Security
-
@morbiuswilters said:
So basically, in your book, string operations against criminals are a big no-no. We can't try to stop someone from murdering people, we just have to let them murder away.
See: false dichotomy. And you know it, morbs.
Since all the big three-letter agencies admit that the best way to catch terrorists is the tried-and-true method of working the informants (hard, unglamorous, doesn't involve lots of expensive and sexy tech or the chance to feel up fat, sweaty Americans), one wonders why they're so hot on pursuing these sting/entrapment ops.
One possible reason is it's easy to publicize the results. Because it's not like they're going to risk revealing any spook info this way. They're not catching organized terrorist groups with these things. They're catching isolated individuals or small groups who wouldn't have been able to do anything, and probably hadn't even considered doing anything, until the three-letter spook put it into their mind.
-
@this_code_sucks said:
If it had it would of worked
Nature abhors a vacuum. This is nowhere more true than with power vacuums.
Apart from that, it's a fun idea.
-
@serguey123 said:
@boomzilla said:
Perhaps if we modified the statement to, "most terrorists claim to be Muslims
Again, I would love to see hard data backing that claim, historic data for the last century should be enough, maybe a pie chartAnd a definition. (Of terrorists, not Muslims.)
-
@boomzilla said:
after we killed so many of them (and they killed themselves) in Iraq
Oh it is time for someone to wake up and smell the Kona, isn't it ...
-
@serguey123 said:
NOT SO!, they are really picky about the type of cookie they want and sometimes they change their mind in the middle of negotiation. Man dealing with chechens is easier than this.
+1
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Christianity has been manipulated to turn people into terrorists.
FTFY.
But I'll grant you that Christianity today is not what it was during the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition (although the Troubles are a bit more recent), and will certainly entertain "No true Scotsman" arguments as well as reasoned analysis that we're talking about a culture as distinct from a dogma.
-
@oheso said:
See: false dichotomy. And you know it, morbs.
Bullshit. What is being said is that we can't try to catch criminals before they accomplish their goals because they aren't criminals yet.
@oheso said:
Since all the big three-letter agencies admit that the best way to catch terrorists is the tried-and-true method of working the informants (hard, unglamorous, doesn't involve lots of expensive and sexy tech or the chance to feel up fat, sweaty Americans), one wonders why they're so hot on pursuing these sting/entrapment ops.
Um, it's not an either-or situation. Sting operations are an important part of security work, just like human intelligence.
@oheso said:
One possible reason is it's easy to publicize the results. Because it's not like they're going to risk revealing any spook info this way. They're not catching organized terrorist groups with these things. They're catching isolated individuals or small groups who wouldn't have been able to do anything, and probably hadn't even considered doing anything, until the three-letter spook put it into their mind.
Jesus Christ, sometimes I think I've seen the most retarded thing ever and then someone like you posts. What I love is that you don't have the first fucking clue what you are talking about, you're just spouting nonsense.
-
@oheso said:
But I'll grant you that Christianity today is not what it was during the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition...
Wow, thank you for agreeing for reality for once in your wretched life. I'm impressed.
@oheso said:
...and will certainly entertain "No true Scotsman" arguments as well as reasoned analysis that we're talking about a culture as distinct from a dogma.
Do you think the dogma is created in a vacuum? And I guess by your definition the Muslim countries that murder homosexuals and beat women for showing their faces are.. not the product of culture?
-
@_gaffer said:
And, here we go with the accusations of generalisation from someone who backs up their argument with strawmen and their own generalisations.
Putting words into my mouth doesn't make the spineless acquiescence to inappropriate violation of civil liberty any better.
Yes, there are those who would injure US Americans in an attempt to scare the people of that country, just as there are those in the USA who would happily destroy those who disagree with them. It cuts both ways.
Your batshit crazy arguments help no one, and just show what a ridiculous fucking cuntrag you really are. You've provided nothing of substance, just a convoluted example of the paranoia that fuels this "War on Terror" parade of horseshit. You might want to think about that before vomiting a bunch of meaningless drivel. Or not. I don't know how you get your kicks.
I like how you basically said "You're wrong because I'm right."
Look, I know the education system in your third world shithole must suck, but you can please hold yourself to a higher standard and avoid logical fallacy after logical fallacy when communicating with first worlders?
(By the way, weren't you the idiot who thought paying twice as much for inferior Apple hardware and an inferior Apple OS was a good idea? Should I be surprised that you are stupid when it comes to this, too?)
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Do you think the dogma is created in a vacuum? And I guess by your definition the Muslim countries that murder homosexuals and beat women for showing their faces are.. not the product of culture?
I realize I did not fully define what I meant. That was intentional. But your interpretation of it is amusing nonetheless.
I am allowing for the fact that a group of people may identify themselves as Christian or aver that their culture is based on Christian tradition and yet they may not necessarily hold that their government must obey all the strictures of, for example, Leviticus. Yes, dogma and culture are intertwined. But that doesn't necessarily dictate that a current culture stands by the entirety of the dogma as written down several millenia ago. When we speak of "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Jew" or "Hindu" or "Buddhist" or any of a number of other religious labels, it sometimes helps to stop and take a breath and try to figure out what we're talking about.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
(By the way, weren't you the idiot who thought paying twice as much for inferior Apple hardware and an inferior Apple OS was a good idea? Should I be surprised that you are stupid when it comes to this, too?)
Would that there then be an example of what them highbrows call an ad hominem logical fallacy?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@oheso said:
See: false dichotomy. And you know it, morbs.
Bullshit. What is being said is that we can't try to catch criminals before they accomplish their goals because they aren't criminals yet.
Go on, put the rest of what you said in there: Can't try to catch crimials via sting operations. If we don't support sting operations then babies will die. We bow down before terrorists and lick their genitals clean, unless we support sting operations.
That's your false dichotomy.
-
@JoeCool said:
@pjt33 said:
No, but if you're a US taxpayer you might not consider turning ranting idiots into terrorists and then imprisoning them for many years to be a good use of your money.
Would you rather the FBI sell this person a fake bomb, or that a terrorist group (it being likely that the group knows about this person just like the FBI), sell a real bomb to this person?
If there really is a terrorist group in the US which goes around trying to sell bombs to ranting idiots then a) they're obviously picking the wrong ranting idiots, because they haven't managed to make the news; b) they might be a more worthwhile target for the FBI than ranting idiots.
-
@oheso said:
@boomzilla said:
after we killed so many of them (and they killed themselves) in Iraq
Oh it is time for someone to wake up and smell the Kona, isn't it ...TDEMSYR
@oheso said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@oheso said:
See: false dichotomy. And you know it, morbs.
Bullshit. What is being said is that we can't try to catch criminals before they accomplish their goals because they aren't criminals yet.Go on, put the rest of what you said in there: Can't try to catch crimials via sting operations. If we don't support sting operations then babies will die. We bow down before terrorists and lick their genitals clean, unless we support sting operations.
That's your false dichotomy.
Well trolled, sir.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@serguey123 said:
That's jsut your opinion though, you've been asked if you could back it up with facts and you didn't. I'd argue and say that an equally large group of terrorists is Catholic. Ever heard of that group who go by the name of the Irish Republican Army? Largest terrorist threat that the UK has ever faced, and the IRA has been responsible for more deaths in the UK than any Muslim extremist group. Of course, I guess you just assume that since they declared a cease-fire that they are no longer terrorists and that your claim still stands? You're either a) too young to know better and you're not even aware of the IRA b) really fucking stupid c) racist d) actually a Muslim terrorist yourself and know something the rest of us don't. Personally I think it's a mix of the first 3, because most Muslims I know have better manners than you."Muslism are terrorist!"
Nobody said this. I said "Most terrorists are Muslim", a statement I stand by.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@_gaffer said:
And, here we go with the accusations of generalisation from someone who backs up their argument with strawmen and their own generalisations.
Putting words into my mouth doesn't make the spineless acquiescence to inappropriate violation of civil liberty any better.
Yes, there are those who would injure US Americans in an attempt to scare the people of that country, just as there are those in the USA who would happily destroy those who disagree with them. It cuts both ways.
Your batshit crazy arguments help no one, and just show what a ridiculous fucking cuntrag you really are. You've provided nothing of substance, just a convoluted example of the paranoia that fuels this "War on Terror" parade of horseshit. You might want to think about that before vomiting a bunch of meaningless drivel. Or not. I don't know how you get your kicks.
I like how you basically said "You're wrong because I'm right."
Look, I know the education system in your third world shithole must suck, but you can please hold yourself to a higher standard and avoid logical fallacy after logical fallacy when communicating with first worlders?
What in the fuck are you on about here? Do you even read the posts you're responding to, or do you just post vague insults and hope they're near enough the mark?
I was accused of wild generalisation by means of wild generalisation. My argument wasn't "You're wrong because I'm right", just that they were spouting crap.
Also, get your geography straight. The Czech Republic is first world now, and used to be second world, and I'm not even from here anyway, I just live here now.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@PJH said:
Their payslips used to have an item called "IRA Contributions" on them.(Cue story about 'IRA' appearing on Micky D's American payslips in the '80's.)
I'm not aware of that one. What's the story?
In the US, IRA stands for "Individual Retirement Account." In the UK it stands for "Irish Republican Army."
So someone this side of the pond was stirring up rumours that McD's in the States were making terrorist contributions via their employees' payslips.
-
@boomzilla said:
@oheso said:
@boomzilla said:
after we killed so many of them (and they killed themselves) in Iraq
Oh it is time for someone to wake up and smell the Kona, isn't it ...TDEMSYR
Sorry, if you're going to troll me with an acronym, you'll have to explain it. (Google just points me back to all your posts here.)
As to connections between Iraq and terrorists, prior to the US invasion, pray tell.
-
@pjt33 said:
If there really is a terrorist group in the US which goes around trying to sell bombs to ranting idiots then ... they might be a more worthwhile target for the FBI than ranting idiots.
Nah. They are the FBI.
-
Yeah, I'm that asshole kid in the crowd of adoring admirers who shouted, "I can see the king's balls!"
-
@oheso said:
@boomzilla said:
@oheso said:
@boomzilla said:
after we killed so many of them (and they killed themselves) in Iraq
Oh it is time for someone to wake up and smell the Kona, isn't it ...
TDEMSYR
As to connections between Iraq and terrorists, prior to the US invasion, pray tell.Why change the subject? I was talking post invasion. That's when the terrorist killing began.
But I'll bite...are you confusing participation in the 9/11 attacks with being cozy with terrorists? Paying terrorists. Training terrorists. Even if you choose not to believe any of that, what does it have to do with my point?
-
@this_code_sucks said:
@Weps said:
[quote user="morbiuswilters"]@boomzilla said:
I'm sure there are legitimate entrapment issues to deal with whenever this happens, but I haven't heard anything substantive in that respect on any cases so far.
Yeah, but these cases aren't entrapment--not even close. Entrapment
would be the FBI finding a disgruntled Muslim (because, come on) and saying "Hey, you know what you should do? Blow some people up." and then persuading him (because, come on)
to break the law. The idea for illegal action must come from law
enforcement AND law enforcement must convince the criminal to break the
law AND the criminal must not have been liable to break the law on his
own.Ignorance is bliss.
I may not be in a state of bliss; but I am sure as hell ignorant... of what the fuck you are refering to.[/quote][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdwze-Wj6_4]Ignorance is Bliss[/url]
Maybe that's not what he was talking about, but it's still kinda funny.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
o you really think the Muslims in the Palestinian territories or Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia are mostly moderate?
You do know that that is a very tiny part of the world and that most muslims not even live in the Middle East right? Also I think that the fact that those countries are poor and a big part of the population had very little or religious education play a part in this. Look, my point stands, this people are dicks not because they are muslims but because they are radicals, radicals of any religion sucks but most muslims aren't radicals bend on terrorism.
-
@serguey123 said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Do you really think the Muslims in the Palestinian territories or Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia are mostly moderate?
You do know that that is a very tiny part of the world and that most muslims not even live in the Middle East right? Also I think that the fact that those countries are poor and a big part of the population had very little or religious education play a part in this.I think the poverty and education (of the non-religious kind) arguments are not as correct as they are intuitively attractive. Sure, there are poor uneducated idiots blowing themselves up, but there are also doctors, engineers and billionaires involved (and probably at a higher proportion than their share of the population).
@serguey123 said:
Look, my point stands, this people are dicks not because they are muslims but because they are radicals, radicals of any religion sucks but most muslims aren't radicals bend on terrorism.
I agree with you about the "most muslims," but that's a distraction from the fact that there certainly appear to be more radical muslims than radical other-things.
-
@Severity One said:
] When I flew to Toronto via Newark in 1998 or 1999, the security at Newark didn't strike me as particularly impressive. (Having said that, I had just flown in from Germany, where they do take this sort of thing rather seriously.) Looks like things haven't changed too much since then.
In an airport? Only 9/11. Not saying it's actually good security though... just more of it.
-
@boomzilla said:
@serguey123 said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Well, most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.
Do you have hard data on that? For what is worth AFAIK most people that claim to be muslim and are terrorist are using religion as an excuse and are not real muslims.This is a retarded argument. What's your definition of a "real" muslim? They certainly claim to be muslims. Perhaps if we modified the statement to, "most terrorists claim to be Muslims," it would pass your pedantic dickweed standards?
According to the Qur'an, a true Muslim is someone who kills Jews, while subjugating people of other religions and forcing them to pay tribute and live as inferiors if they don't convert.
-
@boomzilla said:
I think the poverty and education (of the non-religious kind) arguments are not as correct as they are intuitively attractive.
Maybe, as I said, this is more akin to a musing than factual data, however I like it more than: "Islam breeds terrorism". Because that is a
wrong claim, at least according to me.
@boomzilla said:there are also doctors, engineers and billionaires involved
Do they blow themselves as well? Do you consider a degree the only type of education that exist? A lot of school in poor areas in the middle east are tyed to religion or religious militant groups and when the choice is either going illiterate or going to a school sponsored by Hamas the options are bleak
@boomzilla said:at there certainly appear to be more radical muslims than radical other-things.
The operative word being "appear to be" Again I would love to read an actual study about this rather than gut feelings and overhyped media
-
@serguey123 said:
@boomzilla said:
there are also doctors, engineers and billionaires involved
Do they blow themselves as well? Do you consider a degree the only type of education that exist? A lot of school in poor areas in the middle east are tyed to religion or religious militant groups and when the choice is either going illiterate or going to a school sponsored by Hamas the options are bleakI can think of at least one architect who crashed a plane (well, degree in architecture, at least). He attended universities in Cairo and Hamburg.
I can think of another terrorist who was a doctor who went on what he probably considered to be a suicide mission.
Some doctors in Glasgow and London didn't blow themselves up, but they were setting bombs.
I'm not sure what strawman you're trying to set up by asking about degrees being the only type of education that exists. The point is that plenty of terrorists are well educated and not poor ignoramuses by even Western standards. And have been to the West (or even born and grown up there), so they haven't simply been exposed only to a radical environment their entire lives. But they are radicalized.
-
@boomzilla said:
The point is that plenty of terrorists are well educated and not poor ignoramuses
But not that many are foot soldiers
@boomzilla said:they haven't simply been exposed only to a radical environment their entire lives. But they are radicalized.
Hmmm, interesting, what is your hypothesis then?
-
@oheso said:
@this_code_sucks said:
I mean how dumb do you have to be to believe you will get 70 virgins ...
Not sure if this point has been made clearly enough, but it might be more fun to have 70 non-virgins ...
I can assist with the conversion process.
It may take some time, but that's because I enjoy my work and I also believe you can't rush quality.
@PJH said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@PJH said:
Their payslips used(Cue
story about 'IRA' appearing on Micky D's American payslips in the
'80's.)I'm not aware of that one. What's the story?
to have an item called "IRA Contributions" on them.
In the US, IRA stands for "Individual Retirement Account." In the UK it stands for "Irish Republican Army."
So someone this side of the pond was stirring up rumours that McD's in
the States were making terrorist contributions via their employees'
payslips.Aha, heard that tale. Typical "tub-thumpin first, check for correctness later".
ISTR there was something about NORAID contributions finding their way to the Oirish "Freedom Fighters", something that was more greatly exposed when Bush did his post 9-11 spiel.
(It was quite a bit ago in Private Eye, the old grey matter is somewhat hazy now.)
-
@serguey123 said:
The point is that plenty of terrorists are well educated and not poor ignoramuses by even Western standards. And have been to the West (or even born and grown up there), so they haven't simply been exposed only to a radical environment their entire lives. But they are radicalized.
I can't find the story, but I heard of some British troops turning over bodies of dead terrorists in Iraq following a firefight and discovering some had Gunner's[1] tattoos - there was plenty of evidence to show that many had lived a life in GB before answering their "calls to arms".
[1] for you Merikans: nickname for a UK soccer team
-
@operagost said:
@Severity One said:
Yes, of course. I enjoyed looking at the Manhattan skyline from the Delta terminal (then still with the Twin Towers...), but all in all, the impression that security left at Newark was less favourable than that of any European airport I've ever been to. Can't really put my finger on it - except maybe that the German metal detector went off over a small metal plate in the sole of my shoes, and the American one didn't.] When I flew to Toronto via Newark in 1998 or 1999, the security at Newark didn't strike me as particularly impressive. (Having said that, I had just flown in from Germany, where they do take this sort of thing rather seriously.) Looks like things haven't changed too much since then.
In an airport? Only 9/11. Not saying it's actually good security though... just more of it.
