Not that rare foreign languages haven't been famously used as military encryption. The US use of Native American code talkers served to be the strongest obfuscation of WWII transmitted communication.
But I don't think any Middle Eastern languages are obscure enough to be implemented that way. I could be wrong. I know a Dane whose family speaks a dying language used only in a single village, not that anyone ever hire the villagers to send obscured communications.
Guantanamo is not a blight. Camp delta still exists. We're still detaining and torturing people. This is a thing that continues to go on.
And any dubiousness of drone strikes is because we choose not to look very hard at it. Though we do like to count bugsplats. (Yes, we really do call drone-strike victims that.)
The US massacres villages full of children on the intel that there's a village there. Not because there's someone we want to kill, though that would still be horrific. But because we don't know that we don't want to kill them. So we presume that we do. We strike at maximum range without any clear idea of what we're striking at or who it is.
We could stop the CIA drone strike program today. We'd lose no strategic ground for it and lots of people would have a better year for it. The only reason we don't because our government likes massacring brown people.
The Islamic State are evil shits. But the US is batting well into the evil shit threshold as well. It's a shitty war and neither side has a moral high ground.
Maybe it's because I'm more respectful than they are.
To be fair, at the government level respect is commanded not by gentle regard (or crimes against humanity) but by brute force, and they do seem to be holding territory despite our efforts to depose them.
And the US continues a drone strike program in at least two theaters that annihilates civilians at a greater rate than gun fatalities in the US, and we continue to detain and torture people without due process. So our own record of humane treatment and war crimes is direly lacking as well.
The US doesn't have the moral high ground, and we can't really say that the US is even pushing for a more egalitarian system anymore, they're just more subject to pressure.
So yeah, what members of the Islamic State might do to my family is not very relevant. What the US would do to my family (were I on the other side) is pretty bad.
And as I noted, my point is not that either one has a derisible name, but that they both engage in derisible behavior. Both really shitty when it comes to confining the devastation and massacre from their conflict to just belligerent forces. In fact both sides seem eager to make a big mess that affects everyone.
I think that if I point that out without mocking them in the meantime, it keeps the focus on aforementioned mess.
When I'm talking about ISIL or any entity, I'm inclined to name them by a neutrak or respectful term since I want to focus on my specific point.
The Islamic State is an organization intent on global conquest and the erection of a society against which I have clear conflicting interests (given I want a society that celebrates pluralism and social equality). Giving ISIL a name would only distract from this point.
I do think it is appropriate to mock methods such as Hollywood Accounting since that serves as a mnemonic and shorthand of a terrible practice. Hollywood accounting is cause to despise the MPAA and IP law, and is part of an argument.
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
First, please know that as a U.S. Senator, I carefully review each free trade agreement that comes before me to ensure that the best interests of American workers and businesses are served, and that the agreement will not adversely affect the U.S. economy, human rights, labor rights or environmental standards.
After seven years of negotiations, on October 5, 2015, the participating nations announced that an agreement had finally been concluded. The TPP is a free-trade agreement among 12 countries including, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and the United States. The agreement cannot come into effect until it is approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate.
As you may be aware, I voted in favor of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)—otherwise known as fast-track authority—because it granted the President the ability to finalize important trade legislation, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Under Trade Promotion Authority, the President must notify Congress at least 90 days before signing the agreement, and text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership must be made public for at least 60 days prior to signing the agreement. On November 5, 2015, President Obama notified Congress of his intent to sign the trade agreement, and the full text of it was made available to the public. The text can be found on the United States Trade Representative's website http://ustr.gov.
At this time, my staff and I are carefully reviewing every aspect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I believe that expanding trade with our neighbors while balancing our domestic priorities is in our national interest. However, if I come to the conclusion that the agreement would negatively affect California, I will not hesitate to oppose it.
Please know that I have taken careful note of your views on this important issue, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as I review the final text of TPP.
Again, thank you for your letter. I hope you continue to keep me informed on matters of importance to you. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C., office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at www.feinstein.senate.gov. Best regards.
Dianne Feinstein United States Senator
Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the nation are available at my website, feinstein.senate.gov. And please visit my YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for more ways to communicate with me.
While standing firm on your talking points may preserve some of your followers in the short term, the rest of us recognize it as manipulative and antagonistic, since it's regarding the people as a collective force to be managed, rather than individuals to be engaged.
Addressing the grievance and negotiating or solving the problem works in the long term because it demonstrates you're willing to engage the public as persons with their own rights and agency.
Naturally, most fertilized eggs fail to implant, which, if you consider them as legal persons, it should be the state's responsibility to salvage, even if they are not able to completely form into a functional self-sustaining human being (which is often the case).
There's actually dozens of places where the development process can fail, and it would be the state's responsibility to guarantee life by intervening.
One of the things that none of the alleged pro-life activism fronts have done is invest in ectogenic technology (e.g. artificial wombs) because, yeah, guaranteeing every zygote passage from their natural mother to an artificial womb, and guaranteeing the mother that the process is safe and cheap (or footed by the state) would solve a lot of the whole controversy.
But since no-one wants to explore that option (or any other than abortion obstructionism), I'm pretty sure that the general belief is that a child is punishment for having sex.
Especially considering that none of these groups are interested in the welfare of the child once it breathes air.
I'm pretty sure that Coalition bombing campaigns push otherwise moderate Muslims towards extremism when we bomb their families out of existence.
And we do that with glee and enthusiasm. In that regard being that the US has become a country that bombs indiscriminately, that has dispensed with due process, and even tortures, we've become as much the monster that the extremists have declared the US to be.
At this point we're merely different-colored chess-pieces.
Yes, there will always be some extremists, much as we have them here in the US, but there's a difference between whether they're merely a criminal element or a faction.
Bombing them is what drives more moderate people to the extremists. Our current hostility has assured that everyone knows someone who's been murdered by US weapons.
Of course we should expect reprisals. If your family was killed wouldn't you want to get back and those what got you?