11 total posts
Remember who set up Homeland Security and the NSA?
Of course we can't trust them. They're the government. Wonder if we can get this forum declared extremist and really have fun - don't have to play nice.
I enjoy reading Linux Journal
they have some good articles at times. I'm a little curious why an online magazine would be a focus on NSA. It's not like they are keeping secrets as much as writing about them.
Homeland Security: Bush 43 because of 9-11
NSA: Pretty much FDR....because of Pearl Harbor
Although the NSA existed prior to Pearl Harbor it didn't have much of a role because we also had the National Security Council.....things began to incorporate and merge then, but even then most of the agencies, both civilian and military, didn't share information. If I remember correctly there was a report that came out of 9-11 that pointed the finger of blame directly at the agencies NOT sharing so even though intel was there, some had more information than others and nothing was coordinated enough to realize the real threat from the chatter.
HLS and the new directives for NSA by Bush forced the sharing.....then NSA got blamed publicly for not being politically correct enough because we were using many of the same methods Israel uses for security and was accused of targeting Muslims (or people who were believed to be Muslim because of their skin hues). That led to EVERYONE being scrutinized in order to be more PC, and continues today, especially at airports.
BO actually expanded the NSA into areas that Bush didn't even go into....and got caught and had to supposedly back down 'somewhat'. The only domestic extremists now that need constant surveillance is this administration it seems. If they would treat terrorists like terrorists instead of common criminals, our intel would be much better than it is.....intel is for the FUTURE....and we aren't gathering anywhere near enough because we are, again, too PC for our own good. "For OUR own good" is the key to national security....not "THE TERRORIST'S OWN GOOD".
RE: we aren't gathering anywhere near enough because we are,
we aren't gathering anywhere near enough because we are, again, too PC for our own good. "For OUR own good" is the key to national security....not "THE TERRORIST'S OWN GOOD".
Exactly WHERE does "OUR own good" end when the line the terrorist stops at is always moving? (If there is a line)Technology and innovation in a changing world.
Try it, you might like it?
He point out that his country overcame two dictatorships. He says Germans know how much impact government could inflict by having reams of personal information on its populace. "So that's why we're so skeptical if a single person or state knows so much about you," he adds.
BTW Did you get a solution to blocking the unwanted emails you were receiving?
The line moves as well, JP
You constantly target terrorists....and you backtrack THEIR communications to others here in the US, including radicalized people living here. I don't care if that means constant surveillance on Muslims since that's where most of those terrorists are coming from. Stop the PC madness....if Muslims don't like being targeted they should be willing to come out against the radicals, and they don't go in that direction. They stay mum and allow their silence to be interpreted as approval. If they get targeted, too bad....
About the 2400 attacks
I don't see where it states what is considered a terrorist attack. Does it only mean such that did or intended to cause death or physical injury to humans? Could spray painted threats on someone's property be considered a terrorist attack? Does an attack on one person count the same as flying planes into buildings? Under the religion category, does beard cutting count? The pie chart also shows left wing extremists but not right wing extremists. I thought Timothy McVeigh was referred to as a right winger. I imagine that if the chart was re-done using death or serious injury as the criteria, the pie pieces would look differently.
I never said all Muslims
are terrorists.....I said they should all be monitored....because their faith is our biggest national security threat. If that's not PC enough for you, too bad.
As for Conley....she was actually turned in to be checked on by a pastor of the church she 'belonged' to. She ASKED for that interrogation and VOLUNTEERED to agents what she intended to do.
Re: I never said all Muslims
you also didn't say "some" Muslims.
I don't care if that means constant surveillance on Muslims
It's like when someone says
Canadians are polite....It doesn't mean all Canadians are polite.
Yes...and you are parsing words
I believe that ALL Muslims here in the USA should be monitored....I DIDN'T say that all Muslims are terrorists. If they don't want to be monitored, they should be vocal about condemning all RADICAL Muslims, which only a handful are willing to do at this point, even so many years after their war against us began.