous war. Kyle's life and words are part of the public domain. For example, his hallucinations of murdering black people in New Orleans from the top of the Superdome are well-known.

If they released a movie called "Ted Bundy: Teen Hero," and paid $100 million to advertise it during NFL playoffs, you'd be entitled to have an opinion on it without needing to see the film.

Thank god someone finally told us war is hell.

Poor guy, he "has to" kill a child resisting the invasion of a foreign empire that has already destroyed his country. He has no choice!

It's important a great artist like Eastwood is here to remind us poignantly that war is hell and comes at great cost to the warrior, because otherwise we would have not noticed several thousand years worth of art in precisely this vein.

Does the film's propaganda campaign (quite apart from what I'm sure is a wonderful work) contribute to the rehabilitation of the most obviously criminal war of aggression in recent history? That's secondary to the greatness of the art! I'm sure it's the movie itself is not at all the disgusting maudlin celebration of murder and hypocrisy depicted in the commercials. Those are false advertising to work the box office, you know? Nothing wrong with that. All hail the dollar. Long as the movie allows critical minds like yours to detect/construct/fantasize a beautiful artistic context critical of war, who cares what the yahoos packing the theater think?

Tell me, how beautifully are the Iraqis humanized? I'm guessing maybe there are two spoken roles for them? That's usually how it works in this kind of highly subtle art work. From this film's most important recent predecessor in the cinema of American sociopaths engaged in imperial genocide, "Hurt Locker," we know Iraqis are only ever likely to say one of two things: "Help me, American!" (just before being blown up) and "Allahu Akhbar!!!" (just before blowing themselves up).

Here's another great movie that also teaches, among other things, that War Is Hell:



So unfair that this was ignored in the awards. I'm sure the Academy will stand tall and honor the great American sequel.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 71 Next »