SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Monday at the Center for Strategic & International Studies' Global Security Forum, John Brennan, Director of the US' Central Intelligence Agency, spoke about the recent bombings in Paris. In what many commentators took as a reference to Edward Snowden, but could instead refer to the Church Committee, Brennan predicted that finding the attackers will be more difficult than it would have been, had intelligence services been left unchecked:
In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of hand-wringing over the government's role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that are taken that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.
I do hope that this is going to be a wake-up call particularly in areas of Europe where I think there has been a misrepresentation of what the intelligence security services are doing by some quarters that are designed to undercut those capabilities.
[...]
There are a lot of technological capabilities that are available right now that make it exceptionally difficult both technically as well as legally for intelligence security services to have insight that they need to uncover it.
Brennan's complete remarks are available in video via C-SPAN.
[Additional coverage after the break]
- Politico
- Politico
- Foreign Policy
- Daily Mail
- Jerusalem Post
- Guardian
- Time
- Time
- RT
- Sacramento Bee
- CBS News
- Newsweek (limited access; requires Javascript)
- Breitbart News
- Democracy Now!
- Reason blog
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:05PM
CIA Chief: Terrorists Harder to Find, Because of Leaks, Reforms
That's fine with me. I'm a lot more scared of the U.S. government than of terrorists. If the government's capabilities are declining, I have less reason to be scared.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:53PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/former-us-military-intelligence-chief-we-knew-something-like-isis-was-coming-2015-8?op=1
Thanks Obushma, your Republicrat policies are really working well!
But this whole reaction is entirely following a pre-written script. What they say and demand was as predictable as a holywood summer action flick:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/11/paris_attacks_b.html
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gnuman on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:29PM
given that the US government is in part responsible for the growth, and arming, of ISIS
Obama told Saudis and the rest of the anti-Iranian clique in the Middle East to NOT arm ISIS and the rest of the "freedom fighters" in Syria. So I don't know, but maybe US is not exactly responsible for arming ISIS. Though US is always the convenient scapegoat.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:50PM
Well, whatever Obama says, but the director of Abrams tanks-R-us must surely be very happy with his profit these last few years:
some 40-odd to one side...
ISIS Captures Hundreds of US Vehicles and Tanks in Ramadi from Iraqis [military.com]
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Iraqi-army-losing-Abrams-tanks-so-easily [quora.com]
some 170-odd to the other side ...
US Selling Another 170 M-1 Abrams Tanks To Iraq After ISIS Captured 40 Last Summer [zerohedge.com]
Translation: Daesh is very happy with their tanks, and would like to procure some more.
Now I don't know much about tanks, but apparently these are the most modern ones in the world.
What's next, sell some to the Wahabbi's in Saudi Arabia to use after their weakening autocracy has collapsed?
Military-industrial complex >> Obama.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 19 2015, @08:16AM
Hmm. Does bring to mind that article awhile back where the tank factory was building a successor to the Abrams and the Army was all, "The hell are you talking about? Our tanks are fine. We don't need any new ones."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:50PM
There were warnings that taking out Saddam Hussein would destabilize the Middle East and bring about the rise of even less friendly regimes. If you want to point a finger, point right at the invasion of Iraq by the US.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:35PM
Spot on. I wasn't smart enough to envision ISIS, certainly not smart enough to paint any details of what it has become. But, I was among those who wrote letters to GWB before the invasion, warning of destabilizing the region further.
Of course, everyone said that we were going to build a nation. What nonsense - there are no nations in the region, because it is inhabited by tribal people. Tribalists have no loyalty to kings, presidents, parliaments, or anything else. Tribalists only bow to the most ruthless dictator for the moment, while plotting how to take his place.
Saddam Hussein, as evil as he was, was almost the perfect ruler for the region. Assad is cut from the same cloth.
Had we succeeded in toppling Assad, today Syria would be entirely under ISIS/ISIL/Daesh control.
I say, "Thank God for Putin!" I wish we had a leader of his caliber. Unfortunately, there are none in sight.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 19 2015, @09:37AM
You are a brave man to say that openly, and I applaud that. As someone living in a country which only gained its independence from the USSR 24 years ago, I'd be appreciative if you didn't encourage our bear neighbour too much.
I highly recommend, at least as a starting point for further reading and discussion, /The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom/ by Adam Curtis. (There are 3 active torrents of the 3 parts we grabbed from kat, A8254654411F03A13E086F625863273C44634A44 9B53C8306AD9A4F2DD6B7A98896A7D09027FED90 117805357FC5D621486B61A6DCDDC9581C84E414, we're still seeding them.) It's chocka full of interesting historical snippets, although some of the analyses and logical deductions (in part 3 particularly) I completely disagree with. The insight into modern Russia and Putin was very interesting. In essence, Putin being in power, and thus the threat he is to my domicile's continued existence, was the US's fault too. Gee - thanks Bush (senior)!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:01PM
Downloading - thank you for the links.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:41PM
Tribalists do have a loyalty: to their tribe, which is another way of describing a really really extended family. That kind of loyalty is not unusual, nor is it non-existent in the US - many Irish-Americans still identify with the Irish in Ireland, for example, even to the point of supporting the IRA.
But you're right that the British and French made huge mistakes when drawing up the map of the region: If you compare this map [vanityfair.com] based on current cultural differences and boundaries, or this map [wikimedia.org] by T.E. Lawrence (a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia) to the map that they actually drew, it seems like the British diplomats who drew the maps were completely, obviously, disastrously wrong. Which isn't surprising, given the many other massive strategic mistakes made by all the players after World War I.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:38PM
Yes, there were warnings. If only we had listened!
—Dick Cheney [c-span.org] (36:15 into the video)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Bogsnoticus on Wednesday November 18 2015, @11:48PM
If you want to look at reasons why none of the Arab forces were willing to join Dubya in the fight against Iraq, you only have to look at the broken promises made by Aitch Dubya to the southern Iraqi's and Kurds.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 18 2015, @09:34PM
Obama told Saudis and the rest of the anti-Iranian clique in the Middle East to NOT arm ISIS...
Are you suggesting the Saudis listen to Obama, or anyone else that doesn't have their best interests at heart? Saudis have their own agenda.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday November 19 2015, @07:36PM
Are you suggesting the Saudis listen to Obama, or anyone else that doesn't have their best interests at heart? Saudis have their own agenda.
I'm simply saying that you can't pin Syria problems and ISIL in general on USA. There is plenty of blame around, but it's not "America did it!". Not this time.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 19 2015, @09:03AM
There's a word for telling people to not do what you're actively doing yourself - hypocricy. And when it comes to matters like this, the word "stupidity" comes to mind too.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:54PM
That's fine with me. I'm a lot more scared of the U.S. government than of terrorists.
Logical conclusion considering you are more likely to be killed by the government (or hell, even a family member) than by a terrorist.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:33PM
That's fine with me. I'm a lot more scared of the U.S. government than of terrorists.
Logical conclusion considering you are more likely to be killed by the government (or hell, even a family member) than by a terrorist.
Even if they don't kill me, they are the ones who daily violate the right to life, liberty, and property around here. Yes, terrorists are scary, but most of the oppression is committed by the ones crying they can't stop terrorists.
My thinking is a lot like Muhammad Ali's: "Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?" "My enemy is the white people, not the Viet Cong ... You're my opposer when I want freedom. You're my opposer when I want justice. You're my opposer when I want equality. You won't even stand up for me in America because of my religious beliefs, and you want me to go somewhere and fight, when you won't even stand up for my religious beliefs at home." A lot has changed since his day, but the ones I see most often threatening life liberty and property are still here local, not on the other side of the globe.
(BTW, Ali said "religious beliefs," but I don't discriminate between religious beliefs and other beliefs. Liberty is liberty, regardless of your reason, justification, or creed.)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:29PM
From the Commander-In-Chief:
The US does not make good decisions "based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34859604 [bbc.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:35PM
I am no fan of the man, but I agree with him wholeheartedly here.
I saw this earlier today: 6 Reasons to Welcome Refugees after Paris [fee.org].
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:39PM
Quite the opposite reaction from me. How 'bout we accept women and children, and all those military age males we hand them a real assault rifle, and send them back home to fight for their country?
BTW - at least one of the Paris attackers was in possession of a Syrian passport that indicated he was a "refugee". It's not certain that the passport legally belonged to the man who was carrying it, but he did indeed have a refugee's passport.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:56PM
Well, I don't believe in "we," so we should each be able to make our decision on that.
BTW - at least one of the Paris attackers was in possession of a Syrian passport that indicated he was a "refugee". It's not certain that the passport legally belonged to the man who was carrying it, but he did indeed have a refugee's passport.
That's actually addressed as point 1 in the link I posted, but nobody ever reads those. :)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:54AM
Gotcha! I did click the link. I did read your link. As stated, I disagree with it.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:35PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:51PM
How 'bout we accept women and children, and all those military age males we hand them a real assault rifle, and send them back home to fight for their country?
I apologize profusely for being born male. It's entirely my fault. Women and children are inherently more valuable than me. Male children will become worthless once they reach some arbitrary age, though.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:24AM
You're looking at it inside out, upside down, and backwards all at the same time. Women and children are of no value on the battlefield. Unless, of course, you need a human shield, like so many Muslim fighters do.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:44AM
Women and children are of no value on the battlefield.
Not necessarily true.
But I know that I wouldn't want to be sent to some battlefield merely because I'm male and past some arbitrary age. Don't they have the option of getting in as well, or is that simply blocked off for them?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:36AM
Serious answer? Historically, a lot of women have had major roles on the battlefield, but they seldom get any recognition. Children? Like most women, they are simply innocent bystanders and victims. It takes a low-life barbarian to hide behind women's skirts, it takes an even lower form of life to hide behind children. For the most part, women and children on the battlefield are of very little if any value.
Call me a chauvinist, but the best roles for most women in regards to warfare are in support. Intelligence analysis, medical services, logistics, records keeping, planning strategy and tactics. Women aren't generally great in combat, for the same reasons we don't see women in professional football.
If you decide that I'm a chauvinist, be aware that I'm not one who would bar women from fighting. If the woman in question can pass minimum requirements for strength, stamina, agility, etc etc, she's more than welcome to bear the burden. Just PLEASE don't argue that the diminutive, petite little things who can't hold a rifle steady should be on the front lines. That argument borders on insanity.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:45AM
It takes a low-life barbarian to hide behind women's skirts, it takes an even lower form of life to hide behind children.
I don't value women or children any more than I value men.
And I'm not arguing that we should send women and children to the battlefield, but that we shouldn't force men out into the battlefield while allowing women and children in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:38AM
Would you let them choose which side they'll join, or would you suggest one to them, that in your mind best represents "their country"? Would you ask these untrained soldiers to fight for Bashar al-Assad's government? For the Islamic State? Or for that elusive faction that opposes Assad but also opposes IS? If you tried to choose sides for them, don't you think they'd go against your wishes? Certainly I would be inclined to do so, if my request for asylum were rebuffed in the manner you propose. I would also form a resentment against your country, even as the rest of my family sought refuge there. Would my family members, who you accepted because they were children, females, or old men, agree with your disposition of me, your attempt to turn me into a warrior, or could they become ungrateful? Suppose I fought for the side you asked me to, and died heroically. Would they be proud that I died a hero's death, or would they rather I still lived?
Suppose these males, who didn't want any part of the war, decide that, now that their families have been broken up, they may as well kill after all—and just start shooting at whoever's in range, Ft. Hood [wikipedia.org] style? You want to put unmotivated men with rifles into a war where poison gas, jet fighters, bombers, and tanks are being used. I notice you didn't mention training, nor resupply. Come to think of it, you didn't mention ammunition—I'm assuming you'd provide them with a bullet or two? If they chose to fight, what chance would they have and how much difference could they make? The rational things for them to do would be to promptly desert or surrender.
Speaking of rationality, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said [un.org] "there is no military solution to the crisis—not in Syria or anywhere else."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:13PM
Good questions and silly questions all bundled together. Cool.
Yes, of course, they get training. The same sort of training our soldiers get before going to war as part of an infantry company. Yes, they get ammo to go with those rifles. Yes, the get resupply. And, I prefer they serve any force in the field, so long as it is not Daesh. They can join the Kurds, the Yazidi, Assad, any force that has boots on the ground, and fights against Daesh. I'm not choosy.
As for breaking up families - whoop-ti-do. The family is already broken up, not through my doing. I have a man, a wife, and 1 to 12 children standing in line. Where's Grandma? Grandpa? (That's two each, of each - four persons.) Where are all the aunts and uncles, cousins, second cousins, etc ad nauseum? I am merely encouraging that man to go back and fight for his family, and providing him the means to fight.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:17PM
Instead, the US makes bad decisions based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks. The existence of mass surveillance, the TSA, etc. is proof of that. We know he doesn't oppose all of that (the so-called "Freedom act" still allows the mass surveillance to continue, so it is no reform), so I am not sure why he is saying that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:53PM
You trust the purpose of the government more than I do. I would put it "It makes decisions that citizens consider bad and uses hysteria as a justifier."
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:43PM
I wasn't merely speaking of the government. You have more trust in the ignorant majority than I do. From what I see, not very many people genuinely care about freedom. If safety can be used successfully by the government to justify violating the constitutional and our fundamental liberties, that means many people do not value freedom.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:15PM
What we're doing didn't work so we need to do more of it.
One of the top CIA asshats was on a Sunday morning show. He said "we need to strike a balance. It's not a trade off, it's a balance". Uh, yeah. You're taking away my privacy and my rights and I get what in return? Cuz it sure as hell isn't more security.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:25PM
The thing is, it's not like they couldn't have done what they needed to do with the power they already have.
For example, they had the information they needed to be watching out for the 9/11 hijackers. And the underwear bomber. And the shoe bomber. And yes, the Paris attacks too. George W Bush famously ignored the report that bin Laden was determined to strike, because he was too busy golfing and clearing brush on his dude ranch to be bothered.
The problem is not that the intelligence agencies are too powerless. The problem is that we tend to reward failure (by giving them more budget, personnel, and power) and punish success (by cutting budget, personnel, and power). With those incentives, it's no wonder they could be called the Central Incompetence Agency.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:30PM
And the current potus is doing such a wonderful job.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:39PM
What does that have to do with anything? Have you come to the erroneous conclusion that because someone insults Bush, they must like Obama?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:42PM
"What does that have to do with anything? Have you come to the erroneous conclusion that because someone insults Bush, they must like Obama?"
That is a common occurrence. I say, "Obama sucks" someone tells me "Bush sucked worse!" Next day, I say "Bush sucked." Another fool steps up to say "Obama sucks worse!" It's always left or right, black or white, true or false, one extreme or the other. It's just crazy.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:36PM
That is a common occurrence. I say, "Obama sucks" someone tells me "Bush sucked worse!" Next day, I say "Bush sucked." Another fool steps up to say "Obama sucks worse!" It's always left or right, black or white, true or false, one extreme or the other. It's just crazy.
Bush Sucks.
Obama Blows.
Either way, they're moving air -- hmm...sounds like politicians. Color me shocked!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:58PM
Americans killed by terrorist attack in the last 35 years:
Ronald Reagan - 286 (most in the Beirut bombings)
George H.W. Bush - 1 (one guy caught by Hezbollah)
Bill Clinton - 238 (most in the Oklahoma City bombing)
George W Bush - 3046 (most in the World Trade Center attack)
Barack Obama - 36 (the biggest single incident was the Fort Hood shootings)
By those standards, Obama has done quite well (but not as good as Bush senior), and Bush junior did a terrible job. And before you yell about the Paris attacks not showing up in those numbers, it's not Obama's responsibility to protect France from terrorist attack - that's the French government's job. Sure, they're our allies, we'll lend a hand where we can, but ultimately that responsibility falls on Hollande and his government.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:05PM
By those standards, Obama has done quite well
Those standards are irrelevant. What matters is not how many Americans were killed by terrorist attacks under any specific president, but how well the president has respected the constitutional and our liberties. Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama are all criminals under that standard.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:44PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:21PM
He said "we need to strike a balance. It's not a trade off, it's a balance".
Indeed. In the United States, we *already* struck a balance, and encoded it in a document that we call the Constitution of the United States of America.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:03AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Thursday November 19 2015, @06:13AM
We struck a balance between privacy and security in the Constitution. We decided that the security we get from warrantless searches isn't worth the potential tradeoffs, and codified that in the 4th amendment. Thre are plenty of similar balances that were codified in the Constitution. Not sure why you disagree.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 19 2015, @07:16AM
(what they want is another bargain, they outgrew the old one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:00PM
That is true, but when they change the bargain without telling anyone, then it's breaking the law, which is a crime. Crimes are punishable. They have broken the law over and over again and have even stopped pretending that they aren't breaking the law, because they don't perceive the need, that is, the possibility of punishment.
Time for punishment.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 18 2015, @11:04PM
What we're doing didn't work so we need to do more of it.
The problem is that they have concentrated ALL of their efforts on clandestine data collection of private citizens, trying to track every bit of communication rather than concentrating on facts on the ground. They've built a wheat and chaff problem of gargantuan proportions.
They used to be very good at facts on the ground. Who boarded what train. Travel end-points. Arms shipments. Car rentals. Money flow.
Collections of bad guys all leaving X country for Y country.
Now all they know is who talks to who.
They for years were adamant that they were not collecting actual conversations. So why are they worried about encryption?
Its ONLY that latter bit, the "full take" that they increasingly can't get ahold of.
But they never had that historically and have only recently become dependent on it.
They've put all their eggs in one basket and left that basket to be monitored by the supercomputers. Tradecraft is a thing of the past.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:48AM
On the Tonight Show, actor Shia Labeouf said an FBI agent played back one of Labeouf's phone calls to him and told him that one-fifth of all calls were being recorded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ux1hpLvqMw [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Refugee from beyond on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:16PM
No bad event can go without them increasing their power. Typical.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by WittyUserName on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:50PM
Your are channelling the great Churchill, who once said "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
(Score: 4, Informative) by kadal on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:26PM
The Intercept is really going all out with criticizing these kinds of statements.
1. https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/ [theintercept.com]
2. https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/signs-point-to-unencrypted-communications-between-terror-suspects/ [theintercept.com]
3. https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/nyt-editorial-slams-disgraceful-cia-exploitation-of-paris-attacks-but-submissive-media-role-is-key/ [theintercept.com] - The actual NYT editorial is behind a paywall.
(Score: 2) by kadal on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:31PM
Missed this one: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-about-paris-to-blame-snowden-distract-from-actual-culprits-who-empowered-isis/ [theintercept.com]
The CIA dude is full of shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:51PM
archived copy of the New York Times editorial:
https://archive.is/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/opinion/mass-surveillance-isnt-the-answer-to-fighting-terrorism.html [archive.is]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:28PM
The CIA has to make excuses for their failures. It's not THEIR fault that they can't catch bad guys. It's OUR FAULT, because we demand that human rights be respected. If Mary and Florence have organized a secret society club at their high school, the CIA doesn't have some inherent right to read the girl's messages. Reforms? No, you can't lock twenty little girls up for life, if they don't give you their encryption keys.
Just when does "draconian" go over the top, and become something else?
Oh - leaks? Maybe if you conduct yourself like respectable people, there won't be anything to leak. Or, paraphrased, "If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide."
Just cry us a river.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by saltycraig on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:16PM
Last week it came out that Germany has joined the party as well, spying on Oxfam, Care International, and the Red Cross:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-bnd-intelligence-spied-on-friends-and-vatican-a-1061588.html [spiegel.de]
Never can be too careful, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:19PM
Good post, kinda funny though, I normally make fun of the apologizers for using "think of the children". Guess it cuts both ways, but I have no problem when it meets my criteria of reasonable... hmmm..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:59PM
Even were the CIA to be behaving in a legal and ethical manner, they would have reason to hide some things.
The problem is they have so abused that need so often that I no longer believe them when they claim a need for secrecy. Actually, I do believe them. I believe they need to hide something so illegal or so flagrantly immoral that even their bosses couldn't accept it.
We'd be much better off disbanding the whole organization and starting over with a different structure and a totally different personnel. There is a valid function that they were created to serve, but they've essentially stopped serving it.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:18AM
And yet, we (as individuals, and citizens) are continually reminded / reprimanded that "if you're innocent, then you have nothing to hide".
What a bunch of hypocrites. I say, if the gov is innocent, then THEY have nothing to hide. So, let's hear all the gory details of the gov's dealings / transgressions!
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 19 2015, @05:21AM
AFAIK the CIA became an independent power during Kennedy.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:28PM
"... intelligence security services to have insight that they need to uncover it."
I just bet they want "Insight"
http://marvel-movies.wikia.com/wiki/Project_Insight [wikia.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIl4eP0DaJk [youtube.com]
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:20PM
It's kind of unreasonable to take a plot that was essentially invented to question information age intelligence agency behaviors and go "Ha, your information age intelligence agencies are just like that." Because of course they are.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:11AM
The solution is simple: generalize the meaning of the evil bit [ietf.org] and vote a federal bill that mandate the use of it whenever one's intentions are evil.
You know it makes sense, something of the same nature worked perfectly for DRM/DMCA: a drop in the number of pirates and, unfortunately, an increase of global temperature as a side effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:35PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:36PM
A wake-up call is something you yourself arrange ahead of time, it shouldn't take you by surprise.
I wonder if I'll finish typing this before 100 9/11 conspiracy theorists post the obvious comeback...?
If only I didn't believe in Hanlon's Razor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @09:35PM
> If you think about it, it makes no sense. A wake-up call is something you yourself arrange ahead of time, it shouldn't take you by surprise.
You aren't the first person to make that complaint recently: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/isis-paris-attacks-rubio-republicans/416085/ [theatlantic.com]
And I think it is a complaint that is totally bogus. Words can have more than one definition and that usage is nothing new. In fact, it is so well established that it is already in Webster's dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wake-up+call [merriam-webster.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:36PM
Freedom is more important than safety. Not only are their claims that Snowden is somehow at fault completely false, but even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. Unethical unconstitutional democracy-destroying mass surveillance would remain intolerable even if it did keep us safe. People who say otherwise are cowards and don't really want to live in a free country; they want to live in a bubble where their life is meaningless and all they can do is simply live. Freedom usually carries with it some risks, and taking those risks to have freedom is definitely worth it. I wish more people would understand this.
But these claims are ridiculously for another reason. No matter what, we're never going to be able to stop all acts of terrorism, because perfect safety doesn't exist. So when some terrorist successfully strikes, the government always demands to be given powers it should not have. Due to the fact that perfect safety doesn't exist, they can continue this forever. It's shameful that a lot of people fall for it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:57PM
Freedom is more important than safety.
Hell, if we're giving up freedoms for safety why don't we all just convert to Islam and get it over with? That would be the safest we could possibly get, right?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:03PM
Hell, if we're giving up freedoms for safety why don't we all just convert to Islam and get it over with? That would be the safest we could possibly get, right?
No, because once all the infidels are dead it's back to killing each other. And really, it wouldn't matter what religion everyone converted to, the end result would be the same.
(Score: 1) by saltycraig on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:09PM
My piousness is more pious than yours, kill him!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:29AM
No, because once all the infidels are dead it's back to killing each other.
You say "back" as if it ever stopped! Hell, it's never even been the minority.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:13PM
You beat me to it...
+1 for your post.
The US government is subverting the Constitution, and a way of life. The terrorists have won.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:04AM
Yeah, because we have all seen exactly how well the Sunni, Shi'ah, Ahmadiyya and Khawarij sects all get along with each other. :|
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:24AM
People who say otherwise are cowards and don't really want to live in a free country; they want to live in a bubble where their life is meaningless and all they can do is simply live.
Um, I would prefer not to be hit by technically sophisticated terrorists intent on murdering as many Westerners as possible, and if Internet and phone communications have to go through an NSA filter then that seems like a small price to pay.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:43AM
Then move to North Korea, coward. This is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave", and yet you reject freedom in favor of some trivial notion of safety. That's neither free nor brave. You're the type of person who would rather live on your knees than die on your feet. You're the type of person who enables oppression by giving it your aid and consent.
You also neglect to take into account that the government itself cannot be trusted. Power corrupts. No government throughout history did not oppress its people in various ways, with horrendous results. That includes the US government, which did 'amazing' things like try to intimidate MLK into committing suicide and put Japanese people into internment camps, among countless other acts of oppression. Now, if you think that, despite all of that, people in the government become perfect beings incapable of making mistakes or abusing their powers simply by virtue of being in the government, you are an ignorant fool. To believe that human nature ceases to apply to those in the government is to be delusional.
Make no mistake: Mass surveillance is a tool to destroy freedom and democracy. [gnu.org] It will be used to oppress those who challenge the status quo (such as MLK), stop whistleblowers who would tell us of the government's wrongs (and therefore hinder democracy, since the people won't know what the government is doing), and occasionally random people will get caught in the crossfire.
Additionally, by allowing the government to violate people's fundamental freedoms, the constitution, and our principles in the name of security, you help corrupt what is supposed to be a noble entity that serves the people, which is a significantly worse result than anything terrorists could ever do.
People who love freedom would rather be free than safe. I'd take liberty over safety and stability any day. That's clearly not the case with you, and for that, you are an enemy to freedom itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:55PM
Then move to North Korea, coward.
In other words, unless I think exactly like you and almost everyone else who posts here, making the content of your posts completely predicatable and redundant, then I should be deported. Or "voluntarily deport myself", as a Presidential candidate said four years ago.
Freedom means something different to me than it does to you.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:09PM
then I should be deported.
You should try your best to voluntarily move to North Korea, where the government will better serve your needs. That is what I meant.
Freedom means something different to me than it does to you.
It also meant something different to the countless oppressive governments throughout history, and means something different to the ones that exist right now. Countries which exist in part because of people like you who do not care one bit about freedom. No one should respect your opinion, because it promotes authoritarianism, the overthrow of our constitutional form of government, ignorance of history, and a terrible understanding of human nature.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday November 19 2015, @07:16AM
Actually it is always a trade off. Your freedom to shoot at targets in the direction of my house is trumped by my safety. The freedom to drive through the school bus stop at 50 mph is trumped by the freedom of my child to get safely on the bus. And on and on.
Freedom is important but it is not endless. Shit if the government was trustworthy and capable, I might even agree with the mass surveillance.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:44PM
Actually it is always a trade off.
When you speak of it this way, you only help the government spread its nonsensical propaganda. They want to pretend there is some nonexistent "balance" that needs to be met, and of course the "balance" is actually unbalanced so that freedom has a lower priority than something shallow like safety.
And if it is a trade off, then I'm perfectly happy trading off safety for freedom, thanks. Technically, I think we can have both, but I am merely making my priorities known.
And on and on.
You might as well say, "Your freedom to shoot me in the head is trumped by my freedom to be safe." But I don't believe in the freedom to shoot people in the head, or the freedom to do many of the crazy things you could come up with, so all of what you said is irrelevant. What I speak of are fundamental liberties like freedom of speech and a government that actually follows the highest law of the land. Safety is shallow and cannot be more important than those things.
Shit if the government was trustworthy and capable, I might even agree with the mass surveillance.
Violating my privacy is bad in and of itself even if the information is never abused in some tangible way. Furthermore, mass surveillance violates the constitution, which I guess you're (maybe) fine with.
So to me, a government that is conducting mass surveillance is a government that is *necessarily* untrustworthy and bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:43PM
When they start putting microphones and cameras in all mosques and other gathering places for muslims, I'll agree. But if they keep on saying that only 1% of muslims are terrorists and ignoring that 99% of all terror attacks are done by muslims because of political correctness, they can go fuck themselves. How about making sure you're aiming at the right target before blaming the gun for not hitting it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:20PM
Numbers aren't your strong-suit, are they?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:24PM
Brains aren't your strong suit, are they?
(Score: 3, Informative) by vux984 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:33PM
and ignoring 99% of all terror attacks are done by muslims
Why shouldn't we ignore something you pulled out of your ass? That fact is your claim is completely false.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619 [globalresearch.ca]
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/ [thinkprogress.org]
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/updated-europol-data-less-than-1-of-terrorist-attacks-by-muslims/ [loonwatch.com]
Several studies back up the claim that the fact that most terror attacks are done by non-muslims. And by 'most' we mean numbers like 90%, 94%, 99%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:38PM
It is much less than 1% that are criminal terrorists. Much less. However, even hundredths of a percentage point amounts to thousands of people when the group is 1.6 billion. We are also not dealing with a binary state here (terrorist or not terrorist) but rather concentric circles of increasing severity ranging from non-criminal sympathy to underlying causes of terrorism to actually being willing and able to become a terrorist, and doing so.
It's an issue with enough subtlety and confusion for almost everyone to get it wrong in some way. People who say Islam has nothing to do with why *specific* terrorists do what they do are ignorant of Islam. An unsophisticated and literal interpretation of Islam teaches the strong central message of hatred for the Infidels and the beauty and holiness of martyrdom. Noticing this isn't Islamophobia. People willing to commit terrorism in the name of Islam by definition almost universally fit into the camp that interprets Islam this way--but there really aren't many of them compared to the entire population of Muslims. People who are fearful of all Muslims or all refugees are wrong statistically, and often for bigoted reasons.
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Wednesday November 18 2015, @11:03PM
An unsophisticated and literal interpretation of Islam teaches the strong central message of hatred for the Infidels and the beauty and holiness of martyrdom.
On the contrary. It takes a very high level of sophistication to ignore all the literal condemnations of violence in the quran. You have to be really smart about what you cherry-pick in order to paint the religion as endorsing martyrdom and hatred. That's how ISIS works - they've got some guys who have studied the quran really thoroughly and they knew exactly what twisty and convoluted path to the lead people down so that they won't see the overwhelming countervailing evidence. Those smart guys direct all ignorant rank-and-file ISIS into this highly edited version of islam. It doesn't take much religious education to know better, and that's why ISIS and their cohorts are such a tiny fraction of muslims - and most of them are young men who have not had any religious education outside of ISIS's indoctrination.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @11:12PM
On the contrary. It takes a very high level of sophistication to ignore all the literal condemnations of violence in the quran.
And you have to be very stupid to see that it's anything but a worthless fairy tale book that contradicts itself every two seconds, much like the bible. You can easily cherry-pick anti-violence passages, but you could just as easily cherry-pick ones in favor of violence.
If you think any of these worthless, ignorant holy books are peaceful or make sense in general, you're just a fool.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @11:30PM
> You can easily cherry-pick anti-violence passages, but you could just as easily cherry-pick ones in favor of violence.
Balance fallacy, you are doing it.
But you are such a anti-religion zealot that nothing you say can be counted on to have any logic more complicated than "religion bad!" behind it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:15AM
Balance fallacy, you are doing it.
No, there is no fallacy there. Saying you have the capability to do both does not imply there are equal amounts of both, fool; I haven't counted the exact amount, and nor do I care to. It is, however, easy to do both, depending on what type of person you wish to be or what sort of propaganda you wish to spew forth at others.
It's impossible to follow any of this garbage with 100% consistency because the material itself is inconsistent, so cherry-picking is necessary.
But you are such a anti-religion zealot
I am opposed to believing in things without sufficient evidence, if that is what you mean. When I call these things fairy tales and attack them, it is not without reason. [skepticsannotatedbible.com]
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:32AM
The Quran was cleverly created such that there can be no contradiction (according to one interpretation anyway) because of the concept called abrogation where later passages supersede conflicting orders by God received in earlier passages. God starts off pretty nasty and only becomes more of an angry cunt as the story unfolds so you can see how this might be a problem. Most of the good stuff in the Quran comes early on and is wiped out by later orders from on high. Suck, but it is what it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:35AM
> Saying you have the capability to do both does not imply there are equal amounts of both,
What part of "just as easily" do you fail to understand?
> fool ... spew forth ... garbage ... fairy tales
I can practically see the spittle dripping down your monitor.
I used to be like you, so strident and confident in my own ignorance of human nature. I grew up when I realized that such a simplistic understanding of people invariably failed to describe real life behaviours. Too bad you are too old to grow up yourself. I look forward to yet another post from you proving what you think you are disproving, but I won't respond so hit it out of the park!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:54AM
What part of "just as easily" do you fail to understand?
What part do you fail to understand? That has nothing to do with the quantity of those types of passages.
I can practically see the spittle dripping down your monitor.
That "spittle" remark could just as easily be applied to you. I don't know your intentions, but perhaps you are simply whiteknighting for religion and/or the people who believe in it. Not sure I see the point, if so.
And do you have an actual reason that I should hold any degree of respect for this nonsense (assuming that is what you want me to do), or are you just going to continue mindlessly making comments about how I'm a religious zealot (and other such things) for insulting silly fairy tale books? I lack a belief in these things because there insufficient evidence to support it, and I insult it because it makes claims that are simply insane by our current understanding of the universe. I don't see the issue.
Furthermore, if you have such a high understanding of people, maybe you could refrain from making random assumptions about my own understanding. I can think of numerous reasons that someone might believe these myths, but as I am concerned primarily with truth, none of them are justifiable to me. When someone believes them, they are doing so without sufficient evidence, and therefore being foolish.
I look forward to yet another post from you proving what you think you are disproving
Is this the old "Arguing with me will only prove my point! I win!" tactic? Very clever indeed.
Go forth and enlighten the world with your advanced understanding of human behavior.
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:58AM
I am opposed to believing in things without sufficient evidence,
Do you also disbelieve the wisdom of Plato, Rumi, Socrates, Aesop, Hobbes, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Jefferson, etc?
Scripture is moral philosophy in the form of stories to make it palatable to regular people. To discount it because it is told with artistic license in the form of stories is to completely miss the point. Your literalist approach to scripture is exactly the same as the approach of ignorant extremists like ISIS rank-and-file. That ought to seriously bother someone who believes himself to be a rationalist.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:26AM
Do you also disbelieve the wisdom of Plato, Rumi, Socrates, Aesop, Hobbes, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Jefferson, etc?
If they wrote silly religious texts designed to peddle some ridiculous superstitions, then I would indeed disregard those.
Scripture is moral philosophy in the form of stories to make it palatable to regular people.
There's no evidence that it was all merely intended to not be taken seriously. The quality of the text is as you would expect from a bunch of primitive people trying to push superstitious views: Often barbaric, illogical, and contradictory.
Your literalist approach to scripture
So what is the 'correct' way to interpret this nonsense? Am I to ignore all the blatant falsehoods and contradictions? What makes your method better than anyone else's? Should I simply pretend that all the bad things are 'metaphorical' and not meant to be taken 'literally', like a lot of religious whiteknighters do? I don't see the point in that, and I don't see the evidence to support your assertion about my supposed method of interpretation. Your position requires that you ignore the actual texts you claim to want to interpret, or requires that you take the immensely dishonest position that all those bad and nonsensical portions of the texts are just metaphorical or something such as that. It's so laughable that it's actually sad that you're not joking.
Even if everything you say is true, I *still* fail to see why anyone should take these books seriously. A scientific approach to ethics is superior to listening to books loaded with contradictions and bad advice from my perspective. These books are, at best, not helpful when it comes to teaching morality. And even if they were, you end up with people believing in things like gods without evidence, which is a bad result in and of itself.
That ought to seriously bother someone who believes himself to be a rationalist.
People who make obviously bullshit excuses for silly religious texts should be concerned about their own rationality.
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:37AM
A scientific approach to ethics
I am curious as to what you think that entails. How do you decide the criteria for judging the outcome of an ethical experiment?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:49AM
The effects our actions have can be determined scientifically. Values are subjective, but I think most people can agree that they do not want to die, that they want to live in a stable society, etc. Once we agree on what values are shared, we can begin seeing what sorts of policies and laws society should have by investigating the effects of different actions.
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:03AM
The effects our actions have can be determined scientifically.
What does that mean? How do you design an experiment to test those effects?
Once we agree on what values are shared,
So just a mere matter of getting most people to agree on the fundamental values of society? How would that would be accomplished?
Can you name someone who has worked professionally in the field of the science of ethics? Perhaps there are some scientific papers that you have studied in order to come to your conclusions?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:36AM
What does that mean? How do you design an experiment to test those effects?
Why do I have to personally design you an experiment to test the effects of some unspecified action? That seems like a waste of time. I was speaking generally. Do you disagree that the effects of our actions can be determined objectively? If someone stabs someone else with a knife, does that not have physical effects on their body that can be observed and studied? I'm not sure where you're going with this.
So just a mere matter of getting most people to agree on the fundamental values of society? How would that would be accomplished?
Most people already have a desire to live, and a stable society certainly helps in that regard. If we didn't care about living or dying, our species would likely have died off.
As for how this can be accomplished, all you can do is try to find a common set of values that most people share with one another and see what policies and laws will likely help achieve those goals. Making people see that allowing murder and theft would not be in their best interest is easier than some other things may be.
Are these genuine questions, or is this going to turn into a "Gotcha!" moment?
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:02AM
Why do I have to personally design you an experiment to test the effects of some unspecified action?
I'm not asking for a specific experiment, I'm asking for a general methodology. How do you apply the scientific method to an experiment in ethics?
If someone stabs someone else with a knife, does that not have physical effects on their body that can be observed and studied?
Of course it does. But, as you said, those are physical effects, not ethical effects. Maybe the person who was stabbed was stopped from committing some greater ethical crime.
As for how this can be accomplished, all you can do is try to find a common set of values
It seems to me that the entire history of the human race is a constant story of the disagreement over values. Short term effects versus long term effects; value of life - relative or absolute; etc. It's one thing to say "stable society" it's another thing to define what that means, every government ever has claimed to support a stable society but there are so many different approaches because 'stability' is not a binary thing. Saying things like "try to find" is to trivialize one of the hardest parts of the entire process.
Are these genuine questions, or is this going to turn into a "Gotcha!" moment?
These are genuine questions to encourage you to elaborate on your beliefs. You are so vehement in your dismissal of anything that contradicts your viewpoint, therefore I have to charitably conclude that you've put a substantial amount of study to arrive at your position. So instead of putting all that effort into telling me why I'm wrong, I'd like to hear why you are right.
That's why I asked for some citations of other people's thoughts that have formed the basis for your belief in a science of ethics. Hume's theory of ethics, perhaps? John Locke's Natural Law and Natural Rights? You didn't come up with all of this in a vacuum, right? Philosophers have been studying ethics for as long as philosophy has existed. Surely your opinions are informed by some of that work, right?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:26AM
How do you apply the scientific method to an experiment in ethics?
Of course it does. But, as you said, those are physical effects, not ethical effects.
We study the effects of our actions so that we can see if an action is good or bad according to our own values. I'm not sure what you mean by "ethical effects".
Maybe the person who was stabbed was stopped from committing some greater ethical crime.
That's irrelevant to the point you quoted.
It seems to me that the entire history of the human race is a constant story of the disagreement over values.
Yes, and if you expect perfection from any method, you're asking for something that does not exist.
Saying things like "try to find" is to trivialize one of the hardest parts of the entire process.
I'm not going to write an essay. If you find that choice of words to be trivializing the subject, then too bad.
It's one thing to say "stable society" it's another thing to define what that means, every government ever has claimed to support a stable society but there are so many different approaches because 'stability' is not a binary thing.
I never said it was easy. These are things that can actually be studied, even if it isn't easy, so there is some hope.
You are so vehement in your dismissal of anything that contradicts your viewpoint
Yes, I tend to not take claims of all-powerful magical beings seriously. Why the hell would I? Unless someone presents evidence of such a thing, I have no reason to believe it.
Surely your opinions are informed by some of that work, right?
Yes.
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:37AM
irrelevant
too bad
never said it was easy
Surely your opinions are informed by some of that work, right?
Yes.
Am I to take that reply as meaning that you are not interested in educating me, or anyone else reading along, as to why you are right, only that everybody you disagree with is wrong? That would be unfortunate.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:52AM
Am I to take that reply as meaning that you are not interested in educating me
I am not interested in spending long periods of time 'educating' you about trivial things, no. But it seems odd to draw that conclusion from some of those random quotes.
only that everybody you disagree with is wrong?
I don't know what that means. Are you someone who promotes religion?
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday November 19 2015, @05:26AM
I am not interested in spending long periods of time 'educating' you about trivial things, no
I'm sorry. I guess I thought that since you were so adamant and confident about it that it wasn't trivial to you.
. Are you someone who promotes religion?
I've always been and will always be an atheist. But as someone who minored in sociology and philosophy in college I learned that 'religion' is a complex cultural topic that can't adequately be boiled down to "all powerful magical beings." But you don't seem willing to make any sort of examination of those ideas so I won't bother you any longer. I will leave you to your utopia of a science of ethics that transcends utilitarianism.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:18PM
I'm sorry. I guess I thought that since you were so adamant and confident about it that it wasn't trivial to you.
Trivial in the sense that it was obvious what I meant from the start, and easy to understand if you bother to think about it. If you wanted someone to explain such a thing to you in-depth, I am definitely not the person for that, because I have little patience for such things.
But as someone who minored in sociology and philosophy in college
Truly amazing.
I learned that 'religion' is a complex cultural topic that can't adequately be boiled down to "all powerful magical beings."
Religions make many claims. Many of them are downright crazy (though those must merely be metaphorical, even when there is zero evidence of that), but they are certainly not limited to magical sky daddies. I know this. Yet still, most of the believers of these types of religions believe in magical sky daddies along with a host of other nonsense, which I consider a problem.
And no matter how "complex" religions are, what I ultimately care about is truth. I don't care about how happy religion makes some people, or any other such nonsense.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:18PM
After 9/11 I purchased a copy of the Quran to read it for myself. I confess I couldn't get past the first quarter of it because it read like the fevered scribblings of a petulant, bi-polar teenager. Half of it waxed rhapsodic, the other half was, "Do it my way or God will SMITE yooouuuuu..."
If you think about it, it's the perfect work for someone who wants to use religion as a tool, because it lets you have it both ways. When you want to pretend that you're kind and only want the best for others, you can cite the surrahs where Mohammed was cycling up. When you want to motivate your compatriots to kill some group you don't like, you can cite the passages about smiting that Mohammed composed when he was cycling down.
The Bible has a lot of similar features, of course, but because of the many more authors, time frames, and purposes (some of it closer to bookkeeping than anything else) it doesn't come through quite as clearly as what Mohammed wrote.
And on the opposite end of the spectrum of single authorship from Mohammed is Buddha, who seemed to have gone through all the excesses and tried lots of stuff and thought about everything long and hard before putting pen to paper, so there's more logical consistency to it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:49PM
So what if only 1% of Muslims are terrorists? I disagree, but so what if it's true? 1% of 1.5 BILLION yeilds 15 million terrorists. So - if only 1% of Muslims are terrorists, that means that Islam has the biggest army in the world. And, the biggest army in the world is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions (any of them).
And, the morons don't find that to be terrifying?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday November 19 2015, @07:38AM
I live close to the United States of America, a country that has elected Reagan, a couple of Bush's and various other religious nutjobs, which is truly terrifying. A country that goes around the world doing regime change, which in the case of Iraq, left a failed state, basically in civil war, with a whole generation of young men who don't really give a shit about religion but they sure are angry with no future or earnings and when ISIS offers them a $100 a month to be a combatant, they grab it, and they're happy to kill westerners as westerners have been killing them.
It's not Muslims that are the problem, it is people who don't like being conquered and treated like shit.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:03PM
Muslims have been beheading people around the world for longer than I've been alive. I'll agree that Bush was an ignorant ass, but Bush didn't light this particular fire.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:38PM
Your number was already debunked. But even if it were accurate, it certainly wouldn't mean what you seem to think it means.
I'm now too lazy to dig out numbers (and unlike you, I'm not ruthless enough to just pull them out of my ass), so I'll make up an extreme example to explain the point:
Consider an imaginary country where there's almost no crime. Indeed, there's exactly one criminal in the whole country. Now this criminal happens to have blue eyes. Thus 100% of all crimes in that country are done by blue-eyed people. In your logic this implies that they should put massive surveillance on all blue-eyed people in that country in order to catch the criminal.
(Score: 1) by J053 on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:15AM
(Score: 3, Informative) by Bot on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:49PM
The normal reaction to enemy strikes is to badmouth and belittle them. "Keep calm and carry on", "Americans are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender". The only exception is the propaganda about leaking information which is intentionally "loose lips sink ships" paranoid.
Except that ISIS echo chamber is: western media.
I have no objection to a constant stream of alerts turned false alarms, but this is not the case.
The funniest thing is the mirror climbing about attributing responsibility for what is happening to the western society in general, as if we controlled the web of interests that causes the crisis.
Anyway, CIA boss, you know what would help to fight terrorism? roadblocks on every street, curfew, everybody having to go outside on a straitjacket, warrantless pentothal injections, monarchy. In a word, high treason.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:05PM
NBC's spin on it was that ISIS's "help desk" lets terrorists encrypt communications and hide from warrants.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/isis-has-help-desk-terrorists-staffed-around-clock-n464391 [nbcnews.com]
Funny, all I got out of it was that help desks are evil.
(Score: 5, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:05PM
"My suicide vest isn't working."
"OK, turn it off, and then on again."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:10PM
somebody watches the daily show
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday November 18 2015, @09:46PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mendax on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:14PM
Well, does it? The French don't have quite the same civil libertarian restraints applied to them as the intelligence community here has, and as a result they have a much greater surveillance state than we do, and even that failed to detect this plot. Of course, the intelligence community can blame strong encryption but that won't change anything. The encryption genie is out of the bottle and nothing is going to stuff it back in... short of learning how to factor the product of two large prime numbers fast which, apparently, the NSA has yet to figure out. And even then there are other methods, e.g., steganography.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:17PM
The French don't have quite the same civil libertarian restraints applied to them as the intelligence community here has
Violating the constitution and people's liberties en masse by collecting data on their communications is showing restraint?
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday November 18 2015, @08:26PM
The difference is that the French can do it legally. The NSA probably is breaking the law; the courts haven't determined that yet.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @10:41PM
The NSA's unconstitutional unethical democracy-destroying mass surveillance definitely is unconstitutional.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:22PM
Excuses are like a$$holes buddy. Everybody has one...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @07:17PM
I mean, if it wasn't for that stupid Bill of Rights that the TLAs continually trample over, your police state would be so much easier to achieve, Herr Brennan.