You are completely correct here. The NSA is answerable to we the people, those other attackers are not. Politics is what will fix the NSA, tech is what will fix the other guys. Google needs to seriously step up their political lobbying to in order to reign in the NSA. Encrypting all of their backhaul traffic won't make a difference if the NSA has compromised the end points to hand out the encryption keys whenever the NSA pings those boxes.

Ok, I will take it.

The problem here is that you are willing to parse what Google says in their favor and then assume that anybody who doesn't read it that way is ridiculous. But in this environment, where they have every reason to lie and no reason to be honest, that doesn't cut it.

Furthermore you weaken your position by trying to piecemeal their statements to be conditional when your very first response was that their statements were unconditional.

Even if they are honest, they don't get the benefit of the doubt under these circumstances. They have not done enough to push back on government overreach, even now this court case isn't about pushing back on spying, it's about shoring up Google's reputation. Google was able to make a really strong public statement about SOPA, but with the NSA all they seem to be doing is trying to keep it arm's length so it won't rub off on them. That's says it's all about PR and nobody trusts corporate PR.

If Google wants to be taken at their word on this topic, then they need more than just words. They need action - put their money into fixing things, both politically and technically. That's the only way they can earn trust.

I don't think fossil fuel interest had anything to do with it. It is a civil war and should be determined by the people of the country not the UN. Quite a few people of Syria support Assad or fear what would replace him too much to support the rebels.

If the same thing happened in the US or Russia or England or anywhere, would you like the UN stepping in and removing a government from power so the ultra conservatives could take over? replace ultra conservatives with any political bend you want. The point is, it's up to the people to decide, not the UN.

Exactly this.
Smart bombs from 40000ft targeting specific enemies - brave, noble pilots.
Suicide bombing innocent civilians attempting to influence a government or government policy- evil and cowardly terrrrists.

There, FIFY.

look up the term "sovereignty".

NO sovereign state (read country here) is under the rule of any other state unless it either first agrees to give up some or all sovereignty or it is taken from them (presumably by force). Until any of those happen, any country has the right to do anything it damn well pleases, including owning and possessing chemical or biological weapons.

Most developed countries have Sarin or the capabilities to create it at a moments notice. This is generally kept as a defensive measure that will only be used should another country attack and use it.

You do realize the republicans supported Clinton bombing Iraq and that we had troops and expenditures specifically allocated to Iraq before we went to war with them right?

What I'm getting at is that Iraq is/was in an entirely different league then Syria and they should not ever be compared for political purposes because they are so vastly different. What one group said for Iraq is completely irrelevant to Syria. It's like saying those it was funny watching them make up reasons why they didn't want to eat egg rolls at a greasy gas station along the highway when they ate them and sushi at Chang's last year.

Okay. Let's relax and look at this objectively then. If this all about humanitarian efforts, why is the U.S. invested?

The US is invested only because Obama put his foot in his mouth and needs to save credibility. Before that, people wanted to enter Syria (the government and country as a whole cared less about it) for a number of reasons with some dating back to the cold war years and wanting democracy over dictators. Some actually want the Muslim brother hood in power (see our reaction to Egypt).

Again, here is why your oil fails. Nothing will be different if Assad is removed from power with respect to oil or pipelines. In fact, the one pipeline that Syria has refused to allow from Qatar, was originally supposed to go through Saudi Arabia first, but the refused to allow it so Syria was the second option. Saudi, btw, is one of if not the largest supporters of the Syrian rebels. So you are having us to believe that a pipeline that could go through a friendly county is the reason why that friendly country is supporting a rebellion in another country in which the pipeline could also go and that those rebels who are mostly unfriendly to the US will somehow allow the US or the friendly county to control the pipeline and other oil interest.

Do you realize how convoluted and insane that sounds when you go through the motions?

You're showing ideology, where I hadn't by using the term "evil." Corporations are amoral; there is no good or evil. They are profit driven. However, as long as human slavery, trafficking, and suffering, as long as warfare is profitable, then it does become a moral issue.

So what separates you from the idiots out there that couldn't look into the details enough to understand a thought properly is the term Evil? I'm sorry I associated it with you then. I guess I might be one of those elitists you were talking about.

That's exactly what you're doing. Everything you posted you pulled out your ass and wasn't based upon current events, facts, or a thousand years of literature, history, philosophy, and economics. You argued just to argue.

You are either stupid or being spoon fed by idiots. Not one thing I mentions is as you say. Open you eyes and ears.

In your first post, you justified warfare based upon the semantics of a speech given a year ago. It could have been a red line, a blue line, a black line, an invisible line. That's delusional.

And what is really delusional is you thinking I justified or attempted to justify war at all in what I posted. I said that Obama would try to get out of it and he got himself caught up with his mouth writing checks his ass didn't want to cash because he is an amateur. Think of him as the god catcher acting as governor. The only reason war is seriously on the US radar is because Obama tried to look tough and got called out. Kerry is even in Europe saying our waring response will be "unbelievably small" trying to convince people it will not be a war at all.

You have to understand the mentality of these people. Someone does something bad and the public cries there should be a law about that. Well, most of the time there already was a law but they jump up and create a law that does a whole lot of things but stop whatever people were outraged about and they title the law as "the law to stop outrageous behavior" and say they did something. It is all about appearances and emotion with them. It is all stage one thinking with little deep or long term thought into long term consequences.

The best thing about it is that it also works as a microwave oven and a tanning booth!

Only by one specific definition. Obviously the government does not think it is a free for all or they would not have been pushing for additional access ala CALEA II.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/06/new-and-improved-facebook-and-google-statements-prism-still-have-some-holes/66024/

You do not know if he has done more for his country then me or how much. That exist only in your head along with your visions of me protesting dead soldiers.

If you can sit there and admire someone who thinks terrorist killing innocent civilians and government officials at the direction of enemy countries and think that is not a troll, then you are as screwed up (if not more) as he is. I already know you are a troll, so i guess it isn't a stretch to see a troll attempt to defend another troll.

Now listen to me carefully, I will not ever apologize to anyone who thinks terrorist killing civilians at the behest of foreign enemies is somehow deserving.

The original iPhone was pretty groundbreaking for what it was (usable touchscreen input), and the iPhone 4 introduced really nice screens, probably the main reason why resolution has been pushed by all other manufacturers since then. Both technologies were available to other manufacturers, but they all followed Apple's lead. Same with tablets, although I think no one in their right mind would get it blown away by the iPad (or any other tablet since then).

The original MacBook Air probably started the whole race to thinness, too. Even though they're no great innovators, Apple certainly have been leading the industry the last ten years. It's a bit funny that it probably started with the iPod, which Apple delivered late to a market in which everyone else insisted on producing utter crap.

Socialism, lol.

Since you've just admitted to being deliberately irrational here, you don't have a leg to stand on.