Bomber stopped by FBI in Portland

POSTED BY: whozit
UPDATED: Thursday, December 2, 2010 17:42
VIEWED: 3080
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

KWICKO

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
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.

Bingo. Witness the latest WikiLeaks fiasco. Note the statements and tones coming out of the Pentagon and the State Department in the wake of the latest leaks. There's tons of talk about how "we need to beef up our security" and how "it's unfortunate that these documents got leaked" - and not once has anyone said that maybe, just MAYBE, we (a) shouldn't be trash-talking other folks in "secret" e-mails and memos, or saying anything about them in an e-mail that we wouldn't say to their faces, or (b) we probably don't need to classify things as "secret" or "classified" just because they contain potentially embarrassing characterizations of other diplomats and world leaders.

I fully expect the U.S. government to come out any day now and demand an apology from Julian Assange. America is now the abusive husband on the world stage... "See what you made me do? Why did you make me beat you again? Why do you do this to me? Why do you continue to make me brutalize you? Are you ready to apologize for your behavior?"66

And yes, the State Department wants to go back to writing its own report cards again. And they want us to make sure they have enough money to insure that NOBODY can get their "sensitive" documents, so they can go right back to trash-talking the rest of the world without ever worrying about the consequences. And of course, they'll now need a much larger budget to see to that "security"...

This Space For Rent!

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
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.
Reminds me of the Bear Patrol episode on the Simpsons (Much Apu About Nothing, Season 7).

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

Why presume they haven't been experimenting and testing?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
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

Indeed it was. Seems like things/people/motivations changed though and we didn't change to address that (how'd we know?). So I suspect that that's what this new airport security process is a response to. Even shampoo changes.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
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.

Bingo. Witness the latest WikiLeaks fiasco. Note the statements and tones coming out of the Pentagon and the State Department in the wake of the latest leaks. There's tons of talk about how "we need to beef up our security" and how "it's unfortunate that these documents got leaked" - and not once has anyone said that maybe, just MAYBE, we (a) shouldn't be trash-talking other folks in "secret" e-mails and memos, or saying anything about them in an e-mail that we wouldn't say to their faces, or (b) we probably don't need to classify things as "secret" or "classified" just because they contain potentially embarrassing characterizations of other diplomats and world leaders.

I fully expect the U.S. government to come out any day now and demand an apology from Julian Assange. America is now the abusive husband on the world stage... "See what you made me do? Why did you make me beat you again? Why do you do this to me? Why do you continue to make me brutalize you? Are you ready to apologize for your behavior?"66

And yes, the State Department wants to go back to writing its own report cards again. And they want us to make sure they have enough money to insure that NOBODY can get their "sensitive" documents, so they can go right back to trash-talking the rest of the world without ever worrying about the consequences. And of course, they'll now need a much larger budget to see to that "security"...

Heh - it's like Haken posted every Private Message ever sent... China said North Korea acted like children, which is crazy because we all act like children.

Anthony: "Unfortunately, there really isn't any effective oversight or review process."
I agree that's a problem - there is the GAO, POGO, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_On_Government_Oversight and We The People, and others but everyone in Gov needs as much oversight as we can afford.

Mike: "America is now the abusive husband on the world stage... "See what you made me do? Why did you make me beat you again? Why do you do this to me? Why do you continue to make me brutalize you? Are you ready to apologize for your behavior?"66" So you still *like* America?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Why presume they haven't been experimenting and testing?

As a general rule, I presume negatives before I presume positives.

I presume unicorns do NOT exist until you show me evidence that they do.

If you tell me you've seen a unicorn with your own eyes, I'll presume you are NOT lying unless someone shows me evidence that you lied.

If you have evidence that they did experiment and test the effectiveness of AIT scanning, I will happily stand corrected.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:34 PM

CTS,
That seems far too reasonable an approach for message board communication...

ESTEAD

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:40 PM

Hello Fremdfirma,
As a transplanted Portlander who was not asked, but is not upset with what we know so far of the way the FBI has handled this case, I have a question for you.

When so few facts are available about the case, why do you so quickly agree with an uninvolved photographer's opinion, rather than waiting to hear what actually happened?

Thank you.

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Why presume they haven't been experimenting and testing?
As a general rule, I presume negatives before I presume positives.

I presume unicorns do NOT exist until you show me evidence that they do.

If you tell me you've seen a unicorn with your own eyes, I'll presume you are NOT lying unless someone shows me evidence that you lied.

If you have evidence that they did experiment and test the effectiveness of AIT scanning, I will happily stand corrected.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

Ah, presuming the negative first, that certainly is the American way, "We're in decline... I'm not getting my fair share... the rich have it all... TPTB want our freedoms... it's broken! Wait, I needed to turn it on first..."
Why start with a bias ("I presume negatives before I presume positives") ? You double your chances of being right if you don't presume either.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
You double your chances of being right if you don't presume either.

I don't need to be right.

Presumption is just a nice place to stand until I have reason to change places.

I change places quite often and with pleasure.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by estead:
Hello Fremdfirma,
As a transplanted Portlander who was not asked, but is not upset with what we know so far of the way the FBI has handled this case, I have a question for you.

When so few facts are available about the case, why do you so quickly agree with an uninvolved photographer's opinion, rather than waiting to hear what actually happened?

Because some of the case files are public information, and I had a local media contact fax me the relevant pieces, specifically the affadavit, and read it.

Oregon Live has it posted in PDF if you'd like to read it yourself.
http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/USAFFIDAVIT.pdf

Glenn Greenwald also does an excellent breakdown of it here.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/28/fbi/index
.html

But essentially, never assume that just because the mainstream media hasn't handed out the facts of a case (which they often never do, especially if they have a political bias-stake in spinning the story one way or the other) that no one else has them, or that independant media doesn't.

These days most of our mainstream media is just an echo chamber anyway, almost every outlet running the same copy/pasted press release without even so much as verifying it cause it's cheaper than sending a reporter or investigative team in - one of the local college professors almost started a panic around here by showing just how easy it is to insert entirely fake stories into the local news-stream for that reason.

In this case I happened to be fortunate enough to have an Indymedia contact in Portland and thus it was as simple as a phone call, and didn't even have to wait on it cause they were already covering the story.
http://portland.indymedia.org/
Mind you, they ain't the most efficient or professional of the IMC crowd, but they're sure better than copy/pasted press releases, neh ?

There's also the history here, given that time after time after time after time, the FBI has done shit like this, up to and including handing a real terrorist (Ramzi Youssef) a real bomb, and indirectly causing one of the most damaging terrorist incidents in american history...

So, if you were to see a guy who you knew had been arrested nine times for auto theft trying to use a slimjim to unlock a car - would YOU believe him when he told you it was just that he locked his keys in there ?
Or would you have some just cause to think he was lying to you ?

How many of these "plots" have been nothing more than a bunch of losers who can barely survive on their own, set up, guided and financed by a planted agent ?
Why, damn near all of em, of course - upon investigation every single one follows this same pattern, and you expect me to believe that this time would be different than any other when the FIRST piece of hard evidence to hit my hands is that the fucking FBI was paying his *rent* ?

And yes, we do jump on these quickly, before they can sweep it under the rug as "classified" to cover their own asses, not to mention involvement.

Again, I say it - our so called protectors are a protection RACKET, and I wouldn't even discount the possibility of them helping stage a real attack were we to start hacking up their budget and cutting their personnel, cause many of em are "True Believer" RWA types who honestly *believe* some of the shit they're shovelling with all the fervor of your typical religious nutter, and so with them the ends justify *any* means - and if you don't believe me about it, peruse any of their own internal documents from the Church Committee files.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

This ain't a matter of me agreeing with someone elses opinion so much as knowing what they ARE, knowing what they've DONE, and the firm belief that our own so-called protectors are a greater terrorist threat to our people, our country, than any of the incompetent morons or would be terrorist kingpins(1) they keep holding up to scare us with.

Quote:
We have been told of phantoms and ideal dangers to l

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME