NSA Deletes 'Honesty' and 'Openness' From Core Values (theintercept.com) 263
An anonymous shares a report: The National Security Agency maintains a page on its website that outlines its mission statement. But earlier this month, the agency made a discreet change: It removed "honesty" as its top priority. Since at least May 2016, the surveillance agency had featured honesty as the first of four "core values" listed on NSA.gov, alongside "respect for the law," "integrity," and "transparency." The agency vowed on the site to "be truthful with each other." On January 12, however, the NSA removed the mission statement page -- which can still be viewed through the Internet Archive -- and replaced it with a new version. Now, the parts about honesty and the pledge to be truthful have been deleted. The agency's new top value is "commitment to service," which it says means "excellence in the pursuit of our critical mission." Those are not the only striking alterations. In its old core values, the NSA explained that it would strive to be deserving of the "great trust" placed in it by national leaders and American citizens. It said that it would "honor the public's need for openness." But those phrases are now gone; all references to "trust," "honor," and "openness" have disappeared.
They're being honest about one thing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
this government is invalid.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They never cared about any of that shit before...they're just now being open about the fact the only thing they care about is fucking the american public and violating our foruth admendment rights.
You are correct. In the civilian market, I call it Corporate Arrogance. It's when an organization knows damn well that they can do whatever the fuck they want, and there's not a damn thing you can say or do about it.
They'll change their signature line to Fuck You Very Much and Have a Nice Day soon too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Out of all the people in government, those are the only ones?! Amazing!! How did you find out about it?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The WH and Fox News are going all out on the efforts to besmirch government institutions to protect Trump and his foreign allies and advance their politcal adgenda. It used to be that people believed in the rule of law. Now as is evident from Fox News coverage a higher priority is 1) coercive political power and 2) the greed that motivates it.
Abe Lincoln was right. You can fool some of the people all the time.
The sad part is that so far the only approach the US has taken in countering meddling and cyberc
Re: (Score:3)
Joni Mitchell.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the narrative that Trump was working with the Russians to "hack the election" and whatnot is, indeed, a delusion. The entire notion was trot
Re: They're being honest about one thing.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Calling you a moron is not an ad hominem. Calling you a moron because your premises and reasoning are extremely dubious isn't an ad hominem. If someone were to say, about your future posts, "Oh, that's just ScentCone, his posts are wrong because he's a moron", that would be an ad hominem. Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Oh, so you're saying we should pander to the voting of the irredeemably deplorable, huh?
No, I'm saying that people who put their political support and hundreds of millions of dollars of cash behind a candidate that tells millions of people that they're deplorable, while she personally pockets huge piles of cash (directly, or through her husband) from dictators that encourage things like throwing gay people from rooftops and treating women like farm animals ... are pretty funny when they call other people deplorable.
If you think that not wanting a Supreme Court used as a surrogate legislatu
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like to put money on this thing? I'm saving up to buy a Tesla.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Donald Trump is Chick Schumer's bitch. Schumer plays him like a violin every chance he gets to.
Ah, yes. That explains why Trump got the tax bill he wanted, despite Schumer doing everything he could to stop it. That explains why Schumer's idiotic shutdown theatrics got him exactly nowhere (other than hated even more by the far-left wing of his party). Yeah, that Schumer really is making headway with his brilliant tactics. Quite something!
Schumer's oily, phony patronizing and condescension is so transparently fake that even his own party has been recoiling from it. But sure, you keep on believing t
Re: (Score:2)
Schumer didn't fold on the tax bill. That was done in a way that doesn't allow a filibuster, and when the Republicans vote strict party line, that's Schumer's only recourse. What Schumer allowed recently is a continuing resolution that runs out before Trump's DACA deadline, and got funding for CHIP. The CR disputes won't be over until the Republicans can do the basic governing job of passing a damn budget. Schumer would have no power here if the Republicans could do their job.
Re: (Score:2)
Please find me a case of someone who did what Clinton did and was prosecuted for it. I wasn't able to find one. Every case I found where there was criminal prosecution involved the intent to mishandle classified material. I've not seen any evidence, or even any plausibility argument, that suggests Clinton had any sort of intent here. I'd be interested in seeing the case.
If you can't come up with a case, then please stop lying about her treatment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What on earth are you talking about? The recent CR just approved will only last until 8 February.
Despite all the hype and bloviating, little progess has been made in actually solving the problems that matter. Take ocean acification for instance. In 300 years at the current rate of acidification, virtually all life in the ocean will disappear. Given that humans get 50% of all their protein from the oceans, this will have profound effects. Indeed, there is already wide spread evidence of this. Oysters a
Re: (Score:2)
If you can get into a position where you can and will walk away from a deal, you won't have to accept a bad deal. I'm actually in that position any time I go into a store. I can walk out without buying anything. I can get attention from service people in certain stores without buying anything. Until there's a deal, I can always walk away to another store.
Funny thing, though. Sales and service people at these stores continue to talk to me, because they figure if I find something I like at an acceptab
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much ilarious as tragic. As more and more fall for Trump's authoritarian approach, freedom, honesty, and integrity is at risk everywhere.
Honesty dictated removing those words (Score:5, Insightful)
I just hope "respect for (US) law" is really still a thing over there. Things don't look so good over at other agencies...
Re:Honesty dictated removing those words (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A diode that blocks current in both directions is defective.
Re: (Score:3)
A diode that blocks current in both directions is defective.
Absolutely wrong.
There's TVS protection diodes that use the avalanche effect which do exactly this.
Re: (Score:2)
And if it allows no current to pass during a voltage transient?
If you're going to be pedantic, do it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you're going to use that argument, by the same logic, *every* diode passes current in both directions, and there's no such thing as a diode that blocks current in any direction, which renders the original statement nonsensical.
A correctly-operating diode only blocks current when reverse voltage is lower than the breakdown voltage. There are diodes which block current in both directions in this state.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, now that's proper pedantry.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA isn't a "spying agency" in the normal sense of the term.
The problem is, they were given two contradictory missions:
1) Keep US messages safe
2) Track and decode messages entering the country
To do this some parts of it worked on making good encryption, and other parts worked on making sure publicly available encryption could be broken (by them). Eventually the second group got so much the upper hand that they are legitimately no longer trusted by much of anyone.
For mission 1 honesty and openness are v
Refreshing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, well, you know, when a country puts itself so high up the *freedom, truth, and justice* pedestal, you might expect them to play the part, but I guess that's asking too much in the game of battling empires.
So now it's Highlander. There can be only one
Re: (Score:2)
"There can be only one"
This is precisely the kind of thinking that gets humans into the predicament that we are in. All effort gets placed into being the one, rather than actually solving problems for mutual benefit of all. Sadly, it looks more and more like global warming will take us all, before we as a species figure this out.
Re: (Score:2)
That earlier silliness is especially ironic, given its presence during the previous administration, which appears to have been using that agency's tools against domestic political rivals.
If everything that "appeared" to be true on the Fox News and Breitbart was actually true then you've be living under the fascist dicatorship of a gay atheist Muslim from Kenya.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So, now their mission as a surreptitious spy agency dealing with lots of information they can't talk about is no longer being lied about on a PR page. Good.
Indubitably.... the mission statement is something management hammers into all the employees as values at all levels they EXPECT the members of their organization to express, that affects things like evaluations of their staffs' performance AND the culture of their entity and whistleblowers, etc.
Thus it's still a very bad thing for them to be subtra
Re: (Score:2)
Not that that's the NSA's fault, as an agency - that's entirely on their then-management in the White House, and those in the White House granted the power to troll through signal intelligence and the ability to unmask citizens from their collected communications. Here's looking at you, Susan Rice.
If you don't want people in the government to be able to spy on its citizens, maybe you should just oppose the collection of the information outright. I don't understand why you draw a line between one government entity and another invading the privacy of U.S. citizens. The NSA has no business collecting this information on U.S. citizens, period.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that you missed the point of having honesty and integrity in their original mission statement and why it was important.
No one is pretending that the NSA isn't a spy agency. Likewise, no one is pretending that spying isn't necessary when there are authoritarian regimes and organizations eager to take advantage of US citizens. The critical issue is what values, goals and aspirations is it spying for and what motivates the spying. Unless the citizenry has confidence in those, we might as well
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the facts surrounding the examples you use (Lois Lerner and Bundy ranch) don't actually bear out your thesis. Rather they merely show that with enough Fox News propaganda, when combined with the conspiracy industry can distort the truth out of anything.
The sad part is that now Fox is targeting the military, denying vetrans benefits deserved, targeting the VA for cuts, supporting the defence contractor advertisers over the men and women who actually put their lives on the line to serve. Alth
Re:Refreshing (Score:4, Informative)
It's always interesting, when you're deliberately doing everything you can to ignore the facts in front of you (there's no need to unmask names like Kislyak's, because the NSA provides that in clear text for their audience - it's the US citizens associated with political rivals that Rice was gunning for) that your first reaction is to start obsessing about homosexuality. What an odd reaction on your part. I understand that you can't trouble yourself to deal with the facts, because you don't like where those facts point. But what's with your fetish, here? Have you considered getting some help with how to communicate about unrelated matters while keeping your sexual fantasies out of the conversation?
Rice has already testified about why she unmasked those people who turned out to be Trump associates. Before they were unmasked she wouldn't have known who they were, and unmasking isn't the same as publishing their identities. They were unmasked because they met with an important foreign dignitary who had chosen not to notify the American government that he was travelling to New York. The U.S. Government does have a legitimate interest in knowing what a foreign dignitary who is making an unannounced visit is up to. But you don't have to take my word for that, you can take reported words [businessinsider.com] of the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee:
That's three Republicans, who are in a better position than you to judge the matter, who seem to think their is nothing to your accusations.
Big surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Please tell me how an agency which violates the constitution and spies on Americans can be allowed to exist? They're worse then the sexual assaults the TSA illegal does daily.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been patted down dozens of times. Not once was there anything sexual about it. Someone brushing their hands by my nuts doesn't constitute (#metoo) sexual assault, no matter what I think about it.
--
If only I had more fingers -- Some Guy
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Okay, you haven't been. A lot of women have been touched inappropriately. Regardless of the sexual aspect of it, a government agency searching you for boarding a plane in and of itself is a violation the 4th amendment. If it were a private agency, then we can deal with it. Heck, but security where you board. Then we could have two airlines, AMERICAN Airlines with no searches and SISSY Airlines for those that are afraid. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Someone brushing their hands by my nuts doesn't constitute (#metoo) sexual assault, no matter what I think about it.
Actually, it does, and it's only assault when it's unwanted, which clearly, in your case, it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Two people make dick jokes. One person assumes I like being searched, or think that its OK?
All I said is that it wasn't sexual harassment.
Sensitive a little bit guys? #metoo
--
And then there was one
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Citation - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
It doesn't take Rand or Ron to read the 4th amendment and tell that the NSA and TSA are regular violators.
Re: (Score:2)
The Fourth protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. It's up to the courts to decide what's reasonable. It's generally agreed that a lawful warrant makes searches and seizures it covers reasonable. There's other cases, and it's currently held to be reasonable to check that airline passengers have neither weapons nor bombs.
So, if the NSA collects information automatically, and nobody sees the information without a warrant, is that really a violation of the Fourth?
Neither the NSA nor TSA
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so you think secret fisa courts with secret gag orders that you aren't allowed to challenge are all constitutional?
Re: (Score:2)
so you think secret fisa courts with secret gag orders that you aren't allowed to challenge are all constitutional?
Possibly could be just fine under some circumstances, but I do agree that we are on a slippery slope with the FISA thing.
The issue boils down to what can be done with the data the FISA court approved and by whom it can be done. I think the FISA law is attempting to walk an extremely thin line that is hard to draw brightly.
FISA isn't overtly unconstitutional.... However, it depends greatly on those people charged with keeping track of what's going on to keep things out of the weeds, including the overs
Re: (Score:3)
how do those boots taste?
Re: (Score:3)
"their persons and papers" .... it still takes a warrant to pull the NSA data.
I want to live in a country where a US citizen can't be spied on without a warrant. I don't want to live in a country where the government spies on everyone as a matter of course, but pinky-swears not to look at the data unless they need to.
Re: (Score:2)
"their persons and papers" .... it still takes a warrant to pull the NSA data. Of course, you don't want to believe that.
If the NSA has copies of the data, then it has already be seized whether it was searched or not.
The DoJ's position is that data is not searched until a human looks at it so automated searches are constitutional. Fuck them.
NSA data is being used for law enforcement inside the US and being hidden from court review by parallel construction:
https://www.hrw.org/report/201... [hrw.org]
There is no legislative, executive, or judicial remedy for this ubiquitous surveillance. None of the three branches of government can be t
Re: (Score:3)
Ad hominem attacks are not valid logic...
You may think they make you look good, but in reality they just expose your lack of thought on the subject in question. Maybe you just don't have a valid argument? Maybe you just want to throw mud? I don't know. But it's apparent you have nothing substantive to add...
Well... (Score:2)
At least they're being honest about it now.
And this means what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe these things should simply be assumed and don't need to appear in every mission statement know to man?
I know folks will make this into "See They don't CARE about being honest! They took it out of their mission statement!" but I think that's a bit of overreach. Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.
And if you think about their activity... Openness and transparency might not be a good thing to put in a mission statement where it could be misconstrued by individuals in the organization dedicated to the clandestine collection of information.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I know folks will make this into "See They don't CARE about being honest! They took it out of their mission statement!" but I think that's a bit of overreach. Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.
Why would you expect anyone appointed by Donald Trump to care about either respecting the law or honesty? I doubt the reason for removing that wording is anything other that a lack of perceived value, and to avoid embarrassing the President by having his spy agencies be seen as more honest than him.
Re: (Score:2)
I know folks will make this into "See They don't CARE about being honest! They took it out of their mission statement!" but I think that's a bit of overreach. Maybe they just assume that honest and ethical activity is always required and they want to highlight what the organization actually does in its mission statement, not how they do it.
Why would you expect anyone appointed by Donald Trump to care about either respecting the law or honesty? I doubt the reason for removing that wording is anything other that a lack of perceived value, and to avoid embarrassing the President by having his spy agencies be seen as more honest than him.
Is that blue partisan Cool-Aide tasty? I think you have been drinking a bit too much of it.
Seems like there is a limited bag of tricks over there. Bush lied, Trump lies... Bush was a racist, Trump is a racist... I know more than one republican and I can tell you not all of us are lying racists who want grandma dead and starving children, in fact, I don't know even one true republican who fits that description, including Trump. Lay off the blue stuff. You don't have to agree with our choice of methods
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like there is a limited bag of tricks over there. Bush lied, Trump lies... Bush was a racist, Trump is a racist...
Sorry buddy, but they aren't tricks. Bush lied (or was duped by Cheney) and Trump lies are both truthful statements.
On the other hand, while Trump is certainly racist, it's the ignorant racism of an ignorant man, rather than the deliberately malicious racism of an angry skinhead. As for Bush, I don't remember any credible claims that he was racist, and the majority of the claims of racism that were made came from people who were angry over the handling of Hurricane Katrina.
I know more than one republican and I can tell you not all of us are lying racists who want grandma dead and starving children.
Well that's certainly a strawman
Re: (Score:2)
Yea that blue Cool-Aid runs deep with this one...
Bush lied.... Or Cheney duped him? Way to go with the sound bite over substance and personal attacks over truth...
How about this.. I'll drink my color, you yours and call this done. I've had arguments with your type before and it doesn't accomplish anything...
I don't agree with your version of events, I have actual evidence and a valid argument, but you are not interested in hearing it and I'm not interested in wasting my time sifting though all your ina
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree with your version of events, I have actual evidence and a valid argument, but you are not interested in hearing it and I'm not interested in wasting my time sifting though all your inaccurate statements about something that happened more than a decade ago now.
No, actually you don't and that's why you're running away with your tail between your legs. I commend you for putting on a brave show, during your retreat, though. Very convincing, but everyone who's not blinded by partisanship knows the pretence for the invasion of Iraq was false.
My point is, the argument from your side remains the same and nauseatingly so... And you keep recycling the same things....
I don't have a side here, I don't have a stake in your politics (petty or otherwise). The things you claim are partisanship are merely true, and you might want to ask yourself why you can't acknowledge obvious truths.
Re: (Score:2)
AND, you assume that Bush MADE UP the pretense to invade Iraq and knowingly lied about it....
Words mean things.. Lying is willfully misleading somebody. Bush didn't do that. He was using information given to him by the intelligence community, which pretty much everybody agreed was true at the time. Turns out they where wrong..
The question is why the Intel community got the WMD in Iraq question so wrong. But you persist with the "Bush Lied" narrative.
So can we stop this now or do you want to keep beati
Re: (Score:2)
AND, you assume that Bush MADE UP the pretense to invade Iraq and knowingly lied about it....
No, from the evidence, I conclude that Bush either knew that the reasons given for invading Iraq were flimsy (if not completely false) or he was manipulated by Cheney. There is plenty of evidence that that the Bush White House put pressure on American intelligence agencies to provide a justification for the invasion, rather than the other way around.
Even Repbulicans in the house, like Republican Porter Goss have said that the intelligence used to justify the invasion was "fragmentary and sporadic".
The question is why the Intel community got the WMD in Iraq question so wrong. But you persist with the "Bush Lied" narrative.
That's p
Re: (Score:2)
You have no evidence Bush knew the evidence he had was false, you are making that part up. All the intelligence reports we have from the time clearly show WMD's where expected in Iraq, and our intelligence community wasn't the only organization with the same perspective.
Bush had no ability to force the intelligence community from other countries to agree with anything. Certainly there where more than a few who would have relished the ability to call Bush's bluff at the UN when all this went before the Se
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the Down Street Memo [wikipedia.org]? People knew, at the time, that the case was flimsy. I knew, at the time, that the case for invading Iraq was mostly smoke and mirrors. They were giant flame wars on Slashdot, at the time, over whether or not the the Iraq war justifications were bullshit.
I repeat I am not a Democrat and have nothing to do with American politics, however, according to you anyone critical of anything Republican must be a Democrat.
Can you say "Russian Collusion" narrative was obviously invented?
How hypocritical.
I can see dropping "Openness" (Score:2, Insightful)
They're a spy organization for god's sake.
But, "honesty"? I guess in the Trump White House it doesn't matter, which is unfortunate because the information is going to be used to place Americans in harm's way and would be critical in negotiating with other countries (trade, arms reduction, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
Deception is part and parcel to the industry. Why would you expect otherwise, and why blame the change on Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
Deception to outsiders - any government needs honesty in its intelligence organizations.
Who else to give responsibility for the changes to?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree. But to the general public, how can it be honest while deceiving an enemy?...it can't. And so, the public simply doesn't get to know what goes on, and it shouldn't, unless those with oversight bring out some abuse of power. These agencies become the fall guy for many politicians ("it was an intelligence failure") because they know that the agencies can do nothing to fight back.
Re: (Score:2)
They're a spy organization for god's sake.
But, "honesty"? I guess in the Trump White House it doesn't matter, which is unfortunate because the information is going to be used to place Americans in harm's way and would be critical in negotiating with other countries (trade, arms reduction, etc.).
Lack of honesty undermines the NSA's other job of protecting U.S. communications networks and information systems. They might as well remove this as well.
They also managed to undermine NIST. I no longer trust them either.
Why did they keep the other two? (Score:2)
As per subject.
Not exactly a long-held core value (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an improvement (Score:3)
Oh, the irony! (Score:5, Funny)
By removing honesty and truthfulness from their mission statement, they are being honest and truthful - perhaps more so that ever!
It's like making warrantless searches legal (Score:3)
It's not a change in protocol, it's just admitting what has been reality for a long time.
Retrospective Acknowledgement... (Score:3)
... of what we all knew long ago.
You can tell that NSA is inhabited by a lot of super-nerds. It's actually a quiet little in-joke. They are virtue signalling by honestly admitting that, not only are they not honest, it isn't even on their "to-do" list.
Re: (Score:2)
You can tell that NSA is inhabited by a lot of super-nerds. It's actually a quiet little in-joke.
While they do, I doubt any of them were involved. This was probably the result of some senior executive strategy seminar where they discussed their "vision" and "core values" at some fancy executive retreat. No doubt there's a follow-up planned in a year or two to "evaluate" it too.
No EXECUTIVE oversight (Score:2, Insightful)
Chuck Schumer himself mentioned the week Trump was elected the intelligence community has six ways past sunday to fight anyone they don't like.
That includes voters.
That includes the American people.
The president will get held accountable based on what he can pull off, but he has NO control over these organizations that are supposed to operate in his branch of government.
The Do
More honest (Score:2)
Don't tell me, let me guess (Score:3)
When "core" values become arbitrary... (Score:2)
Then you know they are just directly and shamelessly lying to you anyways. Scum stays scum, even (or often specifically) when they go into government jobs.
The NSA is a weapon, not a charity (Score:2)
Minitrue (Score:2)
They should have gone the other way and elevated their honesty, even putting it in their name.
Like: Department of Honesty.
Or: Ministry of Honesty
Or: Ministry of Truth
Or: Minitrue, for short.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Department of Justice instead of Department of Law - Justice has nothing to do with law.
Department of Defense instead of Department of War
Law Enforcement - Well, that's accurate.
Homeland Security - Wow, maybe they should have called it NIghtwatch.
Welcome to the new TRUMP NSA! (Score:2)
Army also Weaseled on the Solder's Creed (Score:2)
I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and to the uniform [wikipedia.org].
So I guess now you are now supposed to support your Army and comrades in committing actions disgraceful to themselves and to the uniform. [wikipedia.org]
So quickly we forget the lessons of history.
Re: (Score:2)
It also removed the part about putting acting honorably above their personal safety.
Mutually exclusive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that is not in their mission statement.
Honesty, is such a lonely word... (Score:2)
...everyone is so untrue
Re: (Score:2)
They're not being honest... they're just "truing up" according to their contractual obligations.
Well they are being honest then (Score:3)
Back in the day, it was joked that "NSA" stood for "No Such Agency," because even the name of the agency was secret. It's silly for an agency whose entire mission is secret to put in their purported mission statement that "honesty", "openness", and "transparency" are their objectives; that would be a contradiction, and the only thing it would do would be to make the people who work for the agency understand that they are required to ignore the mission statement to do their jobs.
So, I applaud thei
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day, it was joked that "NSA" stood for "No Such Agency," ...
Initially, that was actually their name, but they found it difficult to get funding, so they switched it "National Secrecy Agency", then finally to "National Security Agency" as the previous was too on the nose - as they say.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA has two roles. One is to find out what other countries and people in other countries are doing and thinking. This role does require secrecy.
Another role is to assist in information security for the US, and that works best by being transparent and honest, so people know as much as possible where the recommendations are coming from and why. (And, no, they can't be completely transparent. One NSA recommendation to DES was found out publicly later to make it more resistant to methods the NSA had,
Re: (Score:2)
How would you know now that Trump's political operatives have taken over?
Has the time for 10 trillion bit cryptography now arrived?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the phrase "Masada shall not fall again" shows that maybe they learned something from the holocaust.
Re: (Score:3)
A series of middle eastern wars since the Balfour Decrlation created a "jewish homeland", proves that Jews are preety much like everyone else when it comes to pacifism and warmongering. The trick is to find away out of the cycle of violence and put such animosity and hostility behind us, so that we can focus on bigger problems, like keeping planet Earth habitable in the latter half of the 21st century and the 22nd century. Unless this is done, humanity is very unlikely to experience a 23rd century.
Re: (Score:2)
so that we can focus on bigger problems, like keeping planet Earth habitable in the latter half of the 21st century and the 22nd century. Unless this is done, humanity is very unlikely to experience a 23rd century.
Oh, don't be ridiculous. Humanity will surely live to experience the 23rd century. It's really hard to completely wipe out a whole species with this many members, and which has intelligence and technological capability.
Now, of course, the 23rd century will probably look a lot like "Max Max II: T
Re: (Score:2)
However, we developed civilization and industry by using massive amounts of nonrenewable resources. Currently, our technology and industrial capabilities are allowing us to move towards renewables to keep civilization going. Given a collapse of technology and industry, the survivors are going to find it much harder to build a new civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
Judaism teaches pacifism above all else.
Are you joking? And eye for an eye is the Jewish precept which Christ tried to moderate with "let the one without sin throw the 1st stone." Which makes Christianity a moderation (in the pacifist direction) of Judaism.
If you thought any of them were fighting back, your world view is horribly warped.
Ha? Right. Israel was formed because Jews, who lived in Palestine and were British subjects, who fought in WWII for Britain weren't in a mood to take orders from the British anymore. They were perfectly ok to turn around and fight the British until they left them alone.
What allowed Holocaus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's always low-level employees with any huge organization. He could work anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
You left out bankers, lawyers, pharma reps, CEOs, mechanics and consultants. Hell, I would like to meet an honest fast food franchise owner.