F Dominicus Blog : lies, war

Your data

Friedrich Dominicus — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:34:00 GMT

belong to you. Feel free to give them away to whomever you like but don't be surprised if it backfires.

With every new day and new news about Facebook I'm happy I'm not "in". If you just google for my name you can get a lot of information. And I know this will stay forever. Yes I'm unimportant and nobody but maybe one or two cares. That's fine with me. But I write what I think and "reveal" what I want and what I decide.

With Facebook I know all my data are in access to Facebook, who am I to know to whom they give access even if I would not agree? I simply do not know. Facebook needs desperately new sources of income. There stocks still are hell of expensive, and they must earn much more to get just near somewhat rational regions. So If they'd earn 10 billions one might things that 90 billions are "fair" priced, But So what else but your data should drive it's profits.

If you feel Facebook offers something to you then fine use it, but I for my part have decided that I want mine to stay mine. I do not want even more advertisements in my mail box, nor do I like to get stuffed with it every day, every click. In Germany the biggest advisor for debt handling Schufa have announced to start collecting user information on facebook for their credit rankings. How would you like that? I can just say, I'm not amused.

And within 5 years I'm sure you state agencies will put pressure on Facebook to get hands on our data. Of course all for the greater goog of the american state. And they will tell, those who do not have anything to hide can simply disclose that information. Well I guess they will do it even more "subtle". I bet Facebook will find a way to provide them with your data. Backdoors, hacker attacks, viruses, trojan horse, I don't doubt it a second that NSA should be able to crack accounts in the hundreds of thousands if they are inclined and told to do so. Your data? Not if you give them away that freely.....

Just and unjust wars?

Friedrich Dominicus — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:38:00 GMT

Well what's so very special about Lybia? Why is it "ok" to go to war with them but why not to any other dictatorships?

We all know it can't e civil rights, because they never were a problem in the past and still ain't a problem with a lot of other countries. In front of them all China. We even know civil rights are disputable by the US. Or can anyone see anything else but that with Guantanamo.

Now you may say: It's the oil stupid. I'm afraid this does not buy you anything. Lybia always has delivered. So no this seems not to be the reason.

Now let's ask another way. Who started it all. The French "president" Sarkozy. So now we probably come to the real reasons. At first his party is hard pressed by the NP and his popularity is "gone". France has as other European Countries too much debt and the population gets older and older. There are not reserves and so it seems extending the power of France over their "border" and getting hands on somthing as important as the Oil from Lybia is, you've to admit, appealing.

If we consider that Politicians (sorry deledefs) are masters of double-speech and double-think. It all falls into places. You say we must get rid of the dictator and let Lybia get "democratic". Now in the back he probably think: "and well they better get democratic the "french" way. You probably can say. "Well we the French will help you build up your society" and you can bet they'll promise sending money. Money they don't have but you know we just have to take more credit and all is fine.

In return you may come to an "agreement" which allows some government controlled corporation (France is full of them) to exploit the Oil fields. And suddenly the pieces fall in place. You get some thing people "want" and desire "oil" and you get money and "more" power and control

This sounds reasonable for the french intentions. It does not explain the participation of the US and GB. But GB seems to always be ready to go to war for whatever reason. Maybe it has something to due with "Britannia rule the world" or the like. One things the least interested country be the US. But I guess they still think of themselves as the "super power", they have not get it that they are "loosing" this status. Too much debt and too far extended war areas have brought down every imperial. Just think of Alexander the "Great", the Persian, the Mongols, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Greek, Rome, Germany, Great Britain, France etc.

No super power ever in the world was able to extend their influence above a certain level. And it seems the US are following this route. They simply can not afford going to war "everywhere" they did loose in Vietnam, and well you can't say they won in Afghanistan. So yes I think they overstretched their possibilities. But seeing that and accepting it are "different" pair of shoes....

There' can't be any doubt that Ghadffi is a dictator int the worse sense. He has oppressed all the citizens but those which currently favour him. However the US, and we all will see that getting rid of a dictator does not mean get rid of dictator ship. For that one needs a "complete" defeat as we've seen it in Germany. But still after the WW II many of the "high" rollers get high positions in the "new" country also. You know bureaucrats are unflexible if dealing with people like you an me, but are high flexiblity on whom rules they follow. However the Germans were fed up with the nazis, do we know if the population of Lybia is also?

We also remember the US have supported the fundamentalists in Afghanistan as they were on war with Russia. The same which have started their actions in the US. Al Kaida was obviously financed by much of American money, as they were aimable. They spend their money on weapons and brain-washing. And now the US is trying to defeat them... It's not unlikely that the rebels are of the same kind. So it seems the US better had not followed France. I bet even if Ghadaffi has gone, we'll here from Lybia and "terrorists" again. And that after the failed war in Afghanistan. The politician of US and other countries do not learn.....

Show your face (the real one)

Friedrich Dominicus — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:08:00 GMT

It's always interesting to see how Deledefs make their "own" kind of reality. Let's take using stolen things for something. We can assume it was illegal to send the docs from the diverse places to wikileak. Now we can see interesting reaction: Those publishing that stuff should be jailed or even better killed. The always start babbling about security of whomever. Who has send the soldiers down to Iraque/Afghanistan. Yes indeed the same persons. It is acceptable to harm someone in the name of some artificial construct like a country, but if information is published about the same mission, than this is an unacceptable risk? Then the very same deldefs accept happily a CD which people supposed not having to pay their (though of "just" taxes). The even have paid for such a CD. The stuff is stolen, but hey it's government. They can use whatever they get to put more pressure on their own citizens well this name is kindly phrased for subject. It's quite interesting, how you can get to such a brain split. Everything coming from government is good, everything else bad? Every one else knows it does not come anything good from government. You get in touch with them, you will have to pay dearly. But hey the saying is. "It's sweet to die for you country". Why don't the Deledefs do us a favor and take this sweeties?