Bomber stopped by FBI in Portland
POSTED BY: whozit
UPDATED: Thursday, December 2, 2010 17:42
VIEWED: 3080
PAGE 2 of 4
Hello,
First thing, I don't want to give the impression that there is a coordinated conspiracy. There might be, but there need not be and it is unimportant.
The FBI wants to guarantee their budget (or increase it) and hence need to justify it. So they create elaborate stings where they prop up, support, and then take down a Terrorist. "See," they can claim, "We need that budgetary increase, or else we won't be able to stop terrorists like X."
The CIA can do this much easier, creating threats from whole cloth at will to justify their budget.
The closest to 'Conspiracy' we see is things like the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security, things which simply do not exist unless we are afraid of something.
And when you ask what part of your taxes go to support bloated FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security agencies, you will see you are indeed being financially bled for this. Even if they borrow the money and make your children pay it back. As long as they can convince you the expense is necessary, they get their money.
Any time a government agency is created, it will generally have a single Primary Purpose. The Primary Purpose is the same regardless of the agency.
TO CONTINUE TO EXIST.
And they will generally do all they can to guarantee they continue to exist. People in government like job security as much as the rest of us, and the people on top of government enjoy skimming resources, wallowing in power, and obtaining favors just as much as the people on top of corporations.
If they lose their funding, they lose everything.
So they make sure they never lose their funding. And if they can grow, even better. More power, prestige, favors, jobs, etc.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony, BlueHM - guess I've been fixating on the TSA lately and the security theatre being run at airports.
I am a huge critic of our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so I guess we agree on the waste of our resources in those areas, but this kid in Portland hardly seems to connect with those.
Justifying next years budget - yes, familiar with the tactic, but aren't there enough real targets to do so without turning this kid? Don't we have enough enemies with ruining this kid's life?
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Justifying next years budget - yes, familiar with the tactic, but aren't there enough real targets to do so without turning this kid? Don't we have enough enemies with ruining this kid's life?"
Hello,
That's a good question. I can only think of two answers.
1) There aren't enough real Terrorists to catch.
or
2) We can't catch the real ones.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Example of the kind of freedoms they take: The freedom to take a commercial flight without being irradiated or being fondled at the gate. Just one example.
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
As far as surrendering my freedoms, what freedoms and what do they want with them?
Why would they want to take freedoms? Control.
With enough freedoms taken and with enough control, the government can shape society into the kind of society they think is moral and just and right.
Really, taking our freedom is all for our own good.
Except when some people disagree with authority on what is "moral" and "just" and "right." It is fine when you agree. But if you disagree in a society where government has a large amount of control, you can't do anything to try to change it.
Witness China. Or Stalinist Russia. Or any other police state in history or throughout the world.
--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Or both, as in we can't catch the real ones because there aren't that many of them.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
1) There aren't enough real Terrorists to catch.
or
2) We can't catch the real ones.
Or if we catch real terrorists, we'll see what sorry, incompetent losers they all are and won't be frightened enough to justify giving govt more authority, money, and control.
--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
That's a good question. I can only think of two answers.
1) There aren't enough real Terrorists to catch.
Perhaps that's true, perhaps that's because "we've" been doing a
good job or our tactics are discouraging them? I doubt it though, on all counts.
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
or
2) We can't catch the real ones.
I tend to believe this of the 2, but that kind of goes back to "needs more funding" and the need is actually real.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
If I make a shampoo gun to kill terrorists with, and it fails to kill terrorists, would you fund a better shampoo gun? One with extra conditioner?
Or would you tell me that the shampoo gun isn't working, and to allocate my existing funds better?
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
If I make a shampoo gun to kill terrorists with, and it fails to kill terrorists, would you fund a better shampoo gun? One with extra conditioner?
Or would you tell me that the shampoo gun isn't working, and to allocate my existing funds better?
--Anthony
Silly Anthony
Terrorists never wash their hair! Thank god you're not in charge of security.Seriously, wouldn't it be great if it were that simple?? "Dude, you're using a shampoo gun. How about trying to do some real police work for a change?" I mean you could really tell why bad guys were blowing stuff up. Too bad it's harder than that, though honestly, I think a lot of Americans probably believe it is as simple as your analogy.
The trouble with your analogy is - how do you know their approach isn't working? Airport security isn't failing because it isn't catching anybody, it's succeeding because it isn't catching anybody.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I think Dandruff Control is the key, myself.
Unfortunately, there really isn't any effective oversight or review process. They write their own report cards. The only time anyone else gets seriously involved is when they fail in spectacular fashion. Then they get reviewed intensely, receive more money, and start writing their own report-cards again.
By the standard of not catching anybody while avoiding serious Terrorist incidents... Airport security was a smashing success for years before 9/11.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Reminds me of the Bear Patrol episode on the Simpsons (Much Apu About Nothing, Season 7).
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
The trouble with your analogy is - how do you know their approach isn't working? Airport security isn't failing because it isn't catching anybody, it's succeeding because it isn't catching anybody.
Quote:
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
That is why we have the scientific method. When you can't tell whether something is "working" or not, you try it on two groups which are as identical as possible. Change only the thing you are testing. Measure the outcomes in both groups. It's called an experiment.
For example, if they really wanted to see if X method is "working," they should try X in one group, and no X in the second group. Have the same group of people with various prohibited items walk through and see how many get caught. Then do it again and again with different people in different cities and scenarios. You'll start to get an idea of how effective X is.
--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME