geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: Ekaros on Sun, 20 February 2011, 08:03:34
-
So are we seeing some changes in this area? Anyone have ideas where it will end? Who will gain the most power in the end and where it will happen too?
-
Unrest in China as well. Get your Taobao orders in now before it gets worse!
For the countries that have protests that topple governments, it's gonna be a case of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Meanwhile, foreign countries will try to capitalize on the power vacuum in the meantime. That's how the world works.
-
The middle east is on my ignore list.
-
So long as they don't decide to rebuild the Ottoman Empire I don't care what goes on in the region.
-
I don't get how these dictators allow the internet to exist in the country at all, then act all surprised and try to shut it down when people want freedom once they learn about all the crap their government is doing to its own citizens. Pretty dumb.
We need to hurry and develop an satellite internet that's affordable so that everyone has access to facebook all over the world. lol
-
Facebook can develop it...they have enough money!
-
These riots/revolutions are really the power of Anon if you think about it. Pretty cool. It's V for Vendetta come to life.
(http://poeticedda.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vendetta_07.jpg)
-
-
-
The one thing I don't get is the logistics of it all. How do you maintain a riot or mob for like a week or two. I wish the newscasters would ask that question. It's pretty fascinating. It's not like they have port-o-potties, showers, and places to eat and sleep set up for that. At some point they must get pretty dirty, tired, and hungry.
-
I don't get how these dictators allow the internet to exist in the country at all, then act all surprised and try to shut it down when people want freedom once they learn about all the crap their government is doing to its own citizens. Pretty dumb.
We need to hurry and develop an satellite internet that's affordable so that everyone has access to facebook all over the world. lol
No internet => no communication => no trade => no money => bankrupt.
They need the internet. Think of China. No internet, no economical success.[1]
I really love the internet. You can't have just a 'commercial' internet and no 'freedom of speech' internet at the same time.
Also, it is kind of difficult to shut down the web at all. You've got to cut phone lines as well.
The main question is only: Will other dictators come into power (like in Iran 30 years ago) or will they have something like a democracy.
--------------------
[1] How should they sell keyboards to us? Without the internet we would not even know they exist!
-
The one thing I don't get is the logistics of it all. How do you maintain a riot or mob for like a week or two. I wish the newscasters would ask that question. It's pretty fascinating. It's not like they have port-o-potties, showers, and places to eat and sleep set up for that. At some point they must get pretty dirty, tired, and hungry.
Make the economical situation for your people as worse as possible (corruption etc.) and you get your riot for free!
-
The one thing I don't get is the logistics of it all. How do you maintain a riot or mob for like a week or two. I wish the newscasters would ask that question. It's pretty fascinating. It's not like they have port-o-potties, showers, and places to eat and sleep set up for that. At some point they must get pretty dirty, tired, and hungry.
You build infrastructure around your protest. In Egypt they had everything in their centre of protest. Medics providing aid. A toilet block. Even a nursery where women could leave their kids to take part in the protest. There was people providing food and water (for a price) yada yada yada.
When they used to riot here in the 60s, 70s and 80s entire neighbourhoods would come together. Barricades would be erected to keep the British army and the RUC out. There'd be lookouts posted over various areas (banging bin lids was a common alert sound that British troops or police where coming). There'd be houses designated as medical centres and other houses and families would turn their houses into sleeping quarters and field canteens.
Nowadays though rioting is so ingrained here that kids do it for the sake of something to do on the weekend.
-
Wow. Stupid Brits sure made a mess of their colonies.
Which colony would that be ? Tunisia and Libya never had a British presence (excluding WWII where the US was involved too), and Egypt was never a colony; merely a protectorate from 1914 to 1922, and blaming us Brits for the current mess in Egypt is a little extreme.
Whilst we Brits might be stupid, at least we're not stupid enough to mistake which parts of the world used to be part of the British Empire.
-
Who do we get to blame for the US?
-
Who do we get to blame for the US?
Hurr
-
Which colony would that be ? Tunisia and Libya never had a British presence
Indeed. Tunisia was a colony of France, and Libya was a colony of Italy - all of it, Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan.
-
I'm awaiting Europe (it IS the largest economy in the world after all)
You do know that we are not a country yet..?
-
Why did you guys release the Lockerbie bomber again?
Compassionate grounds. I know it's an unusual concept for you, but it's fairly common in Europe to release dying prisoners so they can die at home. Now it's mildly embarrassing that he didn't die, but sometimes the doctors get it wrong.
Yes there's been a lot of interest in the discussions between the British and Libyan governments, but that discussion is really rather irrelevant ... he was released not under a prisoner exchange programme, but by the Scottish government due to compassionate grounds. And the relevant Scottish minister is likely to have given two sharp words to any possible interference from the British government.
-
I'm awaiting Europe (it IS the largest economy in the world after all) to do the right thing and boot Qadaffi.
Unfortunately, the EU has this strange notion that one should respect international law in such matters. Strange notion I agree, but what can you do ?
-
but it's fairly common in Europe to release dying prisoners so they can die at home.
We are such wimps.
-
We are such wimps.
Central Kingdom policy would mean "Just shoot them", saves lots of wasted time for harvesting organs.
-
Unfortunately, the EU has this strange notion that one should respect international law in such matters. Strange notion I agree, but what can you do ?
A Swedish newspaper has, in an interview with a Libyan government official who fled the chaos, presented the claim that Qaddafi himself had something to do with the Lockerbie bombing.
It may be a strange notion to some in Europe, but making it absolutely and unequivocally clear to everyone that you cannot murder one of our citizens with impunity... would seem to make it less likely that they would be murdered in the future.
The trouble, of course, is that wars tend to spread so much misery among the innocent that the past tendency to start wars lightly against the countries of the Third World has led to the Western world being hated there in some quarters, and at least to some extent deservedly.
So the answers are not easy ones, even if my emotions might incline me to react like the veriest jingoist.
-
I don't get how these dictators allow the internet to exist in the country at all, then act all surprised and try to shut it down when people want freedom once they learn about all the crap their government is doing to its own citizens. Pretty dumb.
We need to hurry and develop an satellite internet that's affordable so that everyone has access to facebook all over the world. lol
The Libyan dictator is jamming satellite signals, however the ISPs being jammed are fighting it.
-
The Libyan dictator is jamming satellite signals, however the ISPs being jammed are fighting it.
So are they too going to upgrade to 4G so ISPs can get on jamming too? ;D
Gaddaff seems quite desperate at this point, very likely he's going down, the aftermath is the issues, and west doesn't have the money for an other peacekeeping mission at the moment...
-
It may be a strange notion to some in Europe, but making it absolutely and unequivocally clear to everyone that you cannot murder one of our citizens with impunity... would seem to make it less likely that they would be murdered in the future.
Actually it's not so strange - for example Britain expelled the Libyan diplomats after the killing of Yvonne Fletcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvonne_Fletcher), and eventually forced the Libyan regime to pay compensation to her family. Plus the long siege of the Libyan embassy did a lot to 'embarrass' the Libyan government (or at least publicise what a bunch of thugs they were/are).
Now you could claim that this isn't enough, but it's hardly letting them murder with impunity.
However I was responding to the notion that Europe ought to 'do something' about the crisis in Libya today. As it happens quite a lot is being done - it is happening slowly, and a lot of what is happening is subject to the ice berg effect - most of what is going on is happening "under the surface".
Part of the problem is there is a lot of resistance to interfering in the internal affairs of another country at the UN - and specifically within the UN Security Council (and more specifically yet, China and Russia). Without UN approval, nobody in Europe is going to send troops in - which is understandable given the over 2,500 years of warfare and tension between Europe and the Middle East.
As it happens, the UK and France appear to be taking the lead over tabling a proposal at the UN to impose sanctions, a travel ban, freezing of financial assets, and eventually prosecute members of the Libyan regime for cimes against humanity.
The trouble, of course, is that wars tend to spread so much misery among the innocent that the past tendency to start wars lightly against the countries of the Third World has led to the Western world being hated there in some quarters, and at least to some extent deservedly.
So the answers are not easy ones, even if my emotions might incline me to react like the veriest jingoist.
War is always a poor option. Sometimes it is a less poor option than anything else, but remains a poor choice.
It's too easy to get involved in a decades or centuries long tit-for-tat. To illustrate this, look at the history of little incidents involving the US and Libya :-
- Libya makes ridiculous territorial claims in the Gulf of Sidra.
- The US perfectly legitimately but perhaps a bit provocatively decides on a naval exercise in the Gulf of Sidra.
- Libya sends out a couple of aircraft to intercept, which get shot down by US aircraft.
- In revenge Libya blows up a disco in Germany killing 3 people (2 Americans) and injuring hundreds.
- In retaliation, the US bombs Tripoli and kills 60 Libyans (including 15 civilians).
- In what was probably initiated as revenge, Libya blows up a US aircraft over Lockerbie killing 270.
Now there's no doubt who is in the wrong here - it's Libya. There are those who say the bombing of Tripoli was a touch over the top, but it was perfectly justifiable.
However there's two sensible things to do with a mad dog (and I'm thinking of Gaddafi of course) - make sure he's secured penned up, or shoot him. Poking him with a stick because his bites annoy you is perfectly justifiable, but not very sensible.
-
Where's Welly?
-
and specifically within the UN Security Council (and more specifically yet, China and Russia).
You see, this is the whole problem.
Back when China had one nuclear submarine, and it was in port for repairs... back when Russia hadn't been flush with money from natural gas exports to you lot with which to rebuild it's armed forces...
while we had the chance, we should have brought about regime change in China, and then made a deal with Russia - now that it doesn't have to worry about a war with China, it doesn't need nuclear weapons any more, and so if it gave them up, we would give them massive amounts of aid to get over the economic chaos caused by the fall of Communism.
Then there would have been no chance for someone like Putin to come along later and make trouble, because he could be put right quickly.
Then, we would be living in a peaceful world, where the nice sensible countries like the United States, Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Norway, Belgium and so on are firmly in control... and there would be no more wars, ever, so that we could all settle down peacefully to the business of making money, and doing the other things that make life meaningful.
-
just get rid of the UN, the UN has done...
nothing.
-
UN isn't simply useless, it's outright counter-productive.
We need an organization like UN but which accepts only certain countries as members based on personal freedom and democratic values. EU has similar acceptance criteria. This organization would include US, Canada, Australia, all EU members, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, and any other countries sharing democratic values. This organization would have no UN craziness like Libya(!) chairing UN Human Rights Council, and could come to correct decisions much more easily. Could set and enforce embargoes and have a unified armed forces (it's much easier when all members share more or less the same principles). Eventually would also encourage many other countries to come up to the standard to join.
-
We need an organization like UN but which accepts only certain countries as members based on personal freedom and democratic values. EU has similar acceptance criteria.
Well, they could start by just expanding NATO to include the countries that formerly belonged to SEATO - Australia, Taiwan, South Korea - and Israel.
-
Well, they could start by just expanding NATO to include the countries that formerly belonged to SEATO - Australia, Taiwan, South Korea - and Israel.
Yea, but I'm not talking about strictly military organization, I am talking about "UN version 2.0", i.e. "UN which will actually work".
-
didn't the UN say
"third world nations, if you want to kill gays, go ahead, and if you want to kill ppl who know gay ppl and don't want to turn them in for not ratting out gays, then kill them too, we will stand by"
Or did they recind that? that's why i believe the UN is worthless.
-
Hitchens has written a good piece in Slate: Is Barack Obama Secretly Swiss? (http://www.slate.com/id/2286522/)
By the time of Obama's empty speech, even the notoriously lenient Arab League had suspended Libya's participation, and several of Qaddafi's senior diplomatic envoys had bravely defected. One of them, based in New York, had warned of the use of warplanes against civilians and called for a "no-fly zone." Others have pointed out the planes that are bringing fresh mercenaries to Qaddafi's side. In the Mediterranean, the United States maintains its Sixth Fleet, which could ground Qaddafi's air force without breaking a sweat. But wait! We have not yet heard from the Swiss admiralty, without whose input it would surely be imprudent to proceed.
-
Personally, I would let these uprisings go unhindered unless some perceived "bad" force tries to take over in the absence of control. It seems that a lot of these uprisings are of liberal nature, and if all goes according to plan, the replacement governments should be OK, if not a little hostile to Israel, but even the US isn't so chummy with Israel anymore.
An Egyptian protester on Frontline had a good analogy about the situation in Israel: "It's as if someone came into your house, took over your living room, and said that you can't have it back."
-
(http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/memes-y-u-no-mubarak.jpg)
-
didn't the UN say
"third world nations, if you want to kill gays, go ahead, and if you want to kill ppl who know gay ppl and don't want to turn them in for not ratting out gays, then kill them too, we will stand by"
Or did they recind that? that's why i believe the UN is worthless.
Classic disinformation. No the UN didn't do that.
What two countries did was introduce a declaration to persuade member states to decriminalise homosexuality. 66 nations signed up to it - not enough, but better than the status quo.
It would be just as accurate to say the US said "if you want to kill gays, go ahead ..." - the US was the only Western country that refused to sign the declaration.
-
just get rid of the UN, the UN has done...
nothing.
You're right ... it hasn't :-
- Eradicated smallpox. Other immunisation efforts are estimated to save the lives of around 3 million children a year.
- Assisted millions of refugees.
- Helped ensure your post can reach anywhere in the world.
- Helped set telecommunications standards through the ITU.
- Helped provide safe drinking water to at least 1.3 billion people.
- Been awarded seven Nobel Peace prizes (no you don't get this for doing nothing)
Must have been some other organisation called the UN that did that.
-
- Been awarded seven Nobel Peace prizes (no you don't get this for doing nothing)
What did Obama got his for?
-
What did Obama got his for?
Because he's AWESOME! Duh!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2571752536_54e583c3e7.jpg)
-
What did Obama got his for?
For not being George W Bush ?
Hmm ... "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"" ... so yes :)
-
And what exactly did that consist of?
-
You'll have to ask the Nobel committee.
-
UN isn't simply useless, it's outright counter-productive.
We need an organization like UN but which accepts only certain countries as members based on personal freedom and democratic values. EU has similar acceptance criteria. This organization would include US, Canada, Australia, all EU members, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, and any other countries sharing democratic values. This organization would have no UN craziness like Libya(!) chairing UN Human Rights Council, and could come to correct decisions much more easily. Could set and enforce embargoes and have a unified armed forces (it's much easier when all members share more or less the same principles). Eventually would also encourage many other countries to come up to the standard to join.
It's called NATO.
-
It's called NATO.
NATO is a military alliance, and it doesn't include many of the free nations while including a couple of not so free (Turkey). I'm talking about organization which will do what UN was supposed to do, but was mostly unable because herds of 12th century theocratic dictatorships did things like electing Libya to chair(!) UN Human Rights Council.
-
In first place it would help if some evil nations couldn't stop everything in UN...
-
Tonight. You.
(http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/07/03/Ahmadinejad.jpg)
-
Yes, We Can.
(http://static.infowars.com/2011/03/i/general/carpetbomb.jpg)
-
Man, Pinochet was PISSED.
-
The PEOPLE that KNOW LIBYA BEST!
Never mind the Germans. The Italians were the ones that had Libya as one of their colonies for the longest time.
-
Actually I'm pissed at the Brits for harboring the Foreign Minister. He participated in the Lockerbie plane bombing. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/31/501364/main20049178.shtml) The last guy the Brits RELEASED to Libya now they are going to put this guy in a Mansion?
Any mansion involved would be an MI6 safe house - after all it's already been announced that he's being "debriefed by Foreign Office officials" or in other words he's being grilled by relay teams of MI6 interrogators. The phrase is straight out of the cold war book on doublespeak.
As for any kind of deals, well it's been known (and regularly announced) that he's got no form of immunity, and that the D&G police are welcome to question him in regard to Lockerbie.
This is why they don't go to the USA. Here we waterboard the bastards and send them to Guantanamo and throw away the key.
I strongly suspect US Intelligence wouldn't be waterboarding this guy - he's not some ill-trained terrorist; he's a former intelligence chief. As such he's probably familiar with torture, and how to leak information during torture to give as little away as possible. To extract as much information as possible from this guy, it is best to leave him hope, be persistent and extract as much information as possible with his cooperation.
Of course he knows that too, but it's still the case that using torture is likely to be less effective.
And then once you've extracted as much information as you're likely to get, punish him in any way you want.
-
First and foremost, ask yourselves, where did you find out about the situations in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya...........all OIL RICH nations ? and are these facts ? or PROPAGANDA ? created by the Western World (USA) to invade/destroy/corrupt those Countries for its...........
OIL ?
Did you know there's a group of Executives who travel to work everyday in the Pentagon, their profession are to plot/plan/connive/conspire/deduce ways to steal other Nations resources when these raw materials become scarce, knowing their country's populace would not care how their foods and resources are acquired if the alternative is starvation.
If the Western World is so concerned with humanitarian issues, then why does the Western World not go and invade the Central Kingdom ? as there are more people dying per Year than caused by 4-5 Colonel Gaddafi, because the Middle East have.....
OIL. The War Crime committed in Iran was by the US & UK Forces when they disposed/assassinated/murdered Saddam Hussein for having NO ARMS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Ask yourselves the question, HOW would YOUR Government REACT if there were rebels in your Country armed with machine guns and missiles shooting/killing the police and Arm Forces ? ? ? So how would do you EXPECT the Libyan Government to react to their "ARMED REBELS" ?
If the Rebels succeeded in gaining power, would the Libyan Government Loyalists lives not be put into jeopardy ? therefore the Western World would have condemned those people to Death ?
Did you realise that the US Government would murder/assassinate/dispose of any disagreeable people who do not conform/abide to their Policies ? People the likes of Martin Luther King, John Lennon, Robert Nesta, John Denver etc etc etc for their political activism........ not to MENTION their own Presidents.......Abraham Lincoln, James A Garfield, William McKinley and John F Kennedy,......not to MENTION the UNSUCCESSFUL ASSASSINATIONS) How can one trust the integrity of a governing system that would dispose of its own Leaders ?
USA, so good at promoting Democracy and yet they interfere in other Countries political procedures, so the USA is more Democratic than other Democratic Countries ? If other Countries wish to have civil wars, who has the Right to decide they cannot commit suicide ? Who has the the Right to PLAY BIG BROTHER. Where's the Freedom of Choice, or is the USA MORE FREE than others ?
To put the long story short..... govern your own Country and let others govern their own Countries, for good or for bad, that is the Principal of Freedom.
-
Spam Bots don't POST, they SPAM.
-
You and RiGS ought to get together and go bowling sometime.
-
It is obvious that some people just did not listen with enough diligence to hear the message posted by RiGS.
It is my honour to try rectify this issue.
-
It is obvious that some people just did not listen with enough diligence to hear the message posted by RiGS.
It is my honour to try rectify this issue.
Oh thanks! You are a true man!
-
The message of J888www and RiGS is one of pure, unadulterated and shameless propaganda. There are no facts to back up any of their theories; it is only mindless rambling with no truth or point.
In short, get a room you two lovebirds!
-
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_04/035ostrich_468x538.jpg)
Social engineering always works. :(
-
Spreading misinformation sometimes works - for those dumb enough to believe it.
-
Ever notice that conspiracy theorists have the worst taste? First it was tinfoil hats and now its Geocities style webpages. Tsk.
If you want to debunk all the crazy beliefs, follow the rabbit hole all the way down. To shortcut it just watch a David Icke presentation. I was seduced by all that crap for a little while but then I used my logical brain instead of my rational brain. The problem most people have is they confuse those two.
-
I was seduced by all that crap for a little while but then I used my logical brain instead of my rational brain. The problem most people have is they confuse those two.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Could you explain?
-
http://www.infowars.com/regime-change-libya-privatization-of-their-central-bank-and-the-theft-of-their-nationalized-oil-profits/ (http://www.infowars.com/regime-change-libya-privatization-of-their-central-bank-and-the-theft-of-their-nationalized-oil-profits/)
-
Alex Jones is a complete nutcase.
-
Unlike you he is a true patriot.
-
You obviously don't understand the meaning of that word
-
"True patriot" and "complete nutcase" aren't mutually exclusive characteristics. In fact, they are kind of one and the same. Who's Alex Jones?
-
http://www.infowars.com/alexjones.html (http://www.infowars.com/alexjones.html)
-
"True patriot" and "complete nutcase" aren't mutually exclusive characteristics. In fact, they are kind of one and the same.
That may be. But someone accusing Obama of trying to keep Libya under the control of the world's central bankers, and considering Qaddafi... remember the Lockerbie bombing? ... as preferable to those opposing him... is not one of the patriotic nutcases.