The comment was made:
"why celebrate while people are dying around the world because of these lies"

To which you said:
"people have been dying since time began, and they have been being born

we can mourn and we can celebrate, its not an all or nothing deal,,,,"

Both comments were fuzzy logic.



I think we interpret things differently

I Took this as a question , not a statement
why celebrate while people are dying around the world because of these lies?

my ANSWER was

we can mourn and we can celebrate, its not an all or nothing deal,,,,"


this is not fuzzy logic, its pretty straight forward

the idea that celebration should not occur BECAUSE people around the world die because of lies is whats fuzzzy, because that logic pretty much dictates that we should noever celebrate ANYTHING, because most assuredly some people have died somewhere in connection,,,,,either direct or indirect


I could use the same gripe about anything some people may revere, like the flag for instance

many people DIED in AMerica at the hands of AMericans while that FLAG was flying,, so why revere it?


,,,,see the analogy there?


there are 356 days to explore and mourn and be angry, do we have to use EACH of them or can we not use some of them to count blessings and celebrate?

actually it is;:"Minds are like Parachutes,they work best when they are open!

Drugs, alcohol, nature, biological defect..... ALL cause death! Some are avoidable and senseless, others a fact of life.

A flag is revered as a symbol. It symbolizes many things to many people. To some it is simply the crest of their national sovereignty, setting them apart from the many others, but held as important by its very being.

Swearing alligence to a flag, honoring it, is to honor the many who have shed their lives and blood protecting and defending it, or what it stands for. It is NOT the flag, but WHO, it symbolizes and what they fought or stood for.

War is an atrocity! It is HELL! It should not be used as a tool for empire, but in defense of!

Rememberance, commemoration, ceremony and celebration are different animals and should never be confused or misrepresented.

Understanding, principles and honor dictate the values of each.

Swearing alligence to a flag, honoringing it, is to honor the many who have shed their lives and blood protecting and defending it. It is NOT the flag, but WHO, it symbolizes and what they stood for.



as , perhaps, Independence day is to honor the many who have shed their lives and blood protecting and defending our 'independence'


it is WHO the day symbolizes and what they stood for,,,


and that is a relevant answer to the question 'why celebrate when....?'

very well said sir.

In totally related news.............




Three Former NSA Employees Expose ‘Mass Illegal Surveillance’ in Court

he National Security Agency (NSA), which has recently been protected from having to disclose their relationship with the search engine giant and data mining powerhouse Google, is back in court over the case Jewel v. NSA.

The case, which was reinstated by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in late 2011, is challenging the NSA’s now well known massive warrantless surveillance program.

This case is more important than ever with the NSA pouring a whopping $2 billion into a heavily fortified data center which will almost certainly be used to monitor the communications of Americans.

The National Counterterrorism Center’s new guidelines allowing extended data retention make matters even worse, if you can imagine such a thing.

Three former employees of the NSA, William E. Binney, Thomas A. Drake, and J. Kirk Wiebe, have come forward with evidence to back up a case being valiantly fought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

In a motion filed in the 9th Circuit on July 2, the three whistleblowers, all former intelligence analysts, confirmed the fact that:

“the NSA has, or is in the process of obtaining, the capability to seize and store most electronic communications passing through its U.S. intercept centers, such as the ‘secret room’ at the AT&T facility in San Francisco first disclosed by retired AT&T technician Mark Klein in early 2006,” according to the EFF.

The EFF is also now asking the court to reject the government’s now tired “state secret” arguments in order to allow the case to actually move forward.

“For years, government lawyers have been arguing that our case is too secret for the courts to consider, despite the mounting confirmation of widespread mass illegal surveillance of ordinary people,” explained Cindy Cohn, the EFF’s Legal Director.

“Now we have three former NSA officials confirming the basic facts. Neither the Constitution nor federal law allow the government to collect massive amounts of communications and data of innocent Americans and fish around in it in case it might find something interesting.

This kind of power is too easily abused,” said Cohn. “We’re extremely pleased that more whistleblowers have come forward to help end this massive spying program.”

All three former NSA employees have made quite an effort to expose the wholly unacceptable surveillance program, including bringing the program to the attention of the New York Times.

The leak quickly made them the targets of a federal investigation due to the fact that the New York Times coverage quickly ignited controversy in the media and public sphere over the gigantic warrantless wiretapping program.

Thankfully, both Binney and Wiebe were formally cleared of all the charges against them, while Drake had the charges dropped.

In the EFF’s motion for partial summary judgment they requested that the court move to no longer accept the government’s attempts to shut down the case without even addressing the facts by invoking the claim that it is too secret to even address.

This is the same weak argument that government lawyers have used time and time again when challenged on matters of secrecy and the disturbing drone assassination program.

Instead of allowing the government lawyers to fall back on this tactic, the EFF is seeking to apply the processes under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which require the court to actually rule if the electronic surveillance was conducted in a legal manner.

However, I believe it is worth pointing out that FISA leaves a lot to be desired, as well as the court which sign off on FISA warrants. This is because the courts authorized every single request from the government in 2011, according to the government’s own report, which makes the entire process farcical.

“The NSA warrantless surveillance programs have been the subject of widespread reporting and debate for more than six years now. They are just not a secret,” EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien rightly pointed out.

“Yet the government keeps making the same ‘state secrets’ claims again and again,” Tien said. “It’s time for Americans to have their day in court and for a judge to rule on the legality of this massive surveillance.”

Well said, Tien. Let’s just hope that the American people do get their day in court and that this unimaginably expansive surveillance program is shut down before we descend even deeper into a complete surveillance state.

Note from End the Lie: Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

This article originally appeared on End the Lie

http://theintelhub.com/2012/07/05/three-former-nsa-employees-expose-mass-illegal-surveillance-in-court/

All together now lets sing

"The Land of the free............ and the home of the brave.............
"

The alleged motion filed in the 9th-Circuit Court is actually dated "November 2, 2012".

Click here to see it yourself.

Has someone discovered a way to travel through time?

Page won't open, but probably just a typo, or faulty typeset

Try it now,I think I got the Link fixed.
Or use this.

http://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/jewelmotion070212.pdf

Filed07/02/12

war is always a tool for an empire on one side or the other... someone has to start it for whatever reasons they have. sometimes a war is started to save more lives, calling it a 'pre-emptive' strike, meaning if they didn't do what they did when they did it, more lives could have been lost. If Iran does have nukes or developing them now, and we could save a nuclear war by taking care of it now, wouldn't that be best, or wait for all nukes to fly and kill everyone?

How about we make the same stink of Israeli nukes and be a fair and honest broker of peace?

Israel already has nukes. They haven't threatened to wipe a country off the face of the with them. Let's see oh yeah Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, so they should be left alone to do what they want with their nuke program. I can see the sense in that. SMH

Sorry to be the one to tell you that you are wrong on both counts.

THE ACTUAL QUOTE:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

THE PROOF:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16218.htm


Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons.

The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons

he phrase the “Samson Option” is used to describe Israel’s strategy of massive nuclear retaliation against “enemy” nations should its existence as a Jewish state be jeopardized through military attack. Israeli leaders created the term in the mid-1960s, inspired by the Biblical figure Samson, who destroyed a Philistine temple, killing himself and thousands of Philistine enemies.[1][2]

Israel refuses to admit officially that it has nuclear weapons - a policy known as “nuclear ambiguity” or "nuclear opacity."[3] This despite government officials inferring repeatedly - and occasionally admitting - the fact. And despite Israeli nuclear whistle blower Mordechai Vanunu making public smuggled photographs of nuclear weapons and production equipment in the 1980s.[4] Israel now may have as many as 400 atomic and hydrogen nuclear weapons,[5][6] as well as the ability to launch them via long range missiles, submarines and aircraft.[7] It can use them in a second strike even if its military is devastated.

Originally a strategy of last resort retaliation - even if it means Israel’s annihilation - it has developed into being a nuclear bullying strategy to further Israel’s territorial goals through threats and blackmail. Israel has bullied not only Arab and Muslim nations, but the United States and Russia with its Samson Option threats. Mordechai Vanunu has alleged that Israel uses for purposes of blackmail its ability to "bombard any city all over the world, and not only those in Europe but also those in the United States."[8]

Official policy and threats

During the 1960s Israel concentrated on conventional military superiority to defend lands confiscated in the 1948 and 1967 wars - and to convince Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories that they could not break free of it. However, in 1973's Yom Kippur War Israel was almost overwhelmed by Arab forces. Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert, ordering 13 atomic bombs be prepared for missiles and aircraft. Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Simha Dinitz threatened “very serious conclusions" if there was not an immediate airlift of supplies.[9] This forced U.S. President Richard Nixon to make emergency airlifts of state of the art military supplies to Israel.[10][11]

Fearing intervention by the Soviet Union, U.S. forces went on Defense Condition (DEFCON) III alert status[12], something which could have led to full scale nuclear war in case of misinterpretation of signals or hardware or software failures. Additionally, as Seymour Hersh documents in detail in his book The Samson Option, from 1973 these weapons have been used to discourage the Soviet Union - now Russia - from intervening militarily on behalf of Arab nations.[13] Obviously an Israeli nuclear attack on Russia by the United States’ great ally Israel would result in Russia sending thousands of nuclear weapons towards the U.S. and the U.S. responding in kind.

Not surprisingly, no nation state has attempted to attack Israel since 1973. A former Israeli official justified Israel’s threats. “You Americans screwed us” in not supporting Israel in its 1956 war with Egypt. “We can still remember the smell of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Next time we’ll take all of you with us.”[14] General Moshe Dayan, a leading promoter of Israel’s nuclear program[15], has been quoted as saying “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”[16] Amos Rubin, an economic adviser to former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, said "If left to its own Israel will have no choice but to fall back on a riskier defense which will endanger itself and the world at large... To enable Israel to abstain from dependence on nuclear arms calls for $2 to 3 billion per year in U.S. aid."[17]

In 1977, after a right-wing coalition under Menachen Begin took power, the Israelis began to use the Samson Option not just to deter attack but to allow Israel to “redraw the political map of the Middle East” by expanding hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers into the West Bank and Gaza.[18] Then-Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon said things like "We are much more important than (Americans) think. We can take the middle east with us whenever we go"[19] and "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."[20] He proclaimed his - and many Likud Party members' - goals of transforming Jordan into a Palestinian state and “transferring” all Palestinian refugees there.[21][22] A practice known worldwide as "ethnic cleansing."
http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.html

and the "Palestinians are increasing faster than the Jews or other Ethnicities in the ME!
Some ethnic Cleansing!
Really need to leave Prof.Chossudovsky alone!
Besides,what has all that to do with the US Constitution?

You would have to read the entire thread Mr Conrad.......

actually I did,and you still come up short!