I stopped 10x more terrorist attacks than NSA. So I'll be monitoring your phone calls, watching your credit cards and your internet traffic, and would you please send me a check every month for the security I provide you. No, you can't call bull shit, cause it may be true. How do you know it's not? I'll expect that check within two weeks.
I stopped 10x more terrorist attacks than NSA. So I'll be monitoring your phone calls, watching your credit cards and your internet traffic, and would you please send me a check every month for the security I provide you. No, you can't call bull shit, cause it may be true. How do you know it's not? I'll expect that check within two weeks.
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
They have claimed to stop attacks in the past. Now should we expect them to declassify every attack prevented, which would risk the effectiveness of the program, thereby wasting invested dollars and reducing the nation's anti-terrorism capability?
And even if they did release some details of attacks, it still won't be enough to satisfy people who keeps insisting that they are liars. The next thing you know, those people will demand to know the targets of the attacks, the suspects, the methodology, and the people involved. Such information is heavily protected, but the naysayers will only press on in order to present the view that there are still lies.
What's the point of having a covert surveillance program if the intended targets (terrorists) know how it works and can avoid it?
sm625
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2011
- 8,172
- 137
- 106
Man I was wondering when the dumbed down government worshipping brownshirt Nazi wannabes would tell us how great all this spying is. Has all this spying really prevented any attacks? Have lives really been saved, net on net? Here are two key points that help dispel these idiot nazi wannabees.
1. They dont tell us what % of these so called "prevented" attacks werent just the government trying to sell weapons or explosives and then using electronic surveillance to capture the sting. They may be catching criminals doing this crap, but it is clearly not the same as stopping someone who already has a bomb, like in the hyped up drama that the idiots watch on the idiotbox. ("OMG our government stopped a bad guy!"). No, 99% of the time, our loving government is creating the criminal so they can then bust em. Rarely do they actually catch someone trying to set off a bomb that didnt come from an alphabet soup agency.
2. Since we are on the subject of the government offering weapons and explosives in sting efforts, might I just remind you that this same type of behavior also leads to incredible and completely ignored mass casualties. Fast and Furious, is just one example, of course they are always ignored by the media and the sheeple who have been farmraised on that media. When you factor all this in, the death tolls clearly favor a smaller government with extremely limited powers to surveil and sell frickin arms to criminals. Of course in order to make that determination you actually have to pay attention, and know wtf is going on in the world and not just accept this cattle farm orwellian trash that these minions constantly spew.
1. They dont tell us what % of these so called "prevented" attacks werent just the government trying to sell weapons or explosives and then using electronic surveillance to capture the sting. They may be catching criminals doing this crap, but it is clearly not the same as stopping someone who already has a bomb, like in the hyped up drama that the idiots watch on the idiotbox. ("OMG our government stopped a bad guy!"). No, 99% of the time, our loving government is creating the criminal so they can then bust em. Rarely do they actually catch someone trying to set off a bomb that didnt come from an alphabet soup agency.
2. Since we are on the subject of the government offering weapons and explosives in sting efforts, might I just remind you that this same type of behavior also leads to incredible and completely ignored mass casualties. Fast and Furious, is just one example, of course they are always ignored by the media and the sheeple who have been farmraised on that media. When you factor all this in, the death tolls clearly favor a smaller government with extremely limited powers to surveil and sell frickin arms to criminals. Of course in order to make that determination you actually have to pay attention, and know wtf is going on in the world and not just accept this cattle farm orwellian trash that these minions constantly spew.
Last edited:
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
Do you have anyone with reasonable accountability/authority to vouch for it, like say the NSA chief?
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
How would it reduce effectiveness? If there are steps that can be taken to reduce effectiveness, then terrorists will figure them out on their own and the program will be a failure anyway.
You'll believe anything you hear, won't you? The US government has proven that they're untrustworthy.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
I agree that you don't just declassify this stuff and publicly release it. That's insanity. That being said, relying on the word of the agency doing the spying that what it's doing is a good thing is also insanity.
Can you imagine any case where he would come out and say it was a bad idea?
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
Well the terrorists have confirmation that the program actually exists, so that's the first effective measure the US lost. They wouldn't be trying to figure ways around it if they didn't know about it in the first place.
I'm not saying i believe everything they're saying since the NSA did say earlier they didn't do it.
HOWEVER, if someone is making making accusations that someone else is directly lying then there should be some basis for it other than the "OMG US GOV is out to GET ME AND SUPPRESS MY FREEEDOOOMMM!!" argument. For example, just because someone came from Pakistan doesn't mean they're a terrorist if a naysayer accuses them of being one.
I'm saying I don't believe everything that naysayers are saying.
Last edited:
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
Yes, I'm the chief of my operation, and I vouch for myself (just like the NSA is doing).
etrigan420
Golden Member
- Oct 30, 2007
- 1,723
- 1
- 81
wat.
So you acknowledge that they lied when questioned prior to discovery, then want proof that they're liars?
They themselves provided all the proof any sane person should need.
I am simply dumbfounded at all of the people that are okay with putting blind trust into a zero accountability endeavor.
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
Sorry, but you have no reasonable accountability/authority to anyone other than yourself. So yes, in your world you may vouch for yourself, but you got a ways to go to convince others. At least others can vouch for the NSA, they just have to have the clearance. The NSA also has a proven work history. The NSA is an agency that actually exists.
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
If they were really lying about it, they wouldn't be briefing the entire Senate about it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22884566
On a separate note, I thought this was pretty hilarious:
http://gawker.com/sean-hannity-doesnt-know-hes-being-recorded-513136491
He's my favorite.
http://gawker.com/sean-hannity-doesnt-know-hes-being-recorded-513136491
He's my favorite.
While I agree there are differences, the primary point remains. Just because someone makes a claim, especially when that claim is self serving, does not make it so. Part of the NSA's proven work history is lying about their actions. When a significant breech of privacy is known to be taking place (you know, that thing NSA was lying about), then they damn better well be able to back up any claims they are making to justify their actions. You may be willing to just trust every government organization to know what is best, but when rights of American citizens are being infringed upon, you better believe people are going to want a little more evidence than the word of the offending organization.
etrigan420
Golden Member
- Oct 30, 2007
- 1,723
- 1
- 81
Why wouldn't they? Who's to say they wouldn't? They baldfaced lied when directly questioned about the extent of the program, so their credibility in nil.
A great example of a larger problem in American politics.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-republicans-democrats-nsa-poll-20130612,0,2973289.story
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
Why this country is going to shit ...
People don't care about what is being done, only who is doing it, fucking pathetic.
This is great stuff, right out of science fiction novels.
"Voice of America", "Countless lives (who's?) saved", "Patriot Act", blah blah blah.
You could cut&paste this into a Heinlein book.
Then wake the fuck up.
"Voice of America", "Countless lives (who's?) saved", "Patriot Act", blah blah blah.
You could cut&paste this into a Heinlein book.
Then wake the fuck up.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter