Oh, they have enough weapons. Now the serious game begins as Reva pointed
out. The investigation of the attack is not interesting. I suspect the
findings have already been reached before the first investigator got to
work. Now the question is how India responds. God willing, the Indian
response will make us a lot of money.
Holy damn. Here is one interview of her (Reva Bhalla): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc1gJOPCipY And at the end she is linking the attack to Al Qaeda. I think this is why they are giving her kudos, for planting the seed. This is nefarious on so many levels. This means India directly comes under pressure to respond back to Pakistan, and then respond to allegations that Al Qaeda is expanding in India. It is ironic that it was one of the CIA double agent, with links to terrorist organization LeT, who conducted recce of the sites before attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Headley
India was under so much pressure to go to war at that time. Experts were gunning for surgical strikes. Imagine the pressure on bureaucrats, especially when both countries have nuclear arsenal.
Why does education/intelligence/morality not cull the inner devil of some?
> Why does education/intelligence/morality not cull the inner devil of some?
This is honestly a far more complicated question than other commentors appear to be capable of engaging with.
Educational systems worldwide are constructed with the idiotic hope of job fulfillment. There are noises about a liberal arts education, but these are the first things cut when budgets are on the line. Educational systems, thusly, do nothing to help guide moral compasses: indeed, they do a lot to break them down.
Intelligence, on the other hand, very naturally cuts both ways. The capacity to reason is also the capacity to rationalize. These are people trained to vote with their wallet, because their wallet is the only meaningful measure of value they have. Short of coincidence, they have no particular reason to believe that this is untrue.
Morality, though, isn't innate. The purpose of philosophy--one of those casualties of an industrial-catered educational system--is to actually tackle the construction of a moral system and tinker with practical applications of it. It was never a widespread practice to engage in understanding how morals are made, even if you contribute no new thought, but we've done nothing to spread it wider.
We end up leaving it to genetic lottery and your local tradition of faith. When most people's "inner devil" is culled only by the least possible amount of thought, how do you expect it to be culled at all?
"Why does education/intelligence/morality not cull the inner devil of some?"
IMO education and intelligence may sometimes fuel the "inner devil". "Greed has poisoned men's souls." I really think it is power and or authority that may be the culprit in these kinds of situations. Some people are completely disconnected from our fellow humans.
It could also have meant that investigators have already decided who did this. IIRC, hours after the attacks we were already suggesting Pakistan. In the end it turned out to be close, but jumping into conclusions would not help our credibility.
Reva Bhalla's interview is too insignificant to directly affect our decision to respond. She was speculating, but everyone (including the government!) was speculating too and they were all pretty much saying the same thing. Which is, "someone in Pakistan".
I haven't seen anything seriously damaging yet from the India files. People aren't always very mild in emails, and some of them were just jokes. Some jokes were crude, but we all make such jokes.
They did not know who did it immediately, except knowing of Pakistan's involvement. Remember, ISI chief was being flown to India immediately on eve of attacks and Pak PM allowed it, only to be cancelled at last minute? [1] Nobody was speculating Al Qaeda links, it was being said either JeM, Deccan Mujahideen or LeT. Her speculation is significant because she is associated with security agency, is on CNN and will be listened to by in American Policy corridors.
You haven't seen damaging because they are aggregator, and put in their analysis on the news. Yeah crude jokes like selling weapons over the misery of others. "We" do not make these kind of jokes, and even if we do, they should be deplored. Sorry, I am not in sync with you over this.
To be fair, the guy joking about India attacking Pakistan and Israel having an excuse to go back into Gaza is the FOUNDER and CHAIRMAN of Stratfor. He ended the email with, "We are looking at a tense and profitable week."
And why does education/intelligence/morality not keep others from constantly seeking out the perceived inner devil of others?
I'm being serious. You make an awful lot of assumptions about real people there, and ascribe to them the worst possible motives. That's a risky default behavior.
Reva's pretty hot. I see why the CEO told her to exploit an Israeli intelligence source by "financial, sexual or psychological control to the point where he would reveal his sourcing and be tasked."[1] The CEO added that this is difficult with her being associated with an intelligence organization.
Will be glad to supply weapons to both sides if India and Pakistan want a
cage match. India gets the net and trident and the pakistanis get the shield
and short sword. Kamran can instruct in Klingon
Strawman argument! WikiLeaks is providing transparency and some insight into the decisions and discussions made by powerful people that affect all of our lives.
There's a difference between someone who says something, and someone who acts out on it - and when they're in the business of selling weapons or profiting from it - and say something like that, which will lead to action or is inherently acted upon because of the nature of what they're doing (the business they are in) - then it's no longer just a "freedom of speech" thing.
You can say you want to kill someone, or even tell them you're going to kill them - but under law, it's only when you act on it OR have a plan to do so that the scenario becomes illegal - and you'll go to jail if you then kill said person (assuming you get caught) or have a plan to do so. Likewise, them just saying wouldn't be illegal, however I feel them acting out and selling actual weapons to both sides (and perhaps somehow inciting war between two parties to then profit) should IMHO be illegal, stating their intent they would and would love to is not only having a plan stated but perhaps one of the most disturbing disconnected inhumane uncaring violent acts a person could partake in.
I don't generally agree that killing of anyone is right - though perhaps with the only exception of those who actively kill others or lead violence - however that's for a society to determine what is acceptable. Unfortunately many things a society deems unacceptable (even existing laws that are enforced) are happening and go unchanged, though we're moving towards a system that is more in line with general views. There are more basic issues that need to be taken care of first to help alleviate people's worries and stresses, removing fear of survival will solve most, if not lead to solving all problems.
You don't see any problem with this, a conflict of interest, that might lead to incentivizing said weapons company to be more inclined to help incite a war between two parties - which they'll clearly be happy to profit from?
I'm assuming that there is some sort of Star Trek universe remake of the scene from Spartacus, but I can't seem to find it. If so, does it have the same set-up (slave gladiators battling for the amusement of the elites)? I'm not entirely sure this makes sense...
There is a Star Trek episode where Kirk is forced to watch as Spock and McCoy fight as gladiators against Roman guards. There aren't any Klingons involved, but it does feature Roman clothing. There is another episode where alien brains want Kirk, Ohura and Checkov to fight as gladiators on their planet for the rest of their lives. There is a third episode in which Spock and Kirk are forced to fight in front of Vulcans as part of a Vulcan trial-by-combat marriage ceremony. Their is also a fourth episode in Voyager which features a gladiatorial combat but in a sci-fi arena that looks like the set of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." Those are the only references I could find, but let's just say that this idea has seen its fair share of screen time on Star Trek.
Thanks. None of those quite seem to fit the email though. I'm guessing that the allusion in the email must have just been to general Klingon war-like attitudes.
I was wondering if the explicit naming of the weapons was supposed to refer to that exact scene in the Kubrick movie. Which, given it was one of the triggers of the slave rebellion make the original email seem possibly quite weird.
What do you mean by "these kinds of people"? Greedy people? People who say things that are tasteless and mean? I'm pretty sure there's no law against any of that. Please enlighten me re: the law they've broken, otherwise I hope you can see the inherent irony in your statement... </unpopularOpinion>
edit: I'm not being ornery, I'm really actually curious what people think they should go to prison for. Tastelessness != criminality.
These people aren't just a group of kids on xboxLive making idle threats. They are making real plans and use their influence to make money at the cost of killing people. Conspiracy to commit murder for financial gain sounds like a good fit here. Or at least intent to indirectly end lives for money.
EDIT: Ouch, game over for me... I thought these email leaks involved government officials 'n such. If these are like reading the emails of FOXNews, then nevermind. They're bad people(IMHO), but can't jail 'em anymore than we can jail the people of stormfront.org
Conspiracy to commit murder? What are you talking about? Do you even know what Stratfor is? They're a glorified news organization. They're no more involved in the Mumbai terror plot than CNN is. As I said, they stand to profit because people will want more information about these events, which they provide. The stuff about supplying weapons is clearly a (bad, stupid) offhanded joke.
Profiting from the deaths of others is morally wrong, and it should be illegal. Judging by the number of up votes my parent comment has, there are lots of people that agree.
>I'm pretty sure there's no law against any of that.
You're right, there is no law against it, yet.
There also didn't used to be laws against a ton of morally wrong things, but at some point, enough people thought it was wrong and a law was made.
We should be looking to make the world a better place, not saying "there's no law against that, they can do it". The status quo needs improvement.
Profiting from the deaths of others? They're a news organization. I don't understand what you're accusing them of that CNN isn't also guilty of, save some tasteless emails with bad jokes in them.
If they are actually engaged in selling weapons; well, arms trafficking is generally a crime unless you are very close to your government and very up to date on the paperwork. And even then most people would consider it a "moral crime", to profit from the misery of war.
The weapons they mention are traditional Roman gladiatorial weapons. I think that they're meant to be taken literally but are simply a reference to the presumed entertainment value (sigh). And honestly, even if literal giving swords to an army with automatic rifles is just giving them ceremonial props, not weapons.
Spoiler alert: they aren't. The weapons they talk about supplying are "a net and trident" for India and "the shield
and short sword" for Pakistan. Seems pretty obvious that's a dumb joke. The closest they get to the illegal arms trade is reporting on it, eg. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/global-arms-markets-seen-thro...
Laws are made up by humans - we could create laws that disallow this kind of behaviour, it's a bit surprising that it's not, no? Oh wait, the for-profit military-industrial complex lobbies politicians who are pro-war ...
Again, what kind of behavior are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting we pass laws prohibiting saying things that you find objectionable, tasteless or greedy? In a thread defending a whistleblower's free speech?
No, the action of selling weapons to both sides is much different than someone simply talking about it. Giving someone the ability to make money selling weapons has its own problems - which will incentivize those people who are looking to make profit do things they wouldn't normally otherwise do, and then worse - if they have the ability to sell weapons to both sides of a battle or war, what might they be willing to do in order to incite violence of one party against another? Do you not see a problem with this?
Please do some research before you make accusations like this. I have seen zero evidence that they're involved in the arms trade whatsoever. Your conclusion to the contrary is based on a misreading of a bad joke taken out of context. See my other comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6743185
You're right - I assumed they are involved in the arms trade. I should have clarified what I meant. I assumed too that this wouldn't be a mob going after them, though a due process to gather information and evidence. What would your thoughts be if they were in fact say an employee (of any level) of a weapons company? Also, you're equally assuming it's a "bad joke taken out of context."
Yes, Occam's Razor tells me that when an employee of a media organization says he's going to arm Pakistan and India with tridents and swords, it's most likely and therefore best to assume it's a joke. Assuming otherwise would require some evidence.
I don't wish to engage in hypotheticals, suffice it to say I'd sooner be a prostitute than work for a weapons company myself.
> I'm pretty sure there's no law against any of that.
Agreed. Unfortunately there is no recourse until a power center rises elsewhere. They say written history would have been very different in case Germany had won their war.
No I don't really think it would be. I doubt it would have been in recent history after Germans won either, and even if it did dynasties fall. "History is written by the victors" denies the fact that even the victors have their doubts, internal doubts, and some after reflection regret.
He's pretty clearly implying that the investigation is rigged, and therefore uninteresting.
The money comment is a pretty insensitive. That said, a lot of time spent on any particular thing tends to result in serious desensitization to the subject. Go have dinner with a few EMTs and listen to their shop talk. ("He was tasting for air, saying, 'dudegaspam Igaspgonnagasplive?', and all I could muster was, 'dudemock gasp, mock gasp no, mock gasp you aren't mock gasp gonna live!'" Followed by a few rounds of laughter. Got to hear that little gem said just the other night by one of the top Search & Rescue professionals in the world.)
This kind of thing isn't uncommon, or even that big a deal. Few people can withstand the scrutiny of a public life-dump.
Tackiness aside, I don't think it's sufficient evidence for us to call for anyone's hanging or jailing, like some seem to be advocating here.
I was in India when the Mumbai carnage took place. My classmate from IIT was killed the same day at the very same spot [1].
And here we have this class of a bitch thinking of making a "lot of money" off a probable war ['caged match' look at the audacity!]. No wonder they say karma is broken all over the place. On another story these same corrupt assholes have abused their power to send a whistle blower to jail and serve a 10 years term [2].
Relax, they are more like a news company. If you checked the emails of CNN, Fox, or even BBC you might find similar stuff. All news companies, including Indian TV channels love bad news.
Stratfor is nowhere close to holding the kind of power you are imagining.
On the ground human intelligence is power. And Barron's called Stratfor "the shadow CIA".
I have limited experience in this but I've seen some egregious things with current intelligence employees and private contractors. I think you are underestimating outside ways these guys could profit and/or use their intelligence collection news company to encourage those profits.
How is this any different than the "Scud Stud" Peter Kent making his career of the Iraq War? Or a defense lawyer becoming famous because he got a murder case dismissed on a technicality?
Sure, it's pretty crappy, tasteless behavior, but lets not go overboard here.
That's not true! People who died in these five star hotels and their conference rooms were top notch entrepreneurs, executives AND ordinary people of India [1]. So 164 people who died is not just a drop in the ocean as you would like to believe here.
People who died in these five star hotels and their conference rooms were top notch entrepreneurs, executives AND ordinary people of India [1]. So 164 people who died is not just a drop in the ocean as you would like to believe here.
Death of innocents is a tragedy whether they were an entrepreneur, an executive, or a janitor.
You're right. But when conflict is extremely profitable for some then the value of those who died and are going to die is already under material consideration within that justification.
On the parent comment 164 people sounded like a lame statistic, involuntarily generalizing everyone as "people who just died there" and this is usual business for others to profit from it.
I know what you're trying to say. Sure everyone innocent who died there was an equal human being and this tragedy should be left at that.
Quote:
Oh, they have enough weapons. Now the serious game begins as Reva pointed out. The investigation of the attack is not interesting. I suspect the findings have already been reached before the first investigator got to work. Now the question is how India responds. God willing, the Indian response will make us a lot of money.
This after the devastating terrorist attack in Mumbai which killed 164 people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks