4 ms·

Assumption #1 in your comment: NSA activities have not and are unable to stop arbitrary terror attacks at all. Assumption #2: That successful attacks in this s

Assumption #1 in your comment: NSA activities have not and are unable to stop arbitrary terror attacks at all. Assumption #2: That successful attacks in this scenario would lead (reasonable or otherwise) people to demand less surveillance. Assumption #3: Terrorists want to the NSA programs ended, which would not make sense if #1 is true. So I'm not sure why this would be a good strategy for anyone.

visakanv 13y ago
I think you misinterpreted the comment. It's arguing that now would be the optimal time for terrorists to strike, validating the NSA.
- sitkack 13y ago
  And strengthening the NSA would directly cause the further fall of the USA. The cheapest way to to attack the USA as an institution is to attack the USA in way the gives the most radical factions power in the short term.
  - d0ugie 13y ago
    Farther, not further, when referring to distance, even if that distance is figurative.
    - sitkack 13y ago
      Wether or knot I take you're advice, it is a suite tip.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- wavefunction 13y ago
  I guess I'd be wondering how the NSA failed to prevent the attack, with all these NSA revelations coming out every few days. I already wonder why I'm still getting illegal telemarketers' calls, why the drug cartels still operate, why so much evil in this world continues with the omniscient NSA. j/k I don't really wonder...
  - bediger4000 13y ago
    Yeah, I had the same thought about "Rachel from Card Servives" robo-calls. Apparently those go through more-or-less illegally obtained cut-outs, but the NSA is in a unique position to go after those Card Services jerks. Then I thought, hey, it's just like bus transit: the rich folks don't ride buses, so that kind of utility gets no money. The NSA, uh, people, don't get robo-calls, so they don't see the problem.
- malandrew 13y ago
  I don't disagree that that is how it would be portrayed by the media and viewed by the public. But a thinking man would argue otherwise, since it would mean that a terrorist attacked just when the NSA had the most amount of information available ever. A terrorist attack right now would show that dragnet surveillance on top of being Orwellian is also ineffective. When you're looking for more needles, collecting more hay without extremely powerful tools for hay processing is insanity.
acgourley 13y ago
I think you have #3 wrong - parent is saying terrorists want NSA programs expanded.
- davepage 13y ago
  OP is saying NSA wants "terrorist" programs expanded.
woah 13y ago
In your post: Assumption #1: What is good for terrorists is bad for the NSA. I think you will find that terrorist's successes have a very beneficial effect on the power and budget of the NSA. Look at what 9/11 did for them.

visakanv 13y ago

I think you misinterpreted the comment. It's arguing that now would be the optimal time for terrorists to strike, validating the NSA.

sitkack 13y ago
And strengthening the NSA would directly cause the further fall of the USA. The cheapest way to to attack the USA as an institution is to attack the USA in way the gives the most radical factions power in the short term.
- d0ugie 13y ago
  Farther, not further, when referring to distance, even if that distance is figurative.
  - sitkack 13y ago
    Wether or knot I take you're advice, it is a suite tip.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wavefunction 13y ago
I guess I'd be wondering how the NSA failed to prevent the attack, with all these NSA revelations coming out every few days. I already wonder why I'm still getting illegal telemarketers' calls, why the drug cartels still operate, why so much evil in this world continues with the omniscient NSA. j/k I don't really wonder...
- bediger4000 13y ago
  Yeah, I had the same thought about "Rachel from Card Servives" robo-calls. Apparently those go through more-or-less illegally obtained cut-outs, but the NSA is in a unique position to go after those Card Services jerks. Then I thought, hey, it's just like bus transit: the rich folks don't ride buses, so that kind of utility gets no money. The NSA, uh, people, don't get robo-calls, so they don't see the problem.
malandrew 13y ago
I don't disagree that that is how it would be portrayed by the media and viewed by the public. But a thinking man would argue otherwise, since it would mean that a terrorist attacked just when the NSA had the most amount of information available ever. A terrorist attack right now would show that dragnet surveillance on top of being Orwellian is also ineffective. When you're looking for more needles, collecting more hay without extremely powerful tools for hay processing is insanity.

acgourley 13y ago

I think you have #3 wrong - parent is saying terrorists want NSA programs expanded.

davepage 13y ago
OP is saying NSA wants "terrorist" programs expanded.

woah 13y ago

In your post: Assumption #1: What is good for terrorists is bad for the NSA. I think you will find that terrorist's successes have a very beneficial effect on the power and budget of the NSA. Look at what 9/11 did for them.