Can the USA please stop selling weapons to regimes that violate human rights?!?
You cannot simultaneously condemn and do business with corrupt regimes.
iMessage is not a threat to our freedom, it just is this twisted business model of the arms industry.
I would have no trouble with the US not selling arms to rogue nations (not sure what your definition of "violate human rights" is; sounds awfully broad and squishy).
However, are you suggesting that, if the US stopped doing this, others, e.g., Russia, China, would not step in to fill that void?
The main purpose of a gun is to kill- that's the entire point.
The main purpose of an iPhone is not to kill things.
It's a perfect analogy. Weapons are used to defend and secure life and liberty; secure one's property from overwhelming force and numbers. Even in war there are rules and bullets are designed not to expand in the target and destroy. Guns are used every day to defend and secure countless times more than they are used for evil. Ask any LEO why they open carry.
This is a good point. (Just as people forget the fact that Lincoln was a Republican.)
The problem is, most of the nut cases now on the anti-immigrant (unless they're Cubans) front are Republican presidential candidates. That is just a sad fact.
They're not anti-immigrant, anti-illegal-immigrant, big difference.
It's a perfect analogy. Weapons are used to defend and secure life and liberty; secure one's property from overwhelming force and numbers. Even in war there are rules and bullets are designed not to expand in the target and destroy. Guns are used every day to defend and secure countless times more than they are used for evil. Ask any LEO why they open carry.?
While what you're saying may or may not be true, the fact remains that the ultimate product of a gun is lethal force. Bullet have been specially designed and refined over the last 200-something years to be more effective. Guns have been made more efficient, faster, lighter. The use of a gun has only two results; injury or death, (unless you miss intentionally, in which case you should buy a noisemaker instead). These are the outcomes, regardless of your purpose in picking up the weapon.
iMessage, however, is not solely used by terrorists. It's main purpose and design was for millions of innocent consumers worldwide. It serves many more purposes than just harming people
Mrs Clinton is making out that the iPhone is a tool used in terrorist acts, just like the guns they were using. if you ban iPhones then you have to ban guns. Both are tools (probably) used in terrorist and other illegal acts.
While what you're saying may or may not be true, the fact remains that the ultimate product of a gun is lethal force. Bullet have been specially designed and refined over the last 200-something years to be more effective. Guns have been made more efficient, faster, lighter. The use of a gun has only two results; injury or death, (unless you miss intentionally, in which case you should buy a noisemaker instead). These are the outcomes, regardless of your purpose in picking up the weapon.
iMessage, however, is not solely used by terrorists. It's main purpose and design was for millions of innocent consumers worldwide. It serves many more purposes than just harming people
I would point out that things such as target shooting and hunting exist. Neither of those tasks harm people.
They're not anti-immigrant, anti-illegal-immigrant, big difference.
To the extent that their fears extend to refugees -- who are, under current rules and procedures, quite carefully vetted -- that qualifies for anti-immigrant.
To the extent that their fears extend to refugees -- who are, under current rules and procedures, quite carefully vetted -- that qualifies for anti-immigrant.
The problem is, they're not carefully vetted. The UN is handling it, and doing their usual terrible job. Even the State Department and the FBI basically admit there's no way to vet these people. That part of the world isn't like here, you can't just punch in a name and get a criminal record and credit history. Rashek the dirt farmer doesn't have any records, and Rashek the dirt farmer might actually be Ali the jihadist. They're not even allowed to ask them if they're a member of ISIS, or support them (admittedly, with taqiyya, that wouldn't be entirely helpful, but it's a start). The only mostly safe group to bring over are the Christians, because last I checked ISIS isn't exactly recruiting from them. And even those people need to be vouched for.
I would point out that things such as target shooting and hunting exist. Neither of those tasks harm people.
While you're correct in pointing out that hunting does not harm people (except in the case of accidents, which are more common than you'd think), it still purvey the paradigm of killing and/or injuring.?
And yes, guns can be used for purely recreational target practice, but that's like saying you can drive cross-country in a tank. Sure you?? can, but that's not the intended purpose
The problem is, they're not carefully vetted. The UN is handling it, and doing their usual terrible job. Even the State Department and the FBI basically admit there's no way to vet these people. That part of the world isn't like here, you can't just punch in a name and get a criminal record and credit history. Rashek the dirt farmer doesn't have any records, and Rashek the dirt farmer might actually be Ali the jihadist. They're not even allowed to ask them if they're a member of ISIS, or support them (admittedly, with taqiyya, that wouldn't be entirely helpful, but it's a start). The only mostly safe group to bring over are the Christians, because last I checked ISIS isn't exactly recruiting from them. And even those people need to be vouched for.
You lose ALL semblance of credibility when you post utter ignorant nonsense like this. Especially when you could easily check the facts for yourself and not be willing to be duped by the FUD from the Right on this issue.
Refugees go through the HIGHEST level of scrutiny of ANY immigrants into the US. Yes, the initial screening is done by the UNHCR but that's because it often happens on the front lines of war where the US may not be present. Once they arrive here, they are thoroughly investigated by at least half a dozen federal agencies, including DHS, FBI, NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER, and DEP OF STATE.
The fact that you guys are so easily duped by the nonsense you hear is really quite sad. Actually, even scary.
I think the discussion is quite apropos given the story.
It seems to have turned into a US election debate as opposed to a discussion about privacy challenges faced by societies in view of the current worldwide terrorist situation.
If you read DED's original story, he was hoping to push some Fandroid buttons, but others have co-opted the thread for political discussion. As long as we're talking about technology and terrorism, I think it's on topic. If it's solely about U.S. political parties' platforms, then it's not.
The main purpose of a gun is to kill- that's the entire point.
The main purpose of an iPhone is not to kill things.
Terrorist don't use the phone to kill things (not unless homkit supports bomb detonators now) but they do use them to send messages and just like everyone else they rely on them to be well encrypted.
Hillary exposed national secrets on the internet from her own server, located at her house, and people are tripping over themselves to make her the next president! That doesn't make you think WTF is going on?
Did I miss a big news item? If so, please cite?
Or are you referring to the handful (so far) that were not classified as secret at the time sent, but subsequently reclassified years later? If it's those, then I am not sure you're being entirely truthful here.
It seems to have turned into a US election debate as opposed to a discussion about privacy challenges faced by societies in view of the current worldwide terrorist situation.
US national elections, and the debates therein, have global consequences for better or worse. Especially as far as the current "worldwide terrorist situation" is concerned.
Comments
Why do you support this psychosis? Why do you believe that the situation is in any way relevant to your analogy?
Mrs Clinton is making out that the iPhone is a tool used in terrorist acts, just like the guns they were using.
if you ban iPhones then you have to ban guns. Both are tools (probably) used in terrorist and other illegal acts.
Can the USA please stop selling weapons to regimes that violate human rights?!?
You cannot simultaneously condemn and do business with corrupt regimes.
iMessage is not a threat to our freedom, it just is this twisted business model of the arms industry.
I would have no trouble with the US not selling arms to rogue nations (not sure what your definition of "violate human rights" is; sounds awfully broad and squishy).
However, are you suggesting that, if the US stopped doing this, others, e.g., Russia, China, would not step in to fill that void?
BREAKING NEWS: ISIS BREATHES AIR, ICC TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION OF OXYGEN
It's a perfect analogy. Weapons are used to defend and secure life and liberty; secure one's property from overwhelming force and numbers. Even in war there are rules and bullets are designed not to expand in the target and destroy. Guns are used every day to defend and secure countless times more than they are used for evil. Ask any LEO why they open carry.
This is a good point. (Just as people forget the fact that Lincoln was a Republican.)
The problem is, most of the nut cases now on the anti-immigrant (unless they're Cubans) front are Republican presidential candidates. That is just a sad fact.
They're not anti-immigrant, anti-illegal-immigrant, big difference.
It's a perfect analogy. Weapons are used to defend and secure life and liberty; secure one's property from overwhelming force and numbers. Even in war there are rules and bullets are designed not to expand in the target and destroy. Guns are used every day to defend and secure countless times more than they are used for evil. Ask any LEO why they open carry.?
While what you're saying may or may not be true, the fact remains that the ultimate product of a gun is lethal force. Bullet have been specially designed and refined over the last 200-something years to be more effective. Guns have been made more efficient, faster, lighter. The use of a gun has only two results; injury or death, (unless you miss intentionally, in which case you should buy a noisemaker instead). These are the outcomes, regardless of your purpose in picking up the weapon.
iMessage, however, is not solely used by terrorists. It's main purpose and design was for millions of innocent consumers worldwide. It serves many more purposes than just harming people
Oh, I see. My apologies.
While what you're saying may or may not be true, the fact remains that the ultimate product of a gun is lethal force. Bullet have been specially designed and refined over the last 200-something years to be more effective. Guns have been made more efficient, faster, lighter. The use of a gun has only two results; injury or death, (unless you miss intentionally, in which case you should buy a noisemaker instead). These are the outcomes, regardless of your purpose in picking up the weapon.
iMessage, however, is not solely used by terrorists. It's main purpose and design was for millions of innocent consumers worldwide. It serves many more purposes than just harming people
I would point out that things such as target shooting and hunting exist. Neither of those tasks harm people.
To the extent that their fears extend to refugees -- who are, under current rules and procedures, quite carefully vetted -- that qualifies for anti-immigrant.
To the extent that their fears extend to refugees -- who are, under current rules and procedures, quite carefully vetted -- that qualifies for anti-immigrant.
The problem is, they're not carefully vetted. The UN is handling it, and doing their usual terrible job. Even the State Department and the FBI basically admit there's no way to vet these people. That part of the world isn't like here, you can't just punch in a name and get a criminal record and credit history. Rashek the dirt farmer doesn't have any records, and Rashek the dirt farmer might actually be Ali the jihadist. They're not even allowed to ask them if they're a member of ISIS, or support them (admittedly, with taqiyya, that wouldn't be entirely helpful, but it's a start). The only mostly safe group to bring over are the Christians, because last I checked ISIS isn't exactly recruiting from them. And even those people need to be vouched for.
I would point out that things such as target shooting and hunting exist. Neither of those tasks harm people.
While you're correct in pointing out that hunting does not harm people (except in the case of accidents, which are more common than you'd think), it still purvey the paradigm of killing and/or injuring.?
And yes, guns can be used for purely recreational target practice, but that's like saying you can drive cross-country in a tank. Sure you?? can, but that's not the intended purpose
You lose ALL semblance of credibility when you post utter ignorant nonsense like this. Especially when you could easily check the facts for yourself and not be willing to be duped by the FUD from the Right on this issue.
Refugees go through the HIGHEST level of scrutiny of ANY immigrants into the US. Yes, the initial screening is done by the UNHCR but that's because it often happens on the front lines of war where the US may not be present. Once they arrive here, they are thoroughly investigated by at least half a dozen federal agencies, including DHS, FBI, NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER, and DEP OF STATE.
The fact that you guys are so easily duped by the nonsense you hear is really quite sad. Actually, even scary.
I think the discussion is quite apropos given the story.
It seems to have turned into a US election debate as opposed to a discussion about privacy challenges faced by societies in view of the current worldwide terrorist situation.
If you read DED's original story, he was hoping to push some Fandroid buttons, but others have co-opted the thread for political discussion. As long as we're talking about technology and terrorism, I think it's on topic. If it's solely about U.S. political parties' platforms, then it's not.
Shitty analogy.
The main purpose of a gun is to kill- that's the entire point.
The main purpose of an iPhone is not to kill things.
Terrorist don't use the phone to kill things (not unless homkit supports bomb detonators now) but they do use them to send messages and just like everyone else they rely on them to be well encrypted.
"Al-Qaeda prefers Android over Apple's iOS" http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/08/02/al-qaeda-prefers-android-over-apples-ios
"Another security manual recommends using Apple iMessage: this time, ISIS"
Microsoft must actually be grateful that Windows Phone OS is not being used in this instance.
Did I miss a big news item? If so, please cite?
Or are you referring to the handful (so far) that were not classified as secret at the time sent, but subsequently reclassified years later? If it's those, then I am not sure you're being entirely truthful here.
US national elections, and the debates therein, have global consequences for better or worse. Especially as far as the current "worldwide terrorist situation" is concerned.