Edward Snowden & The N.S.A Revelations

1…1516182021…30

Comments

  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,605
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:

    Then go ahead and tell us how they've kept the country safe?

    No, the overstatement was yours, not mine. The obligation to back it up is also yours and not mine. As the overstatement was yours, perhaps you can go ahead and, in your own words, tell us how these surveillance programs have nothing to do with keeping the country safe?

    Well, considering they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks, including the Boston bombings, then it's fair to say that they have nothing to do with keeping the country the safe. If they wanted to prevent terrorism, then they'd focus on terrorists, or suspected terrorists, instead of spying on 300 million Americans, and millions of citizens of other countries.

    Not fair to say that at all. You can prove they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks? How?

    The Boston bombings should have been prevented, yes. That they were not is a failure, yes. But in no way does one attack succeeding prove that these programs have nothing to do with protecting the country.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    sooo ... if everyone needed to be stripped search or finger printed at every major transportation hub (airports, train stations, bus terminals, etc.) - would everyone be ok with it? ... if it was meant to prevent terrorist attacks?
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,327
    polaris_x wrote:
    sooo ... if everyone needed to be stripped search or finger printed at every major transportation hub (airports, train stations, bus terminals, etc.) - would everyone be ok with it? ... if it was meant to prevent terrorist attacks?
    I would not be surprised if the NFL gets to that level in the next several years.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    polaris_x wrote:
    sooo ... if everyone needed to be stripped search or finger printed at every major transportation hub (airports, train stations, bus terminals, etc.) - would everyone be ok with it? ... if it was meant to prevent terrorist attacks?

    I definitely would not be okay with that. I haven't flown since around 2008 due to the current "search" methods. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be okay with it if it was sold to them as you describe though. I know a few that I work with, unfortunately.
  • London Bridge
    London Bridge USA Posts: 4,733
    Terrorists or suspected terrorists are not always easy to find. Especially America's home grown terrorists. They don't have signs on their front door that says "hey, I'm a terrorist."
    I applaud the government for being proactive and aggressive with their surveillance programs.
    Nothing works 100%, but the government owes it's Americans, attempts to lessen and in some cases stop terroristic activity.

    Byrnzie, you can't tell me that these surveillance progams have contributed zero effort in making arrests of terrorists in America. I would bet my life they have contributed to arrests.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    London Bridge wrote:
    Byrnzie, you can't tell me that these surveillance progams have contributed zero effort in making arrests of terrorists in America. I would bet my life they have contributed to arrests.

    Fine. So what terrorists are you referring to here?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    JimmyV wrote:
    Not fair to say that at all. You can prove they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks? How?

    Because we'd know about it if they had. Especially since Snowdens revelations. You think the government wouldn't have tried to justify their massive spying operation with such a scenario. But they haven't, because it never happened.

    The massive spying operation against the Worlds citizens has nothing to do with protecting anybody from terrorism.
  • Guitar92player
    Guitar92player Posts: 664
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    Not fair to say that at all. You can prove they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks? How?

    Because we'd know about it if they had. Especially since Snowdens revelations. You think the government wouldn't have tried to justify their massive spying operation with such a scenario. But they haven't, because it never happened.

    The massive spying operation against the Worlds citizens has nothing to do with protecting anybody from terrorism.

    Or in other words, JimmyV, his opinion is based on of the Guardian and Edward "Incapable of Lying" Snowden. :roll:

    Just messin with ya, Byrnzie, ;) , but like I said before, just because the media doesn't report it and whether Snowden said it or not doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Over the years once in a while I hear about a terrorist plot foiled. How do you know it wasn't foiled by the NSA? It is very possible the NSA was behind it, but the gov't didn't say how because they wanted to protect their strategy. (don't give me the "terrorists know the strategy" talk again, I know what the Guardian put. :roll: )

    But at the same time I understand and wouldn't doubt your opinion.
    ~Carter~

    You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
    or you can come to terms and realize
    you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
    makes much more sense to live in the present tense     - Present Tense
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Guitar92player wrote:
    Or in other words, JimmyV, his opinion is based on of the Guardian and Edward "Incapable of Lying" Snowden. :roll:

    All we know so far is that James Clapper committed a felony by lying to Congress, yet nobody here gives a fuck about that. You'd all rather cast doubt on the words of someone who sacrificed his life to reveal the U.S governments lies and illegal spying program instead.

    Kind of amazing to me really. But not really. I mean, why should we not all have 100% faith in a government that lied to the people and took them into two bullshit wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why should we not have 100% faith in a government that lies to the American people and spies on them in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Why should we not have 100% faith in a government that is basically just a mouthpiece and rubber stamp for the 1% of the rich and powerful?

    Let's just cast doubt and suspicion on Edward Snowden instead. After all, he told us the truth, therefore he must be suspect.

    But that's the World we live in, right? A World where liars are honored and respected, and where truth-tellers are demonized and sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
  • Guitar92player
    Guitar92player Posts: 664
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Guitar92player wrote:
    Or in other words, JimmyV, his opinion is based on of the Guardian and Edward "Incapable of Lying" Snowden. :roll:

    All we know so far is that James Clapper committed a felony by lying to Congress, yet nobody here gives a fuck about that. You'd all rather cast doubt on the words of someone who sacrificed his life to reveal the U.S governments lies and illegal spying program instead.

    Kind of amazing to me really. But not really. I mean, why should we not all have 100% faith in a government that lied to the people and took them into two bullshit wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why should we not have 100% faith in a government that lies to the American people and spies on them in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Why should we not have 100% faith in a government that is basically just a mouthpiece and rubber stamp for the 1% of the rich and powerful?

    Let's just cast doubt and suspicion on Edward Snowden instead. After all, he told us the truth, therefore he must be suspect.

    But that's the World we live in, right? A World where liars are honored and respected, and where truth-tellers are demonized and sent to prison for the rest of their lives.

    i don't think anyone here has said they 100% faith in the government. I don't think anyone here doesn't know that the 1% is living pretty and is very powerful.

    Speaking for myself, I don't think Snowden is a bad guy, but I have learned not to trust anybody (including gov't) so I naturally am suspicious of anyone, including Snowden. He could be someone who has complete hatred towards America, which is why he did what he did, and he could have possibly gave intelligence to other countries and then went on to say he did no such thing. Or maybe that is not him at all, which I do not think he is anything I just said, but it doesn't mean he isn't. Anyone can do anything and then lie up their ass to save face.

    Once again, I am just saying you can't believe every word and every person in a newspaper or the media in general.
    ~Carter~

    You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
    or you can come to terms and realize
    you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
    makes much more sense to live in the present tense     - Present Tense
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,605
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    Not fair to say that at all. You can prove they have thwarted zero terrorist attacks? How?

    Because we'd know about it if they had. Especially since Snowdens revelations. You think the government wouldn't have tried to justify their massive spying operation with such a scenario. But they haven't, because it never happened.

    The massive spying operation against the Worlds citizens has nothing to do with protecting anybody from terrorism.

    No, it is far from a sure thing that we would know about it if they had. Particularly if releasing such information compromised other ongoing operations. Declaring such things to be fact when there is no proof - and when common sense dictates a very good reason why that might be true - to me weakens the right and justifiable case against the NSA. The claim that these programs have NOTHING to do with keeping the country safe is a bridge too far.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    JimmyV wrote:
    The claim that these programs have NOTHING to do with keeping the country safe is a bridge too far.

    According to you.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,605
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    The claim that these programs have NOTHING to do with keeping the country safe is a bridge too far.

    According to you.

    Yes, much like the baseless overstatement you made is according to you.

    Arguments such as this are not helping Edward Snowden.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    JimmyV wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    The claim that these programs have NOTHING to do with keeping the country safe is a bridge too far.

    According to you.

    Yes, much like the baseless overstatement you made is according to you.

    Arguments such as this are not helping Edward Snowden.

    How do you know it's an overstatement? You don't.

    Carry on.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,605
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:

    Yes, much like the baseless overstatement you made is according to you.

    Arguments such as this are not helping Edward Snowden.

    How do you know it's an overstatement? You don't.

    Carry on.

    Which is why I asked you to backup your words with proof. You have so far been unable to.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    JimmyV wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:

    Yes, much like the baseless overstatement you made is according to you.

    Arguments such as this are not helping Edward Snowden.

    How do you know it's an overstatement? You don't.

    Carry on.

    Which is why I asked you to backup your words with proof. You have so far been unable to.

    The proof is in the fact that if the surveillance operations had prevented any acts of terrorism, we'd know about it, especially in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,605
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:

    How do you know it's an overstatement? You don't.

    Carry on.

    Which is why I asked you to backup your words with proof. You have so far been unable to.

    The proof is in the fact that if the surveillance operations had prevented any acts of terrorism, we'd know about it, especially in the wake of the Snowden revelations.

    Except, as that is only your opinion, it proves nothing. If you have no other actual proof I will conclude that you were indeed making an outlandish overstatement and we can end this particular exercise.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    JimmyV wrote:
    Except, as that is only your opinion, it proves nothing. If you have no other actual proof I will conclude that you were indeed making an outlandish overstatement and we can end this particular exercise.

    You can conclude what you like. And your belief that these programs have prevented terrorism is just your opinion - Totally baseless, and somewhat ludicrous in the face of the intelligence agencies complete failure with regards the Boston bombings.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,605
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    Except, as that is only your opinion, it proves nothing. If you have no other actual proof I will conclude that you were indeed making an outlandish overstatement and we can end this particular exercise.

    You can conclude what you like. And your belief that these programs have prevented terrorism is just your opinion. Totally baseless, and somewhat ludicrous in the face of the intelligence agencies complete failure with regards the Boston bombings.

    Ah, but that is not what you said nor what I called you out on. Whether or not I believe these programs have prevented terrorism is beside the point. You stated that these programs have NOTHING to do with protecting America. With that I disagree as nothing is a rather absolute term. Keep on trying to change the argument though.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    JimmyV wrote:
    Whether or not I believe these programs have prevented terrorism is beside the point. You stated that these programs have NOTHING to do with protecting America. With that I disagree as nothing is a rather absolute term. Keep on trying to change the argument though.

    What argument am I trying to change? I stated that these programs have nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorism. You disagree with me, though you're unable to provide any evidence that these programs have protected America. Then in your desperate attempt to appear smart, you claim that whether or not you believe these programs have prevented terrorism is beside the point.

    Let me know if you have anything constructive to add to the thread topic.

Categories