Boy, that makes you wonder.
The US is better at creating terrorism than it is stopping it
Leave it to the trained professionals.
I heard that ism shit was actually Israel…
Terrorism is mostly a scam to justify a lot of things sane and informed citizens would never support.
Of course, because that was never its real purpose.
It doesn’t make us wonder at all. If you were old enough and paying attention after September 11th, you would have heard many people saying that the point point of the expanded powers was to take freedom away from Americans, and not to keep anyone safe.
Never let a good crisis go to waste
They’ve never done ANYTHING to keep us safe. If they cared at all about that, the first thing they’d do is give us Universal Health Care.
The ONLY thing that matters in the United States of Ferengenar is Profit. Any safety benefit that arose out of the pursuit of profit was simply a happy accident. If those benefits are found to be using profits, they will be removed.
It stopped attacks from entering the planning stage and made the “job” of terrorists harder.
I suppose the better word would be it never “caught” a single planned act. Your point can be taken that it is impossible to prove whether or not it stopped an attack due to deterrence effect of awareness of the surveillance. Though I would argue that it would have simply made them more guarded and difficult to monitor (using E2E encryption, etc), and so the effect is that only carefree generally lawful folks actually got caught up in the surveillance.
It was never about antiterrorism; it’s all about controlling the population.
The Cons DID call themselves domestic terrorists…
Terrorism is such a helpful tool, that if there weren’t terrorists, they’d invent them.
And they do. Witness MAGA’s obsession with manifesting ANTIFA out of thin air.
Step back a bit. America probably gave the Saudi royals a trillion dollars over the decades, which they used to spread militant Wahibism across the Middle East.
deleted by creator
DOGE must have gutted those involved in overseeing this then right?
osama bin laden may be dead but he won with 911. Basically got us to destroy our own democracy.
what was al-qaeda mostly funding then
Is it not common knowledge that most of the hijackers were Saudi, and trained and funded by Saud? Didn’t the 9/11 commission more or less say the whole thing was the Saudis?
Mother of God, is this a joke? I read that interview a couple of times thinking maybe there is some loophole like “I wasn’t involved in the killing , but definitely was there in the planning” kind of catch, but nope.
Did I just read propaganda or did the US really kill a guy not involved in 9/11?
The tricky part is if someone is ok with killing thousands of people, then one could imagine they might not be totally truthful in an interview.
Biggest point toward taking someone at their word is that usually the point is to take credit, to let people know why it happened and what you wanted to change to prevent it from happening again. On the other hand, this was after USA made it clear that the answer was to just be angry and inflict more violence and interference in the middle east, so it might cause someone to switch strategies to try to defuse the situation even if they started it.
Short answer, no way of knowing what to think of the interview in and of itself.
Wasn’t al quaeda in the habit of claiming responsibility for pretty much every terrorist attack around that time regardless of their involvement? It would still be a little out of character to deny responsibility if they actually were. But most of the hijackers were Saudi, and Saudi trained and funded, so clearly the answer was to start a war in Iraq.
Well, that was the point in my second paragraph, usually they took credit, but they might have changed their mind realizing that it brought down a more violent response than they might have expected.
The Iraq theory problem is that even with a trigger-happy, iraq hating administration, they justified action in Afghanistan instead, and used a different theory to eventually attack Iraq. If the goal was Iraq, then they should have tried to pin it on Hussein instead.
All in all, it’s just too murky to assert a certain narrative to go through it all.
Lol, first time?
You should read up on how we did Sadam. The US diplo April Glass gave tacit approval for his occupation of Kuwait and we then used that as a reason to retaliate and stabbed him in the back to get the oil.
Even better, you should look up how we completely fabricated a boogeyman out of Gaddafi.
Everything that reaches the ears of the public is a lie.
It’s all propaganda on all sides. Some of it is true. Some of it isn’t.
Apparently it was so obvious that the news anchors new it was OBL within minutes
That’s a 404 buddy.
Not for me and at least one other. Try via VPN.
He didn’t though. It’s either you did, or there wasn’t one in the first place.
you will notice I said got us to destroy our own democracy. not that he did. he provided the impetus and excuse. its not like we were not warned. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
I like that quote, but I think you didn’t have liberty just were allowed to feel like you have it. Bin Laden didn’t change much, the times did, when it became normal for the rich to say “suck it up”.
I think we have. Its a line and absolute liberty is basically might makes right. Its about having a level playing field and not trodding on individual rights. We were generally in an expansion of rights before 911 and it gave a massive excuse to the anti rights folk.
The Patriot Act basically suspended the Constitution.
And now the government is basically ignoring it.
absolute liberty is might makes right
I’m high as fuck and this is so deep.
It was never about terrorism. The govt saw a chance to leapfrog citizen surveillance by years instead of a steady profession and jumped at it so hard it wasn’t even subtle.
People forget Bush was head of the CIA, its all too coincidental that the government ended up with super spy powers on his watch.
The patriot act was bipartisan.
AIPAC Uniparty.
pretty sure that was his father, George H W Bush, who served as president years before 9/11 and patriot act
Correct, only Bush father was director for the CIA for one year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush
BINGO!
Exactly, and we now have someone in power who will weaponize that against critics and dissenters.
Also fun: your own household furnishings or a toddler with a gun were always a greater danger to you than terrorism, speaking in terms of probabilities.
imagines his sofa armed with a glock
JD Vance better watch out.
You are a horrible parent if you have a gun anywhere near your toddler.
You’re not wrong, but guns are a civic religion here in the US. There are lots and lots and lots of guns that are easily accessible by toddlers.
Always (and I mean always) lock up your guns
Typical elitist liberal, where am I supposed to get the money for this gun safe? You want me to sell my brand new f-150?
Yes, yes I do, on account of it being stupid.
Sell the guns!
wait…
No. Don’t be stupid. Use a credit card. You can have both, while playing for neither.
That would be nice.
Not much point having them if you never take them out of the safe.
From locked safe to locked transport bags to locked vehicle compartment.
Their whole shtick is that they need it for home protection. Doesn’t make sense from that point of view.
Aren’t guns supposed to be to fight tyrannical governments or something in the US? Where is that? I’ve been told by Americans that all the gun deaths were worth it in the case of what is currently happening there
Watch these 3 in sequence, they’ll make a lot of sense out of the murican fascination with guns.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BxvxbZGjlv4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wNtxtuQxUz8
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QbXTDuwSVkkYou misunderstood. The tyrannical government they talk about is democracy.
I wish I was joking.
Yeah, that’s all just bullshit. A thought-terminating cliche.
Why are they accessible by toddlers? Have your “civic religions” not heard of a lockbox or even a high shelf?
No need to ask me questions like this as if I personally support it.
And yes, people here are aware of all the safety measures available. They just care more about convenience or otherwise don’t care at all.
Oh, yeah, sorry mate. I didn’t mean to imply you support it. I added the quotation marks because I wasn’t attributing them as your civic religions. I definitely didn’t mean to offend. Honestly, I’m just annoyed with some gun owners not taking the bare minimum protection measures, making those that do take precautions still look like twats. And, for the record, my opinion on gun control is that if you own a gun, you must control who has access to it, that you are responsible for its use/misuse, and that the governments shouldn’t have such a say on whether you’re allowed to own it. I’ve seen first hand what can happen when the citizens are fully unarmed, and I don’t particularly want to live through that again, so yes, you should be able to own a gun (safely stored).
I appreciate that. I hate it all too.
There have been some minor positive developments at least. A few of the school shooters in recent years have had their parents arrested and locked up for proven negligence. I hope it will become a trend.
This is the correct government/law official response, in my opinion, and I hope it’ll continue. Everyone is so focused on AI and privacy (not at all insignificant concerns), that gun restrictions seem to get passed pretty easily across the globe, and those “I can own a gun no matter what and leave it on the kitchen counter if I want to” blokes make it that much easier for those laws to pass. It worries me.
Here’s a tip, watch your kids, lol.
Don’t look at me. I purposely didn’t have kids. Kids are awful.
I purposely didn’t have kids, not because they’re awful, but because of unstoppable, irreversible climate change and ecocide.
As a parent i fully support this chance.
One of the reasons i do have kids is because i recognise how rational people who think critically of the current world will easily adopt this logic.
Meaning the future will be largely populated by children of people who are not capable to think critically.
I did always have a child-wish, so maybe it’s part excuse, but it’s a strategic excuse. Either humanity has irreversibly failed or it has not yet meaning i have to try increase the chance on future our survival. (No pressure on them though, they get to decide their future and i might win hope if i am lucy)
Meaning the future will be largely populated by children of people who are not capable to think critically.
Idiocracy was a documentary.
Nah fuck that, we drive 200 other species to extinction per day. The faster earth shakes off its case of humanity, the better the rest of the natural worlds chances at rebounding in a million years become.
And awful. The last thing I could ever want is coming home from work exhausted and have to take care of a screaming child who shit itself.
I just come home, feed my chickens, collect eggs, let the dog outside unsupervised while I leave the front door cracked so he can come in when he’s ready and crack a beer.
Sounds nice!
Same here.
Im volcel.
But a pretty good one if your toddler knows how to unlock your safe and operate a gun. That’s pretty impressive.
Would be very shitty. If your toddler get your keys, and actually knows how to unlock a heavy safe that also has a fingerprint sensor.
Hurm duuhrr acyually your toddler needs a gun presnet to develop natural immunity, because there are no vaccines for guns checkmate. /s
I’m amused anyone would downvote you for making such an obviously correct statement.
If you have to have a gun, just put it in a gun safe. I get that there are so many dangerous places in the USA or places like Mexico.
Don’t think everyone having guns is going to make things much safer. That said, I don’t really have a horse in that fight.
When the governments have guns and you don’t. That isn’t safe. And crazies also like to go to places with gun free zones. It is always better to have a gun when you know other people already have them.
While true, that’s not relevant, good parents and non-parents can also get killed by toddlers with guns.
You are a horrible parent if you have a gun
anywhere near your toddler.OK, so just call the police if somebody is in your house trying to murder you… Yea that makes sense… Hold on burglar, I’m on the phone with the cops, you just stay there until they get here… Your comment lacks any kind of common sense.
It you own a gun and have a kid your kid is way more likely to shoot itself or you than a home invader trying to murder you. Like way more.
Do you just live in constant fear of statistically unlikely occurrences? Are you a conservative by chance?
The police will be disappointed that there’s nothing left for them to take. “darn, thief beat us again”
Just make sure you have your baseball bat, nunchucks, throwing stars or whatever mall ninja vigilante weapon you care to imagine. These will be far more accessible than the recommended gun safe and separately stored ammo.
LOLOL
You are a horrible parent if you have a gun anywhere
Could have stopped there.
You are a horrible parent
Could have stopped there…
Oh fuck, that reminds me… gotta go!
Not sure if you’re talking about me or not, but I don’t live in a country that requires a firearm at all times because anyone can buy them 2 for 1 on sale at Wal Mart, and also I would make an awful parent which is why I don’t have kids.
Oh sorry, I was actually trying to make a self deprecating joke about myself. Or actually a hypothetical version of myself that had kids and was a bad parent.
Which is why I added the whole “talking about being a bad parent reminds me that I had to go take care of my kids” outro.
Clearly I’ll need to work on my material.
Lmao no worries! OP is being a massive cunt and had to block him so I wasn’t sure of the context. All good, friend <3
Blocking people just because you were completely wrong about guns, and who you don’t agree with. Of course. Just live in your echo chamber. That’s very cunty. You don’t understand that real drug dealers have guns, you know, like the cartel.
He thinks real drugs dealers don’t have guns lol, how adorable.
I think the comment was tongue in cheek and self depricating :P
What are you going to stop a burglar with? Hugs??? That was a very idiotic thing to say. Do you not know how the world works? Just let the burglar attack you or your family until the cops get there…
If a bugler can get by my dogs without getting mauled to death, or my military training, god bless them.
Also, most robberies in Canada are done without firearms. Since… You know… They’re not exactly common here.
Also if you own a gun just to prevent imaginary robberies and dream of being able to shoot and kill someone, you might want to seek professional help. Most people don’t want to kill someone.
Burglars also have guns that can easily shoot your dog in the US. You are not even thinking about the US. I knew there was no way in hell you live in the USA with that comment. Robberies happen, this isn’t imaginary. You best be thankful you never lived in a dangerous neighbourhood. Nobody is actually wanting to kill a burglar. It’s was disgusting for you to even suggest that. Guns don’t always instantly kill people.
You are many orders of magnitude more likely to kill yourself or a loved one with a gun in the home than you are to stop an attempted home invasion with a gun. The statistics aren’t remotely ambiguous, you are much much much more likely to get shot when you have a gun in your home.
You best be thankful you never lived in a dangerous neighbourhood.
Then you didn’t know where I lived when I went to school in Toronto. Kitty-Corner from me was a pay by hour hotel. Lots of hookers, escorts, pimps, drugs, etc.
They just didn’t have guns. Because they’re hard to come by in Canada and don’t come with the same dick stroking reputation as it does in the States. No one cares about guns here because our country doesn’t masturbate over the idea of having them.
I’ve known multiple drug dealers in my life. None of them owned guns.
Perhaps you should self reflect that this problem you have with needing to “protect” your family with killing machines because other people have such easy access to those same killing machines is purely an America problem, not a global problem.
I hope you never use those guns on your family. Because statistically you are.
There is no way in hell you could compare drug dealers in Canada to ones in The United States. Real drug dealers have guns. Those drug dealers you have seen in Canada are nothing. Oh, look I am going to protect all my stash with a knife… Nope! And you can actually be a safe gun owner.
So war against toddlers now?
Opens Twitter
#GasTheTykes
Closes Twitter
The American government hates kids and elevates pedophiles. If this isn’t par for the course, then we aren’t even playing golf.
Toddlers may become gay or woke, or worse, both, gotta act early.
A do think that a case can be made that toddlers are terrorists. I think the Israelis have a whole preso on that someplace, let me look.
I imagine that our euphemistically-named ‘defense contractors’ would be all for it.
The kitchen and the bathroom. Never go in there if you value your life.
They could at least stage a false flag and pretend like any of it worked. Its all a big evil clownshow run with our money.
Tax strike
They were never meant to. Surveillance is for suppressing citizens, not foreign dangers.
Every time you type the word b0mb, it gets recorded. Every URL you type, it gets recorded.
that’s not the worst thing the CIA has done.
In Utah.
In the 60s, the CIA proposed multiple false flag attacks and operations on Cuba to former President JFK that would be considered borderline terrorism today. Much in the same way that Trump is launching an invasion in Iran and Putin in Ukraine. Thankfully Kennedy did decline most of their proposals because he thought they crossed the line though he did grant them permission to do some basic things. Still not good he let them intervene at all though that’s not the worst thing the CIA has done.
JFK replaced the chairman of the joint chiefs (Lemnitzer) for bringing that BS domestic terrorism (operation North Woods) to his desk. That was a kindness really, the guy should have been put in jail. Lemnitzer also really wanted to nuke Cuba too. He was a fascist idiot.
Unfortunately there are still fascist idiots in the American government right now so not much has changed! But yeah glad they did not Nuke Cuba. That would have been bad.
Side note-Do you think that the CIA killed Kennedy?
Kennedy pressured Ben-Gurion to allow inspections of their nuclear facilities, and JFK was pressuring congress to declare AIPAC a foriegn lobbyist oragnization. Ben-Gurion stepped down instead, and Kennedy got assassinated so the effort to reclassify AIPAC evaporated. Israel were the biggest winners in JFK’s assassination by a large margin, and assassination was what they did as part of their normal politics. While some CIa agents were on the scene of JFK’s murder, for some reason no one knows what they were doing there. So whoever did it had to have access to the CIA, which rules out the Russians and the mafia. It was the military industrial complex, or Israel. Theres no way Oswald acted alone either.
There’s a lot of coincidences if they didn’t.
I dunno I think they may have been involved. But maybe they looked the other way. I think Kennedy knew about aliens and wanted to tell the world. But that is my tin foil hat, lol.
I like the theory of an accidental misfire from a secret service agent.
It makes the most sense if the entire thesis of JFK’s death is that even hordes of loyal secret service agents with guns pose a risk to the president.
The CIA had plans to kill fidel castro with clam bombs. They aren’t serious people just well funded and dangerous. I think they had Oswald killed to cover up the Secret Service’s embarrassing accident because if Oswald had testified he didn’t shoot all the rounds the obvious question would be aired.
Don’t I hate it when yout call it “the government”. TIL is just usa_news_2 now.
Just like the biggest /c/news and /c/politics communities are specifically American only. The complete implosion of the US can’t happen soon enough
The article is from 2015, so without defending mass surveillance: is there nothing more recent? It’s possible they did that in the 11 years since then after all.
They haven’t really made newer claims apparently, but on the other hand there’s this, surveillance backdoors are dangerous;
Even if, its gotta be very rare. We know about so many recent cases of attacks where it turned out they already knew the suspect and were watching them, but never intervened.
The gap between the signing of the Patriot Act and when that article was posted is 14 years apart. I highly doubt anything has changed since then.
what is this even supposed to mean?
“the gap between the Battle of Hastings and the completion of the Bayeux Tapestry is likely a few years apart. I highly doubt the government of England has changed since then”
ok since it makes sense to everyone else, someone explain it to me
- event happens
- time passes (pt. 1)
- record is made detailing the event and its effects
- time passes (pt. 2)
- present
how does merely the length of time period 1 determine which events occur in time period 2?
how does publishing an article saying that something has not happened yet prevent that thing from happening after the article is published?
Yes, smart devices in your home. Wi-Fi can be used to track your movements. Literally see through walls, your heartbeat and even track your breathing. Have fun with that information. Actually, that might be more of the older capabilities. When I think about it. For example, your internet provider could possibly tap in and view motion in the home. Especially if the home has been mapped out for the newer routers and such. If they actually wanted to, there is always a way.
I don’t think you understood the inquiry
I just gave them some more info about a type of surveillance. Maybe you should think again.
the question was, is it still true that no acts is terrorism have been prevented in the last 11 years
Which is irrelevant to the article you posted. They weren’t asking for your theories about how mass surveillance could be done, they were asking if the claim in the title was still correct.
9 day old account with 50 posts posting a decade old article and replying to a question with an unrelated wall of text is a huge red flag imo
Why would the government of america need to wiretap your phone when your alexa knows what you dreamt about last night, your web browser knows what you paused to take a look at when scrolling, your phone reports where it is and what it’s doing to every cell tower in range, and there is a network of fully internet connected sattelites overhead at all times capable of resolving images at CENTIMETRE scale.
What does this have to do with literally anything mentioned so far? Did you reply to the wrong comment?
Honestly you should not be on the internet if you can’t tell the difference between asking if an information is up to date and whatever the fuck you thought I said.
If this is the media literacy level on the fediverse no wonder the world is fucked
Post:
46 migrating zebras eaten by crocodiles so farComment:
Not that I suport the crocodiles, but this is from the last migration season, are there newer numbers?Reply:
Crocodiles can crush bones like tissue paper. They can remain invisible underwater until they strike.You asked for updated information, since this was a decade old, I asked why would they have to wiretap your phones when there’s a listening device in every home, and a fleet of satellites that know what colour underwear you’re wearing.
Your inability (or unwillingness, serving no point but to be snarky) to draw parallels between related topics has nothing to do with my illiterate/schizo ass.
Who cares if it is a new account, that is actually irrelevant. And a comment about actual surveillance isn’t irrelevant with this!
They can tell when I move the coffee table through the cleaning robot.
