Home > Analysis, News, Opinion > Other Snowden Relevations

Other Snowden Relevations

I wish to make a few observations about Edward Snowden from a slightly different angle.

Initially, there were legitimate queries concerning the apparent ease with which he copied highly confidential information, his background, and the escape. They seemed sensible questions, without the fingerprints of Disinformation Agents. But by now, it must be quite clear that Snowden is genuine. 

Most of the operational puzzles can be answered if we let go of one assumption: That the US secret machinery, powerful as it is, must be competent like what we see in movies. People who have worked for major multinationals might agree that the functioning of huge organisations is appallingly less coherent and rational than what outsiders might perceive. A simple example: The computer servers of most companies, big or small, are maintained by an outside contractor or a relatively junior staff member. No highly paid senior person is willing — or capable of — maintaining the system. Now, unless top executives exchange confidential correspondence by hand-written notes, relatively junior technicians could access them if they want to, including an audit trail of the Chairman’s internet activities during office hours.

This practical constraint applies to governments as well. The only solution is to employ people they trust, and appeal not only to their skills and wallets, but heart, pride and loyalty as well. 

The US Government’s double-standard and grotesque hypocrisy is not new, but becoming outrageously blatant during the past decade. As a result, it risks alienating the educated elite — the most informed Americans. In the old days, an idealistic facade gave the people a sense of mission; the best of America were proud to serve. Increasingly, only imperial fanatics and under-qualified individuals (who would otherwise be paid a fraction in the normal job market) would join the globally subversive and warmongering machines. However, intelligent people are more likely to think for themselves, and are unreliable Brown Shirts or Red Guards material. Occasionally, some of them will have the courage to do something about the injustice and abuse that come across their terminals. Snowden is a heartening example. This is the ultimate People Power.

The obvious “solution” for the US Government is either to live up to the American ideal, or hire only empire hooligans without courage or principle. Either solution would be good for the world in the long run, though the latter one means they could become even more dangerous in the short term.

One baffling thing about the “debates” on whether the US Government was justified in brazenly committing yet another international crime is the 911 excuse. My jaded question is: How could anyone find 911 remotely credible, given all the evidence, in 2013? So far, it seems to be yet another case of faith triumphing over facts and science. But however slowly, that will change. Unless they officially reclassify physics as “conspiracy theory”, the truth will have to emerge one day.

Categories: Analysis, News, Opinion Tags: ,
  1. August 2nd, 2013 at 00:19 | #1

    Good point – Guo Du – that there are massive contradictions in the U.S.. Those who truly believed in the ideals will inevitably be smacked by reality. That’s the common theme between Manning and Snowden so far. That then only means the U.S. government will increasingly turn against its citizens to root out people like Manning and Snowden. It’s hard to see an end to all this.

    I personally don’t buy into 911 being faked by the U.S. government. The U.S. is too powerful to need to fake that kind of stuff. If the U.S. wants to invade, she simply does.

    If the U.S. wants to fake something, they do stuff like Gulf of Tonkin or the faked attack by Spanish on navy ships.

  2. August 2nd, 2013 at 03:37 | #2

    On 911, the scientists and engineers and architects who have the courage to speak out – and there are many with impressive credentials – are careful to separate the issue into science and politics. The collapses – especially building 7 – were impossible according to physics. As to why? We technologists hate to speculate. That’d be the job of others. However, to regard the free-fall collapse of these buildings, esp the 3rd one, as physically possible is to officially confirm a miracle. The work of Allah, therefore? I have a few posts with links on this subject in my blog if you’re interested.

    To be honest, I’d regard it none of us non-Americans’ business if not for the global consequence, and a disbelief in how fundamental science can be brushed aside just like that! Some of the best structural engineers and scientists are being called “conspiracy theorists” by people who know zero about sturcural engineering and building behavior. I find that mind-boggling. However, these scientists, though muffled by the mainstream media, are still not giving up after more than 10 years. That to me is an amazing American spirit that is dying rapidly.

  3. ersim
    August 2nd, 2013 at 07:41 | #3

    As long as this Snowden character never leaks anything closely related to what really happened on September 11,2001, I personally would not give him any credibility whatsoever. Him “leaking information” about the government spying on people is not a very new concept.

  4. N.M.Cheung
    August 2nd, 2013 at 18:00 | #4

    I do agree on your view on Snowden and Manning, but I can’t accept your conspiracy on 911 theory. I may not be a structural engineer, but it’s pretty hard to fake the planes smash into the World Trade Centers. I did read through the New York Times on the history of those buildings, the architecture, design, and the physics of it. I also read those conspiracy theories and found them wanting. I find the physics behind it pretty convincing, when temperature reach certain point, the steel loses its tensile strength. As for building number 7, it’s rather unimportant and irrelevant, some theorize the diesel fuel stored in the basement for the emergency center located in no.7 did it in. For me when the 1 and 2 collapsed, the blast force probably did enough damage to 7 to weaken the structure. I find rehashing those theories assuming cover up detract from the main points and unrewarding. The fact that Snowden managed to uncover the spying of NSA and force a debate that even now gathers momentum belies the possibility of perfect cover up. U.S. dropped the first 2 atom bombs in Japan and even with the near monopoly of nuclear arms refuse to pledge no first use certainly have no need to wound itself for fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  5. pug_ster
    August 4th, 2013 at 09:07 | #5

    The White House state dept were crying like a 5 year old child for months since Snowden was paraded in Hong Kong and Russia. The more they wail about wanting Snowden back, the more they embarrass themselves. Can’t those idiots just shut up? Remember Chen GuangCheng thing when those American paid agents got him out to the US and did Chinese officials cry over spilled milk over this? Of course not.

  6. August 4th, 2013 at 23:48 | #6

    I agree that the official account is doing a much better job in giving SiFi explanations that appeal to the reasonable layman. The US government is after all the world’s foremost expert in fooling the masses.

    The “explanations” you cited are simply ridiculous from the little that humanity understands about science and structures, as of 2013. If temperature could reach a point that melts structural steel encased in concrete (evenly and symmetrically!) under uncontrolled conditions, it’d be a breakthrough in metallurgy. If a tank of diesel (let’s assume it’s a giant one, against all safety regulations and common sense) could bring down a skyscraper in that manner, then “controlled demolition” would become significantly easier and cheaper. Someone should capture this opportunity to get rich.

    To recap the rebuttals here would take pages and pages. There are numerous links from industry experts if one is interested to research. The NYT, like most other mainstream media, is not one of them. Do be aware of disinformation sites though. Believe it or not, if you rely on Goggling, you’d be duly nudged towards the official story.

    The Architects and Engineers is a good starting point: http://architects-engineers.org/ Bafflingly, these “conspiracy theorists” continue to be trusted by the American public to build their homes and offices.

    A short film by some Danish professors and politician is very “user friendly”: http://undergrounddocumentaries.com/911-the-sensible-doubt-a-danish-view-of-911-full-version/

    I have previously summarised my observations in a few posts on my blog, under the label “911 Delusions”, including psychological speculations as to “Why People Believe in 911” (http://guo-du.blogspot.hk/2011/07/tony-farrell-and-why-people-believe-in.html). Included there are more links to different sources. By the way, Wikipedia doesn’t seem to contain a reference to the collapse of Building 7, a 47-storey modern building which was on fire for 50 something minutes and collapsed by free-fall onto its own foot-prints.(The building burnt for less than an hour according to evidence. An “afternoon” according to official narratives, but it makes no difference. Factories which have suffered huge explosions and burnt for days never collapse like that). A country park public toilet in Hong Kong would have much more stringent fire rating than NYC skyscrapers if this were true. (Look at this fire in Chechan: http://www.infowars.com/skyscraper-engulfed-by-fire-does-not-collapse/) Anyway, the collapse of Building 7, whatever the cause, is real enough. Isn’t it odd that Wikipedia treats it as if something that should be avoided and forgotten?

    As a senior engineer registered in Canada and HK, I share the straight forward view of thousands of experts in the US who have far more impressive credentials than mine. These are not your Long Hair raving lunatics, but normally conservative and apolitical professionals. They include recipients of prestigious science awards in America, and a few Nobel laureates. It’s not easy for them to put their reputation behind this “controversial” view. But 1+1 won’t make 3 to these scientists and engineers just because the government says so. Of course they are also branded “conspiracy theorists” by those know nothing about basic engineering. The media have played their part in perpetrating this view, something that we are only too familiar with.

    As commented earlier, it’s in a way none of my business. I have no intention to debate fundamental physics with anyone. People have chosen to believe ludicrous official accounts and miracles for millennia. The world hasn’t changed much. But the “911 miracle” has far-reaching implications, and is therefore dangerous to disregard. If they can get away with 911, they can get away with anything given a good Hollywood director.

    Fortunately, unlike previous conspiracies such as Tonkin Bay etc., 911 happened in the video age. There are also tonnes of overwhelming (but boring boring) evidence which won’t go away. Something as clear-cut as this will not remain a “conspiracy theory” forever, unless they ban physics. So it’d only be a matter of time before the truth comes out. That I’m quite certain.

  7. Zack
    August 5th, 2013 at 13:13 | #7

    the US has recently been attacking whistleblowers and most saliently, attacking users of the hiddennet and tor citing copyright reasons but in reality, it’s a way for the US authorities such as the FBI/NSA to control the entire web.
    Already, the FBI has the power to hack into someone’s computer, steal their files and turn on their webcam!
    small wonder the USG has been hyping up the recent terror threat so as to maintain their illegal and immoral spying on others

  8. pug_ster
    August 8th, 2013 at 14:39 | #8


    Looks like Snowden’s preferred email service provider lavabit got shut down by the US government.

  9. August 8th, 2013 at 19:41 | #9


    Imagine the noise from the evangelical faithfuls if this happened elsewhere, esp. China. . .

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.