• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Read Snowden’s comments on 9/11 that NBC didn’t broadcast

Read more @: Read Snowden’s comments on 9/11 that NBC didn’t broadcast

Some unaired comments from the recent Snowden interview. Apparently we had all the info we needed on these 9/11 terrorists, but it was that we just had so much info that we dont know what to do with it. We have so much info now, the NSA doesnt know how to handle it all. [/I][/FONT][/COLOR]

Umm...I can see maybe that. Not that anything was intentional or conspiracy, but the communication between departments were bad and it was hard to properly parse the data. Of course, we're in the world of Big Brother now so it's hard for the NSA to parse so much data, but they have enough PhD Mathematicians on staff, so they'll probably find a way to do so in a more efficient means eventually.
 
And your position isn't based on your personal opinion? Lol. Who's position isn't based on their personal opinion in this case?

Mr. Kennedy, you should know better: you're the one whose argument rests upon crimes begin committed. I know you weren't a civics teacher, but you should know that what's criminal and what's not is actually dependent upon the law. Mr. Kennedy! Were you secretly a federal judge?! I don't think you were. So why would you presume that your opinion that crimes were committed trumps the actual legal opinions of actual federal judges (with actual laws degrees, not just high school guidance counselors!)?

Or did you not know that?

The point is, Mr. Kennedy, not all of us became high school guidance teachers. Some of us went on to roles in the military, in intelligence agencies, in the State Department, in national security, etc etc and there's millions of us. We actually know how the process works and we know there aren't "handlers" and when we read stuff like that we just laugh! It's funny to us, but the thing is, Mr. Kennedy- and this is beautiful, you'll like this: the people that honestly don't know, and say dumb things like "handlers" when trying to talk about real life issues...they don't matter. Because the decision makers are people actually in the loop. That's why everyone else in the loop can afford to be so jovial about it!

Have a great day, Mr. Kennedy! Great catching up with you!
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063353209 said:
I can't understand why intelligent people are willing to give away their rights to the US government.

:shrug: I can't understand how intelligent people are able to lie to themselves, convincing themselves that Snowden's releases are summed up in the PRISM program, instead of that discretion being a very small part of his massive data dump.

What possible good could come from Big Brother having access to all its citizens communications? You may trust your handlers but I do not.

The government does not access all of our communications. The PRISM program stored point-to-point data, no different than your current phone company does when it keeps a list of the numbers you called.

You know that scene in every courtroom tv show ever when the hero lawyer (hah) looks at the guy who is accusing the defendant and asks "But Mr Smith, isn't it true that you called the victim the night of the murder!?!, and the actually guilty guy looks shocked and then angry, and the jury gasps, and then the defendant gets off? Where did you think they were getting that data from? Magic?

What I will say to the US government is find a way to kill the enemy without trampling the rights of US citizens.

Right. Problem. Some of those enemies are US persons, which is not limited to US Citizens, and many more of those enemies route their communications through US hubs because we are the center of the information world. If Jihad McBuster in Pakistan emails DeathtotheInfidel McBrewster in Egypt, but uses his Gmail account to do so, well gosh, that information is probably going to end up going through a US server at some point. Now it's communications happening on US soil. Think we should look at what the email entitled "notes on how to attack the US embassy" entails? Or naw, we should let that pass because we don't want to trample anyone's rights and after all, Google is an American company.

War has become too politically correct. If the US is going to war then they should be in it to win it. Otherwise, go home.

.....said the guy who has not just now finished demanding that war become more politically correct, and more difficult to win???
 
Mr. Kennedy, you should know better: you're the one whose argument rests upon crimes begin committed. I know you weren't a civics teacher, but you should know that what's criminal and what's not is actually dependent upon the law. Mr. Kennedy! Were you secretly a federal judge?! I don't think you were. So why would you presume that your opinion that crimes were committed trumps the actual legal opinions of actual federal judges (with actual laws degrees, not just high school guidance counselors!)?

Or did you not know that?

The point is, Mr. Kennedy, not all of us became high school guidance teachers. Some of us went on to roles in the military, in intelligence agencies, in the State Department, in national security, etc etc and there's millions of us. We actually know how the process works and we know there aren't "handlers" and when we read stuff like that we just laugh! It's funny to us, but the thing is, Mr. Kennedy- and this is beautiful, you'll like this: the people that honestly don't know, and say dumb things like "handlers" when trying to talk about real life issues...they don't matter. Because the decision makers are people actually in the loop. That's why everyone else in the loop can afford to be so jovial about it!

Have a great day, Mr. Kennedy! Great catching up with you!

:lol: Even though we both know that your handlers made you say that, I still lol'd. :mrgreen:
 
Government, good! Citizens blowing the whistle on misbehaving government, bad!

Except when it's not. There's so many double-standard posters on this thread that my head is spinning. :(
 
I'll dumb it down for you: some people aren't "afraid of their handlers" because they actually have some experience and know how the process works. They're what you'd call "handlers" (I would assume because your paranoid) and they're just regular people, who know the other "handlers" are also regular people. They don't adhere to some goofy, grade school-level thinking wherein a room full of shadowy figures in suits runs the world.

And then there's people who are in fact, idiots who have no experience and don't know how it works. They're the type of people who think they have "handlers". Do you get it now? Let me know if you need me to draw you a picture

I see you've been assimilated.... and like it.
 
:shrug: I can't understand how intelligent people are able to lie to themselves, convincing themselves that Snowden's releases are summed up in the PRISM program, instead of that discretion being a very small part of his massive data dump.



The government does not access all of our communications. The PRISM program stored point-to-point data, no different than your current phone company does when it keeps a list of the numbers you called.

You know that scene in every courtroom tv show ever when the hero lawyer (hah) looks at the guy who is accusing the defendant and asks "But Mr Smith, isn't it true that you called the victim the night of the murder!?!, and the actually guilty guy looks shocked and then angry, and the jury gasps, and then the defendant gets off? Where did you think they were getting that data from? Magic?



Right. Problem. Some of those enemies are US persons, which is not limited to US Citizens, and many more of those enemies route their communications through US hubs because we are the center of the information world. If Jihad McBuster in Pakistan emails DeathtotheInfidel McBrewster in Egypt, but uses his Gmail account to do so, well gosh, that information is probably going to end up going through a US server at some point. Now it's communications happening on US soil. Think we should look at what the email entitled "notes on how to attack the US embassy" entails? Or naw, we should let that pass because we don't want to trample anyone's rights and after all, Google is an American company.



.....said the guy who has not just now finished demanding that war become more politically correct, and more difficult to win???

You need some help with your reading comprehension.

Feel free to relinquish your rights. I, however, shall not.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
 
I seriously never want to see Old World Odor, cpwill and others complain about government intrusiveness about anything on this forum again. If they do, they cannot be taken seriously and deserve a hearty LOL.
 
lol must've been. I thought we were talking about people who didn't believe in EVAL GUBMINT. Who did you think we were talking about?

Well, the switch I don't understand is how the exact same people who will rant and rave that government is incompetent and wasteful and not really up to operating efficiently at any complex and difficult task such as provision of healthcare or minute regulation of aerial emissions will in the next breath turn around and claim that the government is secretly some kind of omnicompetent all-seeing-all-knowing faceless agency that functions with smooth and brutal efficiency at handling the most massive tasks imaginable with perfect precision.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063353812 said:
You need some help with your reading comprehension.

Feel free to relinquish your rights. I, however, shall not.

You do not actually understand what you are talking about.
 
We didn't have the ability to get the information needed - because our law denied us access to it. So, if it's possible for someone to make an intuitive leap with 2/3rds of a puzzle completed, but you can't do it with 1/3rd, we had two individual thirds, neither of which was allowed to be seen together. The problem wasn't that we had too much data, it was that we had erected internal walls which did not allow data to be shared.

Mass data collection on point-to-point communications allows for the rapid discovery of networks in order to allow for actual targeted collection if approved. So, for example, when number 555-5555 suddenly starts calling Mr Jihad McBombsalot in Pakistan from New York, we are able to zero in on that number and find out A) who it is and B) who its' contacts are. So, for example, say that 555-5555 only calls Mr Jihad McBombsalot, and no other numbers. It's a dead end. But it's always co-located with number 333-3333, and 333-3333 calls no one but these other 7 numbers... well, there you are then: 555-5555 is a burner phone, and 333-3333 is how this guy actually maintains contact with his cell. Grab those nodes, and now we've got the first circle of the network. Figure out who they are and now we can hopefully figure out what they are doing and how to stop them.

But that process doesn't work unless you already have the point-to-point data to query. Having the data to query is how analysts build - pulling previously unrelated or differently related data into demonstrable relationships in order to demonstrate real-world action, communication, and intent. That's one of the reasons that the IC has invested so heavily now in collaboration, wiki's, and the like.

I legit LOLed at "Mr. Jihad McBombsalot."

With regards to 9/11, I would say that you are correct, at least from the information that I've seen. (I have some other questions about 9/11 but that's for another day).
 
Well, the switch I don't understand is how the exact same people who will rant and rave that government is incompetent and wasteful and not really up to operating efficiently at any complex and difficult task such as provision of healthcare or minute regulation of aerial emissions will in the next breath turn around and claim that the government is secretly some kind of omnicompetent all-seeing-all-knowing faceless agency that functions with smooth and brutal efficiency at handling the most massive tasks imaginable with perfect precision.

It's not hard to understand. Some people put food on their table by working for certain sectors of government. Most people will not bite the hand that feeds them.
 
Well, the switch I don't understand is how the exact same people who will rant and rave that government is incompetent and wasteful and not really up to operating efficiently at any complex and difficult task such as provision of healthcare or minute regulation of aerial emissions will in the next breath turn around and claim that the government is secretly some kind of omnicompetent all-seeing-all-knowing faceless agency that functions with smooth and brutal efficiency at handling the most massive tasks imaginable with perfect precision.

Government efficiency, like military intelligence, are oxymorons.

However, you trust them if you want to. I still don't.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063354186 said:
Government efficiency, like military intelligence, are oxymorons.

Careful, man. Blackbriar will hear you if you insult them, and be able to dispatch an assassin to your location within 10 minutes, because, you know, they have someone stationed in every single populated area in the modernized world...


Seriously? I don't trust them. That doesn't mean they aren't charged with the National Defense.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063354153 said:
Actually, I do.

Your posts, and attempts to describe what it is you are protesting, indicate that in fact you do not.

For example, if I were to rail against gun ownership, and go on and on about how nobody needs a 30 round assault clip....

....well, most actual gun folks would take that as an indication that I do not actually know what I'm talking about when I describe firearms. That's sort of how you sound in this thread when you attempt to describe the PRISM system.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063353783 said:
I see you've been assimilated.... and like it.

hahahahahahah

Is that what that is? That's funny. Very self-affirming for you, too: you can think whatever you want, and if anyone with actual experience bothers to tell you you're wrong, you just say they're brainwashed. Win/win!
 
I seriously never want to see Old World Odor, cpwill and others complain about government intrusiveness about anything on this forum again. If they do, they cannot be taken seriously and deserve a hearty LOL.

I doubt you will ever see OWO complaining about government intrusiveness. For the most part, his posts make it sound like the government can do no wrong, and that its only concerns are protecting the citizens.
 
And, again, it's like some people honestly don't know that the government and the "handlers" are made up of millions of citizens. To hear some people, it's some nebulous "other", not some guy that mows his lawn on Saturday morning and is saving for his daughter's college. No, no: they're evil spooky men trying to enslave humanity.
 
Back
Top Bottom