And now there is this joke of (fabricated) purported menaces from Al Qaeda that have been intercepted and have led to the temporary closure of some 20 American embassies in the Middle East.
This is the umpteenth time in the last 10 years that we're being told that there are impending acts of terrorism which require that special security measures be taken. Some cynical anti-American minds would be too happy to note how quickly the US recedes in front of imaginary threats as reliable as the grand story of the wmd in Iraq.
Better take it in a humorous light mood and watch delicious Jean Seberg in one of her very early movies, whose title is quite appropriate to the current situation.
But wait! I'm told Jean Seberg too was taken care of by the infamous Ruskies.
What a world of illusion and manipulation we live in! Once again I turn to Kant and his famous Sapere aude!
18 commentaires:
This tale story is so ridiculous that there is very probably more than meets the eye on this issue which is another smoke screen whose goal is to conceal something more real. And if that isn't the case, it is then unbelievably ludicrous imho.
Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, and Bradley Manning. All three citizens of the U.S. What significance does that have?
And the only other comparable person is Julian Assange and he's an infernal Australian... Those damned capitalist Anglos!
Off topic, but this is too cute to resist... The Andrews Sisters with the Supremes
And of course the orginal presentations:
Stop In The Name Of Love
And then there's that song with the Supremes sans Diana: Stop! stop! ... stop!
And of course the Andrews Sisters' greatest hit Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy of Comany B
And some beautiful eye candy with a great tune Black Magic Woman
"Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, and Bradley Manning. All three citizens of the U.S. What significance does that have?"
The same it would have were it Chinese, Russian or Brazilian courageous individuals denouncing practices of their respective countries which they'd consider contrary to the fundamental values upon which said countries have based their identity.
The fact that they're capitalist is irrelevant but the fact that they're all Anglos is a reminder of how much the anglo sphere is identified with values such as the protection of individual rights and freedom of speech.
These people should be praised for their courageous acts of rebellion against the State when they realise said State is heading onward in a direction opposite to the values that lay on its foundations.
When Chinese or Russian activists rebel against their State, it is not because they consider China or Russia acting against their own values but they instead refer to the values propagated by the West and which are exemplified by the US and the moral philosophy which inspired its founding fathers.
The names you give are those of American citizens faithful to the true spirit of America, at least as perceived in the world.
I have no idea whether the story of Antigone is taught in the US schools but the three Americans we're talking about have been acting like the heroine of the Greek tragedy.
As pertains Black Magic Woman and Santana.
Why are you giving on my blog (which is already under serveillance) a link to a Middle East belly danse and specifically on this thread which questions some very troubling practices of the US? Don't you know you further put me at risk in so doing?
Are you a NSA undercover agent Anijo?
Yes, Flocon. You've got my number. ☺
The story of Antigone was never taught in the school that I attended, but then I didn't attend a high-level high school. I'm just a little hick from the sticks.
Flocon,
I was reading this article concerning why the U.S. won't cut aid to Egypt and about the military-industrial complex.
And here you go again planting anti American links as evidence against me. I am growing very suspicious about your ultimate motives Anijo...
And I am all the more sceptical since the shadow of SemperFidelis is very often to be seen in your wake.
You two are conspiring to make me fall aren't you?
In the same vein you'got this page.
//These people should be praised for their courageous acts of rebellion against the State when they realise said State is heading onward in a direction opposite to the values that lay on its foundations.//
Flocon: On reflection, I think you will agree that you are mistaken in praising Manning and Snowden for courageous acts.
We only deserve praise for acts for which we are responsible. And we are only responsible for acts in any meaningful way when we were free to choose to do or not do the acts. A man forced at gunpoint to give to the poor is not praiseworthy. A sleepwalker who frightens a burglar away has done nothing courageous.
You have been at pains to point out that we actually have no free will to choose our actions.
The whole edifice of praise and condemnation rests on the pillar of responsibility. And the pillar of responsibility rests on the foundation of choice.
Manning and Snowden may have done things that you favor. But their actions were not the result of their choices. Rather their actions were the result of a long chain of actions and reactions originating in the most random chance.
For the same reason, Merah, who shot children at point-blank range and filmed himself in the act, cannot be condemned. He had no choice.
You have, in a moment of weakness, succumbed to the illusion of free will.
SemperFidelis
Sorry for the delay to answer your comment Semper, I know I'll get the rough treatment from Anijo about that.
Nice try but no cigar though...
I won't go again in an extensive argument to demonstrate my point, I've done that too many times now. Yet I note that you've never engaged in any demonstration to explain why you believe in free will although it belongs to you to prove your position according to the Affirmanti Incumbit Probatio principle.
At what age are we in full possession of our so-called free will? 18? 12? 8? or at the very beginning of your provisional sojourn on earth?
Were Thompson and Venables totally in possession of their "free will"?
Are schizophrenics or paranoids and disturbed minds in general in possession of any free will? Who is sick and who isn't? Where and which are the limits?
You completely believe in free will as much as I do not (with reasons already exposed) but I accept that it is a necessary illusion for practical purposes (as Kant would admit) and that we have to act as if free will were a reality - whereas we know it is an illusion like Stephen Hawkins and many others do for example.
The absurd consequence of total determinism, which is my position, would be to entirely dismantle all prisons and never punish anybody because of bad social behaviour. This is not my opinion though and I even call for more prisons and stricter punishments.
There is no contradiction here, it is just a matter of practical reasons.
Imbeciles do stupid things like bastards perform wicked acts. Imbeciles are imbeciles and it is not within their reach to act intelligently and they haven't chosen to be imbeciles. They act according to their nature.
And the same goes with bastards who act according to their deepest self.
As pertains Manning and Snowden, they acted the way they did because they believed in certain values that were taught to them when they were young, values that have much to do with those of the founding fathers.
They didn't sold secrets to any would be enemies of their country nor did MLK was an enemy of peace and democracy and yet he was treated as if he were.
Had Manning and Snowden the choice to act otherwise the way they did? I say no and it was part of their destiny to tell the "truth" about what they deemed contrary to the values they believed in. (Of course the two cases are different).
Do they deserve praise as you seem to object they do? Indeed, from an absolute deterministic point of view they don't (I agree with you here) like J.S Bach, Vermeer or Matsuo Bashō don't deserve to be admired and praised since they were born genius and they didn't chose to be such. They were talented. Are they responsible for that?
"Manning and Snowden may have done things that you favor. But their actions were not the result of their choices. Rather their actions were the result of a long chain of actions and reactions originating in the most random chance."
I agree with you here since you adopt the deterministic position, be it for the sake of the conversation.
The difference between our two points of view is that you posit free will whereas - in the name of practical reason - I have to admit a semblance of responsibility.
All: I am about to depart for a trip and will have interrupted access to the internet.
So I can only offer a comment at this point. Although I do very much wish to return to the subject.
Per Flocon-
// I accept that it is a necessary illusion for practical purposes (as Kant would admit) and that we have to act as if free will were a reality //
I am no philosopher. But I, for one, would be uneasy about my theory of reality if I had to consistently act as though my theory was error.
Wouldn't the simplest explanation for the observation that I must act as if free will exists, be that free will exists?
Occam's Razor?
SemperFidelis
So what Semperfi said makes sense. And yet, SemperFi, I have a question for you. If someone who would otherwise be committed to a mental institution commits a crime, do they have free will thus afforded to them by God?
Anijo, you're an innocent lamb and this is why SemperFidelis takes advantage on you with his repeated logical fallacies and twists of reason that seem to make sense to you.
And to make things worse, he pools wool over your eyes with one of the classical tricks Casanovas use to impress chicks.
Don't let him fool you girl and try to recognize where the trick lies with this fallacy.
"It is not because we haven't found the wmd that they don't exist".
I'm afraid I'll never know how SemperFi chose his religion with his free will or how he also chose his sexual orientation considering that homosexuality is deemed a crime by all religions.
I suppose some day he stopped and started considering the options only to pick the right and moral one among those presented to him.
Anijo: The common law on this issue is the M'Naghten Rule. The insane may not be held responsible for their acts either because their perception of reality is so grossly impaired that they cannot be held criminally liable for their acts of free will (I freely chose to shoot the pumpkin, but in reality the pumpkin was my wife)or because they had no free will at all (I had an irresistable compulsion to shoot my wife).
I don't think that it follows from the observation that some individuals lack free will in some circumstances, that all persons lack free will in all circumstances.
I return to my point. The simplist explanation for the observation that I must act as though most people have free will most of the time in order to deal with reality, is that the reality is that most people have free will most of the time.
Sincerely,
SemperFidelis
Anijo: The common law on this issue is the M'Naghten Rule. The insane may not be held responsible for their acts either because their perception of reality is so grossly impaired that they cannot be held criminally liable for their acts of free will (I freely chose to shoot the pumpkin, but in reality the pumpkin was my wife)or because they had no free will at all (I had an irresistable compulsion to shoot my wife).
I don't think that it follows from the observation that some individuals lack free will in some circumstances, that all persons lack free will in all circumstances.
I return to my point. The simplist explanation for the observation that I must act as though most people have free will most of the time in order to deal with reality, is that the reality is that most people have free will most of the time.
Sincerely,
SemperFidelis
So the insane have free will but they're not responsible for their acts of free will? Well then nobody is responsible for their "acts of free will" because how to define what is "insane"? Some people might be in the grey area of insane or sane. So are they responsible or not?
While I still find the topic of free will interesting, and I'm still convinced that men don't have free will.
That said I've reached the point that I no longer care if someone believes in a god or many gods because I've met so many beautiful and cool believers. What's more important is how they apply their beliefs in such a manner that affects other human beings and animals and our Earth. I've also encountered some atheists who are major assholes who don't care about people. For me, the best quality in a person is their humanity.
Enregistrer un commentaire