Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday February 14 2015, @08:42PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the have-we-come-to-this? dept.

Are you, your family, or your community at risk of turning to violent extremism? Now you can find out as The Intercept reports that a rating system devised by the National Counterterrorism Center titled "Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts,” lets police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as: “Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility,” “Talk of Harming Self or Others,” and “Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity).” The ranking system is supposed to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies. Families are judged on factors such as “Aware[ness] of Each Other’s Activities,” as well as levels of “Parent-Child Bonding,” (PDF) and communities are rated by access to health care and social services, in addition to “presence of ideologues or recruiters” as potential risk factors. A low score in any of these categories would indicate a high risk of “susceptibility to engage in violent extremism,” according to the document. Users of the guide are encouraged to plot the scores on a graph to determine what “interventions” could halt the process of radicalization before it happens.

Experts have suggested that intervention by law enforcement or other branches of the government in individuals’ lives, particularly young people, based solely based on the views they express, can potentially criminalize constitutionally protected behavior. “The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical and social service employees to rate the communities, individuals and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face,” says former FBI agent Mike German calling the criteria used for the ratings “subjective and specious.” Arun Kundnani questions the science behind the rating system. “There’s no evidence to support the idea that terrorism can be substantively correlated with such factors to do with family, identity, and emotional well-being," says Kundnani. "“It is obvious that, in practice, [this] would mostly only be applied to Muslim communities."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by gnuman on Saturday February 14 2015, @08:54PM

    by gnuman (5013) on Saturday February 14 2015, @08:54PM (#145017)

    but my neighbor is. If you take them away to re-education camps, maybe I'll be able to buy their land cheaply from government reposition as a sort of a thank you. Or at very least, they will no longer bother me. You know, we all benefit from this right?

    (this was sarcasm, if you don't get sarcasm)

    More seriously, this reminds me of Stalinist purge tactics, where if a neighbor didn't like you and they had more influence than you, could have you taken away to gulags or worse because you were a "spy" or other undesirable. That ended well.

    • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:11PM (#145022)

      Brings back those fond memories of the child spies in 1984. You have nothing to worry about from your neighbors, do you neighbor?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:22PM (#145028)

      but my neighbor is. If you take them away to re-education camps, maybe I'll be able to buy their land cheaply from government reposition as a sort of a thank you. Or at very least, they will no longer bother me. You know, we all benefit from this right?

      Sarcasm or not, that is exactly what happened to the land owned by people put into the japanese internment camps. When they got out, they had no recourse and had to start over again.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:06AM

        by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:06AM (#145226) Journal

        Wait - you're saying that not only does that sort of baseless roundup of people, done without due process of law, have the potential to happen "here" in the USA, but that it has already happened [ushistory.org]!?

        ... and that when it did happen, it hasn't yet happened to people whose chosen religion was Islam [blogspot.com]? ... and that same sort of criminal aggression from government could be directed at any particular group of people that happen to be at least somewhat socially unpopular [rawstory.com]?

        Of course, when governments disregard their own founding law, it is as a consequence expected that its agents' behavior takes dangerous tacks such as this. All the more reason for individuals to be motivated to ensure that, should they live in a country ostensively governed by the rule of - and equality under - the law, government officials are held to account for their actions.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:31PM

      by Bot (3902) on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:31PM (#145034) Journal

      > “It is obvious that, in practice, [this] would mostly only be applied to Muslim communities."

      I think that a system that made muslims move to the first world is likely going to use them for a broader scope than disposing of them.

      In fact, the system who uses money as the mean of control, explicitly inquires about people who are into religion, nationalism or other value systems and equate them to terrorists because all other value systems are in competition with money.

      So, people will likely be pitted against each other because of other value systems until we give up on them.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:22AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:22AM (#145139)

        Yes, not only applied. Islamasists are not the only group breeding terrorists. Just the most obvious right now.

        I cannot disagree with this theory. People who announce to the world that they are dangerous should be watched.. so long as they leave the rest of us alone.

        The idea of shipping them all to one secure place and enforcing a maximum technology level to match their society is appealing but unlikely. WIRM.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:27AM

        by HiThere (866) on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:27AM (#145165) Journal

        I'm rather sure that he meant it would only be used against Muslims at first .

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:22AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:22AM (#145193)

          Therein lies the problem. The muslims are making the world a worse place with their actions. One way or the other. Which is worse? A world ruled by islam or 1984 world?

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:51AM

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:51AM (#145211) Journal

            No - a very small number of Muslims are turning to violence and radicalism. 'Terrorists' have been bred by many nationalities, religions and ethnic groups throughout the ages. You are in danger, accidentally or otherwise, of making the situation worse yourself, and then people will be able to say 'Anonymous Cowards are making the world a worse place with their actions'.

            --
            It's always my fault...
            • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:45AM

              by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:45AM (#145243) Journal

              Bill Warner sums up the results of a Pew Research poll in regards to percentages of Muslims that support Sharia law [youtube.com]. It's true that a minority of Islam's followers polled did not support the extremism that is contained within Sharia law... but the actual percentage of supporters does not reflect a "very small number".

              It's not socially acceptable for a "first-worlder" to criticize Islam... but then few "first-worlders" have bothered to examine Islam's own source code [youtube.com] (the Koran as well as the Hadith/Traditions). It is true there are peaceful Muslims, but one needs to look to Islam's source code [prophetofdoom.net] to determine just who the "good Muslims" are.

              It is also worthwhile to note that "being Muslim" has nothing to do with a person's genetic composition. Islam is either a religion or a political system - it is not a race.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:23AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:23AM (#145247)

                Summed up very well on the first page in one paragraph.

                • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:51PM

                  by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:51PM (#145276) Journal
                  The first page of which document? I'm not disagreeing with you, it just that I cannot work out which summation you are referring to.
                  --
                  It's always my fault...
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:30PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:30PM (#145283)

                    After scratching my head for a while, I believe the AC may be referring to the "Letter to the Reader" at the beginning of Craig Winn's book, Prophet of Doom, which I linked to. (The website is in a shabby state, currently. It used to contain the entire book in multiple formats, but now hosts just PDFs.) Here's the first three paragraphs for reference:

                    islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories.
                    Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust
                    for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist. If you think these conclusions
                    are shocking, wait until you see the evidence.

                    The critics of this work will claim that Prophet of Doom is offensive, racist,
                    hatemongering, intolerant, and unnecessarily violent. I agree—but I didn’t
                    write those parts. They came directly from Islam’s scriptures. If you don’t like
                    what Muhammad and Allah said, don’t blame me. I’m just the messenger.

                    Others will say that I cherry-picked the worst of Islam to render an unfair
                    verdict. They will charge that I took the Islamic scriptures out of context to
                    smear Muhammad and Allah. But none of that is true. Over the course of
                    these pages, I quote from almost every surah in the Qur’an—many are
                    presented in their entirety. But more than that, I put each verse in the context of
                    Muhammad’s life, quoting vociferously from the Sunnah as recorded by
                    Bukhari, Muslim, Ishaq, and Tabari—Islam’s earliest and more trusted sources.
                    I even arrange all of this material chronologically, from creation to terror.

                    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:01PM

                      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:01PM (#145337) Journal

                      Thanks - that makes the GP clearer, although I don't agree with his point of view.

                      --
                      It's always my fault...
                      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:23PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:23PM (#145348)

                        If you're referring to disagreement with the content of Fauxlosopher's reference to Prophet of Doom, then may I ask about what you've found to disagree with?

                        The Koran as it sits on my shelf has each Surah/chapter organized by its length. It is not assembled in chronological order. The history of each piece of the text is important according to the Koran itself, in Surah 2:106 [quran.com]. Newer Surahs that come into conflict with older ones replace, abrogate older Surahs.

                        Why this is important becomes clear when you examine the history of Islam's origins. Mohummad started Islam in Mecca as a peaceful religion, and the Koran reflects this in the earlier Surahs that read "there is no compulsion in Islam". As far as numbers of followers go, early Islam was a failure with only a handful of adherents. Mohummad then went to Medina and took an entirely different approach, that of the warrior/bandit-king. The Koran records Surahs from this time period with text such as "strike the necks of the kafir until all religion is for Allah". This later flavor of Islam was a resounding success, and as it reflects the last direction given from Mohammad, it has abrogated all the peaceful-sounding parts of early Islam.

                        Prophet of Doom is heavy with citations from Islam's own source code, as well as parallel history to put all the pieces in their historical order.

                        Now, you're free to hold a different opinion of Islam, but when someone disagrees that while early Islam was proclaimed peacefully, the peaceful coexistence aspects were abrogated to a literal call for world war, that someone isn't disagreeing with an AC on the internets. That someone is disagreeing with the Hadiths and the Koran, which is what Islam is.

              • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 16 2015, @06:37PM

                by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday February 16 2015, @06:37PM (#145739) Journal

                poll in regards to percenteges of Evangelicals who support Biblical law. [pewforum.org]

                six-in-ten (60%) white evangelical Protestants say that the Bible should be the guiding principle in making laws when it conflicts with the will of the people...

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:38AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:38AM (#145237)

            What? What about the people who are actually implementing these unconstitutional and freedom-violating policies? They are not being forced to do so. There needs to be some personal responsibility.

            As for which is worse, that's a false dichotomy. I want neither of those things, so it doesn't really matter which is worse. But if we're going to go down, I'd rather go down fighting than surrender our liberties in the name of safety.

    • (Score: 2) by Konomi on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:29AM

      by Konomi (189) on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:29AM (#145118)
      Is your neighbour Japanese by any chance? Internment of Japanese Americans [wikipedia.org]
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:27PM

    by physicsmajor (1471) on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:27PM (#145031)

    "A low score in any of these categories would would indicate a high risk of “susceptibility to engage in violent extremism."

    What the actual fuck. Would it? Would it really?

    Let's get this straight. The complete and utter lack of the slightest shred of evidence makes this a joke. They literally made this up; it's not tested. There is no positive or negative predictive value. No studies done.

    It's also five separate scales, because score low in ANY and your a terrorist. Bonus points for including hopelessness and futility, since our society is so broken practically everyone with a clue feels that way.

    Bit the joke's on us. Just imagine this in use. Does being detained and interrogated against your will make you feel... hopeless? Like your actions don't matter? To Gitmo with you, dirty terrorist!

    Fuck every last thing about this. Every person involved in its publication should be fired, immediately, with the document as the only necessary evidence. No pension. Barred from govt work permanently.

    Post it far and wide. If you want to reuse my thoughts, consider the above released CC0.

    • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:01PM

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:01PM (#145042) Journal

      Terrorist creation questionnaire. Certain method to generate threats.

      Was Guy Montag a terrorist? Clarisse McClellan?

      Burn, baby, burn.

      --
      You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:00PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:00PM (#145289) Homepage
        > Was Guy Montag a terrorist? Clarisse McClellan?

        If you were the government, would you want those two removed from where they could be of harm to your agenda? Clearly yes.

        So to that state, they are terrorists. They are therefore absolutely legitimate targets, as everything is relative to a context. In a dystopian context you should expect many things to be reversed. Profiling to find radicals like Guy Montag is a perfectly understandable way a state might try to find radicals like Guy Montag. If the latter's your end, why shouldn't the former be your means?
        --
        I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
        • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:37PM

          by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:37PM (#145294) Journal

          "Terrorist" is therefore an intrinsically meaningless term. It is used only to assign a label that justifies all measures against those declared by the state to be its enemy.

          I believe that the concept of a "State" can now be safely described as a failed construct. Terrible experiment, really. 300 years of appalling misery.

          --
          You're betting on the pantomime horse...
          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:16PM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:16PM (#145326) Homepage
            > "Terrorist" is therefore an intrinsically meaningless term.

            If you believe that, then "foreigner" is also an intrinsically meaningless term. As is "friend". And "music". And ...
            --
            I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:25PM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:25PM (#145045) Journal

      Bonus points for including hopelessness and futility, since our society is so broken practically everyone with a clue feels that way.

      Hmmm … if everyone who has a clue feels that way, and everyone who feels that way is dangerous …

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by pnkwarhall on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:47PM

        by pnkwarhall (4558) on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:47PM (#145083)

        if everyone who has a clue feels that way, and everyone who feels that way is dangerous... [popsugar-assets.com]

        Violence is not the only way to be "dangerous". Commenter Bot's comment (which I modded insightful FYI) provides great context for understanding the danger inherent in individuals. Value systems cannot co-exist in the individual -- "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. (Matthew 6.24)" -- and I'd argue that they tend to clash in group- and nation-contexts as well.

        We live in a period of mature Capitalism. Its systemic faults are alienating larger and larger minority groups because the value-clashes are becoming more and more apparent. The defenders of a capital-based value system are coming under quiet attack, and the attacks are getting louder... I **DO NOT** advocate violence, but the multiplying instances and general worldwide progression of anti-Western and anti-Capitalist sentiment seem like a clear sign that the status quo (read 'Capitalistic cultural and economic values') is no longer acceptable, and individuals and groups are acting.

        A change is coming. The powers-that-be are afraid, and it's not the "terrorists" that they're afraid of.

        --
        Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by VortexCortex on Sunday February 15 2015, @08:49AM

          by VortexCortex (4067) on Sunday February 15 2015, @08:49AM (#145224)

          A change is coming. The powers-that-be are afraid, and it's not the "terrorists" that they're afraid of.

          Ah, I see you took the blue pill. I took the red pill instead, so what I see is a change coming that's been architected by the powers-that-be; They're not afraid of the change, they're prepared for dissent, and TFA is yet more proof of this.

          Take a gander at this article. [theguardian.com] Now realize that New York has "anti-government extremists squads" who patrol for protesters or terrorists (as if the distinction matters anymore), and the "climate crisis" was an excuse to militarise police, just like terrorism is the excuse for the DHS to exist. If you don't think that the change already happened, then you might want to check your water, frog, it's boiling. Fast cars and cheeseburgers kill 400 times more people every year than 9/11. It's been over a decade, so that means our love for Freedom Fries and Fords has been over 4,000 times more deadly than any terrorist. Bathtubs kill more people every year than any terrorist group ever. Where are our free bath mats?

          Life is dangerous: We should LAUGH when the threat of terrorism is trotted out in front of us, because we're brave enough to laugh in the face of far greater danger as we drive to get our kids Happy Meals. The fact that such questionnaires exist at all should inform you the times are long past changing into that which you think the powers-that-be are afraid of. Rethink your stance, and get yourself prepared -- or you can just continue believing whatever the fuck you want, as usual.

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:31PM

            by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:31PM (#145264) Journal

            After observing the massive [huffingtonpost.com] yet inefficient [princelaw.com] response [canadafreepress.com] to three individuals or teams of murderers, it seems obvious to me that given sufficient motivation and planning, US governments all the way up and down the heirarchy of authority are in no way able to deal with even small numbers of individuals. (Linked stories are just basic references; a little digging in obvious places such as wikipedia will reveal the absolutely massive amount of government resources expended to little effect in each case.)

            There are many more examples to choose from, scattered across recent history, from the Battle of Athens [jpfo.org] to the Colorado Killdozer [marvin-heemeyer.com]. There are also some more insidious examples [ieee.org] involving infrastructure. The take-away message seems to be that, in spite of France calling the USA the "world's lone hyperpower", its governments are very vulnerable to even tiny numbers of dedicated individuals of even moderate abilities. US governments want to project the facade that they are competent and in complete control of the populace... but after close examination, that's all it appears to be: a facade.

            As a side note, given how peaceful things are in the USA relative to the population numbers, infrastructure vulnerabilities, and actual ineffectiveness of government control, I like to think that my neighbors and I really aren't as bad as the mainstream media makes us all out to be. Things could be even more peaceful if governments would stop denying access to courts for drug dealers and users via its second (and unconstitutional without an authorizing amendment like its predecessor required) Prohibition - as it is, if there's a dispute in that business sector, about the only way to resolve it involves trying to kill the other party.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:59PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:59PM (#145063) Journal

      Let's get this straight. The complete and utter lack of the slightest shred of evidence makes this a joke. They literally made this up; it's not tested. There is no positive or negative predictive value. No studies done.

      Who needs studies nowadays? It's clear [soylentnews.org] those damn'd scientists [soylentnews.org] cannot be trusted [soylentnews.org].
      On the other side, if you believe in it [wikipedia.org] strong enough, it will become reality [soylentnews.org].

      (TLDR version: this is one result of FUD against science and "teach the controversy", others will follow).

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:50PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:50PM (#145288) Homepage
      You seem to be interpreting:
          indicate a high risk of “susceptibility to engage in violent extremism
      as:
          and your a terrorist

      So you don't understand the non-certainty implied the use of the word "indicate", are unable to realise that "risk" refers to things only being measured by probability rather than certainty, and do not recognise that "susceptibility" does not mean there's a guarantee that the things under discussion are certain to happen.

      And to cap it off, you can't even spell "you're".

      The authorities, like the ones who think facial recognition scanners at airports will help find terrorists, may be painfully naive in their understanding of probability and statistics, but that doesn't mean that an even more naive interpretation of their diktats is a good way of correcting them. You can't fight dumb with dumb.
      --
      I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:30PM

    by sjames (2882) on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:30PM (#145032) Journal

    How about we work on our society to reduce feelings of hopelessness and futility? Perhaps we could strengthen family bonds by reducing the hours parents must spend out of the home to make a living (not bad for broad community bonds either).

    Perhaps we could work to get actual holidays back on track? De-stressed people are a lot less likely to want to blow things up.

    Or we could have law enforcement 'intervene' based on various authority figure's say-so and prove to them that violent revolution is the only answer.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:19PM (#145044)

      No, you don't understand. The government is in the business of creating terrorism, because it's the cheap and easy way to keep the rich people happy. Fixing society is too expensive, to do it you'd have to raise taxes on the rich, and rich people do not want to pay taxes. They'll only pay enough for police to kill the poor. To justify killing the poor, first the government needs to label them as terrorists.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Subsentient on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:33PM

    by Subsentient (1111) on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:33PM (#145035) Homepage Journal

    I'm speechless. Wow. Apparently I score high because:

    *I've been suicidal
    *I've had depression
    *I'm a mama's boy

    However, I score very low in "connection to group identity".

    --
    Trying is the first step towards failure. -The Click
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:53PM (#145039)

      It seems like another item on my ever-growing list of reasons that I can't get treatment for clinical depression, anxiety, social phobia, etc from a psychiatrist here in the USA.

      Say the wrong things (e.g. indicate that you are potentially suicidal) and your rights are basically revoked as if you were a felon. No guns, maybe even some forced monitoring at a mental facility which goes on a permanent record somewhere. Since there's so much stigma about mental illness in the USA, imagine if a potential employer sees that type of thing in a background check. There'll be questions. More depression and anxiety.

      And with this type of thing, now there's the potential to be singled out as a terrorist at the whim of the psychiatrist (if not directly, they can just request a police officer to give an interrogation to "verify" their professional claim). I doubt they'd send you to Gitmo, but it'll definitely go on a LOT of records. You can't go back and undo background documents.

      So, it comes to this...

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:56PM (#145061)

        Isn't it interesting that the mental disturbances which run rampant through people with high intelligence are singled out for persecution. It is a continuation of the historical trend to discredit, scapegoat, and marginalize the intellectually gifted by leaders that know they don't measure up.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:37AM (#145102)

          Despite systematic efforts by society to prevent intelligent people from breeding, isn't it amazing how intelligent children continue to be born to idiot parents? It's like they just can't stop intelligence from bubbling up out of the genome, for some reason.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by darkfeline on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:59PM

    by darkfeline (1030) on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:59PM (#145064) Homepage

    So, general discontent leads to a higher chance of rebelling against the government? Color me surprised. No wonder they want to take away the guns, the original intent of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens the final word against the government, and is second only to the First Amendment.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:26PM

      by isostatic (365) on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:26PM (#145076) Journal

      You realise that no matter how well armed you and your group are, you have no chance against the national guard, let alone the army. Your only hope against your government, and also against the people in Washington, is to convince the bulk of your armed forces to rebel, and for that you'd need the first ammedment. Where's the NRA rallies and funding defending the First?

      The U.S. government likes the furoe about the second amendment. It means they can carry on destroying 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. #3 is ok though.

      Of course the PR surrounding america and "support our troops" effectively means the 3rd amendment no longer exists. There'd be plenty of people willing to roll over and give up their beds for the "brave men in uniform", and given the U.S. is in a perpetual state of war, a rider can be added to the "We like cute puppies" act, so it's really no defence.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:58AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:58AM (#145213) Journal

        You realise that no matter how well armed you and your group are, you have no chance against the national guard, let alone the army.

        Unless, of course, you are better armed, more numerous, and win the battles you need to win. There is an assumption here that the national guard and army would be better armed.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:19AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:19AM (#145241)

        You realise that no matter how well armed you and your group are, you have no chance against the national guard, let alone the army.

        How many shitskins did it take to strike fear in the hearts of American servicemen?
        How much money did it take to harass and eventually drive out the American invaders from Iraq?

        Who won in Iraq? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Afghanistan 2.0?

        I don't even want to dive into South America, there's too many instances.

        History shows the world that even the smallest armed force can destroy the largest if they use "unconventional" tactics, constantly evolve their strategies, and purposely spread fear.

      • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday February 16 2015, @03:34PM

        by darkfeline (1030) on Monday February 16 2015, @03:34PM (#145667) Homepage

        It's true that an armed citizenship stands no chance against the full force of the military, but it forces the full force of the military, instead of a pepper spray here, a taser there. Once the government is full-out shooting, bombing, and running over people with tanks, it becomes impossible for even the media to pretend that everything's a-okay.

        --
        Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:56PM (#145085)

      It says right on the face of it that it's to support the militia because there was no professional army at the time.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:25AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:25AM (#145097)

        The US was never intended to have a professional standing army. Article I Section 8 tried to forbid funding any army for more than two years. Of course, the way around this technicality is to dissolve the army every two years and immediately reconstitute it, which is exactly what the army does.

        The framers didn't want the US to have a standing army because they didn't want the United States to become like the British Empire. They failed. The American Empire as it stands today is much worse, with military bases everywhere throughout the world.

        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:37AM

          by HiThere (866) on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:37AM (#145168) Journal

          That's not worse, that's the same. Read up on the British Empire again, or the Sepoy mutiny, or the Boxer rebellion. The British Empire was no better than the US Empire, and in some ways a bit worse. You could start here http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/285821/Indian-Mutiny [britannica.com] and here Boxer Rebellion | Chinese history | Encyclopedia Britannica . (Note that I picked sources biased in favor of Britain.)

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:50PM (#145287)

      The second amendment is deprecated at this point. Your phone exports your gps data which can be fed directly into the targeting systems of high payload carriers of individually targetable micro-munitions. Why do you think their upgrading avionics on the B-52?

      Eventually some disgruntled corporal is going to hack it up and let it loose without orders. The "split! splat! blart!" will echo through the streets and we will not have to worry anymore. Political views will be homogeneous after that.

  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:44AM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:44AM (#145120)

    Had this been available in the 70's I'd be on that list. Likes guns? yep. Don't trust government? yep. Make explosives at home? yep. Enough chemistry in high school/college to make nasty stuff with things I can buy at Home Depot? yep. Sit around the communal weed delivery device and talk about some obscure book, 1984 or somesuch, yeppers. Don't wanna buy TVs with built in microphones or cameras? Oh hell yeppers.

    God damn, I'm a terrorist. Sucks to be me.

    --
    If at first you don't succeed use a bottle opener. It's probably not a screw off cap.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:53AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:53AM (#145201)

      Had this been available in the 70's I'd be on that list....God damn, I'm a terrorist. Sucks to be me.

      Your delusions of being "interesting" to various three-letter agencies is highly exaggerated.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:57AM (#145254)

        Stupid AC is stupid. (Sorry pal.)

        Who brought up three-letter-agencies? You did. Completely irrelevant to the material and discussion at hand. (Even though they might do the actual dirty work...)

        Who made this questionnaire? The gov did.

        Why? "system is supposed to alert government officials to individuals". So here's the interest part.

        So think next time a bit before opening your mouth...

    • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday February 16 2015, @10:35AM

      by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @10:35AM (#145563) Journal

      Welcome to the club, you've already found the clubhouse :)

      --
      Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by wantkitteh on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:21AM

    by wantkitteh (3362) on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:21AM (#145136) Homepage Journal

    I play World of Tanks a lot and I can only hope my player profile isn't consider evidence.

    "Talk of Harming Self or Others": My kill to death ratio is 0.94 right now, but I attribute that to the steep learning curve and it's rising nicely now thanks.
    "Connect to Group Identity": I play German and Russian vehicles 39% and 21% of the time respectively, and UK and USA vehicles 15% and 5%.
    "Expressions of Hopelessness": That's pretty much the default state for anyone playing World of Tanks with the XVM stats mod turned on!

    Put all that together, check out my browsing history for anything suspicious, [youtube.com] and I'm so screwed!

    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:22AM

      by mhajicek (51) on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:22AM (#145173)

      I used up my mod points earlier in the thread, but this is funny and insightful. Maybe logging 400 hours in L4D2 is an indicator of violent tendencies too.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:48AM

    by Gravis (4596) on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:48AM (#145199)

    What we have here is not how to identify a terrorist, it's how to identify someone who has a mental illness, is discontent with the US Government's actions/policies or isn't happy with social inequality we face. Whoever commissioned or participated in the creation of this work needs to be fired for blatantly ignoring the constitution. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    This is un-fucking-believable.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:18PM (#145272)

    Angry? Check. Said the word "kill"? Check (I was nearly killed by a drug dealer) Upset? Check. Weapons? Check.
    Result: jailed in a loony bin and blackmailed into not checking myself out while avoiding being medicated. Several times I refused medication demanding to see a prescription from a doctor. They had to let me go with no grounds to hold me.
    All because I sought help after someone tried to kill me. Lesson well learned there.

    Yes, they intimidate you with the threat that if you check yourself out then an order will be made against you compelling you to stay. Bastards. Get a lawyer.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by termigator on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:42PM

    by termigator (4271) on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:42PM (#145332)

    When my children were 2, they terrorized the entire household. Where was the govt then?

    Maybe the terror will return during the teen years. I better keep that questionnaire handy.