6 ms·

1 Reason: http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/boston-9.jpg http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/boston-9.jpg (NSFW) Sometimes you need try an

1 Reason: http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/boston-9.jpg http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/boston-9.jpg (NSFW) Sometimes you need try and understand both points of view.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
grecy 13y ago
NSFW on that link
angersock 13y ago
Extensive surveillance didn't do a thing to save that man, and future surveillance won't bring his legs back. More people have suffered in Gitmo than were injured in the Boston attack, and more people died from drone strikes than when the towers fell.
- nashequilibrium 13y ago
  Did you see the guys youtube videos? Russia contacted the U.S. about one of the brothers, also the FBI did track that he was going to Russia and also interviewd him. They failed in not being able to act on the intelligence they had. The question is what are you willing to give up to go to that LA Laker game without worrying about terrorism or whether your parents will get home safely from the game. I am not trying to stand up for the NSA but i thing we need to come together understand what we want, what we willing to give up and always look at both sides of the situation. I always think about the movie "Carlitos Way" with Andy Garcia, where he plays a ruthless gangster but he develops a conscience. One day this kid crosses him but instead of killing the kid, he gives him a break, then at the end as he is giving this life up and going straight, running to catch his train, this kid pops up and kills him. The U.S. has been this ruthless gangster through the cold war, securing energy supplies, etc, now Obama comes in and thinks he is going to give the U.S. a conscience but unfortunately some guy lost his mother, wife and daughter during Iraq or in another instance and he doesn't care that you have a conscience now. The bottom line is that the U.S. has to watch it's back for a long time because they made a lot of enemies on the road to become the "mob boss", super power of the world.
  - angersock 13y ago
    I'm not willing to give up a single thing, because I don't worry about the evil terrorists. I also don't worry about the homeless people who walk by my home every night, or an asteroid somewhere out in space that could one day smash me where I stand, or the car that might jump the curb and hit me one day. The nobility of man is partially predicated on our ability to carry on and build and dream without giving into fear, rational or otherwise. The only way out of this mess is to accept that sometimes losses will exist and to be able to overcome them when they happen--even if you've built in N layers of security some day somebody somewhere will cut through N+1 of them, and to pretend otherwise is folly. It's time for us to grow some fucking backbone.
  - adventured 13y ago
    It's not necessary to give up anything to go to that Laker game without worrying about terrorism. Just like it wasn't 20 years ago, when the threat was as great as it is today. The only thing that has changed, is the bureaucracy acquired a massive amount of new money and power after 9/11 and they're unwilling to give any of it up. This despite the fact that the threat isn't even remotely as great as they've claimed for the past decade. The security theater production - eg most of what the TSA does at airports, in which they just pretend to work security - is meant to keep Americans living in constant fear. The US Government's fear business has been booming, worth a couple hundred billion a year these days.
    - nashequilibrium 13y ago
      "Just like it wasn't 20 years ago, when the threat was as great as it is today." Do you have a link to the source of this data?
  - Apocryphon 13y ago
    That also happened in "American History X", more or less. I'm not sure if basing foreign policy on Hollywood movies is the best idea.
  - jcc80 13y ago
    "with Andy Garcia" - was Al Pacino but either way that's an interesting comparison. Hadn't thought about it that way before.
jlgreco 13y ago
That is an emotional argument, not a rational one. Unfortunately, many people find those sort of arguments to be incredibly persuading.
Phlarp 13y ago
This is a terrible reason. These men were the definition of the type of thing a system like this should catch. intelligence agencies had been warned about one of them multiple times and they were both using the internet to self radicalize. The fact that the Boston bombings still happened should be proof enough that these systems either A) Do not work or B) are not being used against this type of threat. If it isn't in defense of incidents of domestic terror, what the fuck is it for?
- derefr 13y ago
  Or... the system catches things like this all the time, this is just one that slipped through, and if the system wasn't in place, there would be many, many more incidents of this type. Maybe. (This is normally "bear-repellent amulet" type thinking, but I think there's a specific exemption in this case, in that there are good reasons why you'd see no evidence of the system's effectiveness: the government doesn't like to get the public riled up by terrorist threats--terrorism is entirely about riling-up, after all--and so, when the terrorism is caught ahead of time, you'd imagine they'd sweep it under the rug. I might be wrong, though; this still might be a bad justification!)
  - MisterWebz 13y ago
    So if the system catches things like this all the time, how come they only stopped 54 (no wait, that's the old figure, the new figure is 1 or 2) terror plots?
    - minor_nitwit 13y ago
      *Perhaps 1 or 2. Perhaps not.
  - lurchpop 13y ago
    Except, they can't point to any plots that have actually been thwarted. First it was 52 plots thwarted, then 2, then none.
  - jscn 13y ago
raverbashing 13y ago
If they were really interested in catching people doing that they had several opportunities Now you're telling me that will all these apparatus they missed Beavis & Butthead there? (yes, that's what they were) And they had several warnings that went ignored and didn't depend on surveillance. Looks like extreme incompetency or that they weren't looking for that in the first place.

1 Reason: http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/boston-9.jpg http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/boston-9.jpg (NSFW) Sometimes you need try and understand both points of view.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

grecy 13y ago

NSFW on that link

angersock 13y ago

Extensive surveillance didn't do a thing to save that man, and future surveillance won't bring his legs back. More people have suffered in Gitmo than were injured in the Boston attack, and more people died from drone strikes than when the towers fell.

nashequilibrium 13y ago
Did you see the guys youtube videos? Russia contacted the U.S. about one of the brothers, also the FBI did track that he was going to Russia and also interviewd him. They failed in not being able to act on the intelligence they had. The question is what are you willing to give up to go to that LA Laker game without worrying about terrorism or whether your parents will get home safely from the game. I am not trying to stand up for the NSA but i thing we need to come together understand what we want, what we willing to give up and always look at both sides of the situation. I always think about the movie "Carlitos Way" with Andy Garcia, where he plays a ruthless gangster but he develops a conscience. One day this kid crosses him but instead of killing the kid, he gives him a break, then at the end as he is giving this life up and going straight, running to catch his train, this kid pops up and kills him. The U.S. has been this ruthless gangster through the cold war, securing energy supplies, etc, now Obama comes in and thinks he is going to give the U.S. a conscience but unfortunately some guy lost his mother, wife and daughter during Iraq or in another instance and he doesn't care that you have a conscience now. The bottom line is that the U.S. has to watch it's back for a long time because they made a lot of enemies on the road to become the "mob boss", super power of the world.
- angersock 13y ago
  I'm not willing to give up a single thing, because I don't worry about the evil terrorists. I also don't worry about the homeless people who walk by my home every night, or an asteroid somewhere out in space that could one day smash me where I stand, or the car that might jump the curb and hit me one day. The nobility of man is partially predicated on our ability to carry on and build and dream without giving into fear, rational or otherwise. The only way out of this mess is to accept that sometimes losses will exist and to be able to overcome them when they happen--even if you've built in N layers of security some day somebody somewhere will cut through N+1 of them, and to pretend otherwise is folly. It's time for us to grow some fucking backbone.
- adventured 13y ago
  It's not necessary to give up anything to go to that Laker game without worrying about terrorism. Just like it wasn't 20 years ago, when the threat was as great as it is today. The only thing that has changed, is the bureaucracy acquired a massive amount of new money and power after 9/11 and they're unwilling to give any of it up. This despite the fact that the threat isn't even remotely as great as they've claimed for the past decade. The security theater production - eg most of what the TSA does at airports, in which they just pretend to work security - is meant to keep Americans living in constant fear. The US Government's fear business has been booming, worth a couple hundred billion a year these days.
  - nashequilibrium 13y ago
    "Just like it wasn't 20 years ago, when the threat was as great as it is today." Do you have a link to the source of this data?
- Apocryphon 13y ago
  That also happened in "American History X", more or less. I'm not sure if basing foreign policy on Hollywood movies is the best idea.
- jcc80 13y ago
  "with Andy Garcia" - was Al Pacino but either way that's an interesting comparison. Hadn't thought about it that way before.

jlgreco 13y ago

That is an emotional argument, not a rational one. Unfortunately, many people find those sort of arguments to be incredibly persuading.

Phlarp 13y ago

This is a terrible reason. These men were the definition of the type of thing a system like this should catch. intelligence agencies had been warned about one of them multiple times and they were both using the internet to self radicalize. The fact that the Boston bombings still happened should be proof enough that these systems either A) Do not work or B) are not being used against this type of threat. If it isn't in defense of incidents of domestic terror, what the fuck is it for?

derefr 13y ago
Or... the system catches things like this all the time, this is just one that slipped through, and if the system wasn't in place, there would be many, many more incidents of this type. Maybe. (This is normally "bear-repellent amulet" type thinking, but I think there's a specific exemption in this case, in that there are good reasons why you'd see no evidence of the system's effectiveness: the government doesn't like to get the public riled up by terrorist threats--terrorism is entirely about riling-up, after all--and so, when the terrorism is caught ahead of time, you'd imagine they'd sweep it under the rug. I might be wrong, though; this still might be a bad justification!)
- MisterWebz 13y ago
  So if the system catches things like this all the time, how come they only stopped 54 (no wait, that's the old figure, the new figure is 1 or 2) terror plots?
  - minor_nitwit 13y ago
    *Perhaps 1 or 2. Perhaps not.
- lurchpop 13y ago
  Except, they can't point to any plots that have actually been thwarted. First it was 52 plots thwarted, then 2, then none.
- jscn 13y ago

raverbashing 13y ago

If they were really interested in catching people doing that they had several opportunities Now you're telling me that will all these apparatus they missed Beavis & Butthead there? (yes, that's what they were) And they had several warnings that went ignored and didn't depend on surveillance. Looks like extreme incompetency or that they weren't looking for that in the first place.