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: 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