So, let's forget about the UFO guys and the "it wasn't airplanes it was missiles" nutjobs. What about a much more plausible conspiracy? i.e. Bush (or one of his friends) having an agreement with Osama (Let's not forget that the Bin Ladens DID have business with the Bush family - i'm talking about Oil).
This is not as far out as it seems. What everybody seems to forget is that Bin Laden was a CIA agent for years and years when he was part of the mujahideen that were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. He was our boy, on our payroll. We gave him cash, weapons, logistical support, equipment and god knows what else. So what I wanna know is this:
When exactly did Bin Laden quit the CIA?
That's all I wanna know. Well, that and how he did it. I just can't imagine that leaving the employ of the CIA is as easy as leaving, say, Sears. Do they hold you an office party where you're blindfolded the whole time or something? Do they just say, "Remember all that classified info you were privy to over the years? Can you, like, not say anything to anyone about that? K, thx, bye."
It all seems a little fishy. Can somebody point me to a document proving Bin Laden is no longer working for the CIA? Otherwise, don't we have to assume that he is still in their pocket?
You know, I give a lot of shit to Bush. I trash him all the time, call him a dictator and a fascist, and pray for his impeachment. But this poll is probably even more disturbing that the NSA revelations of yesterday, because it reveals the depth of the apathy, stupidity and cowardice of the American public. Today, I am ashamed to be an American.
This isn't Bush's fault (well, the spying part is). This is the fault of the American people. Fucking sheep. We deserve to suffer for this. And we will.
If we don't stand up and say "Enough!" now, then we might as well forget about exercising our rights in the future. If the government can simultaneously violate the 4th amendment rights of 200 million Americans and not catch hell for it, then we're fucked. Game over. No more democracy. It was a fun experiment, but apparently people are stupid and want to be ruled with an iron fist. Democracy is hard. It requires too much thinking, voting, paying attention and other hard stuff. Stuff that's hard is bad! Waaahhh!!
The thing that always surprises me about these Giant Conspiracy nutjobs is that they never really ask themselves how such a conspiracy would *work*. There must be thousands of people in the know, going back for at least 30 years -- and they really think this wouldn't have leaked by now??
Works pretty well, I'd say. If somebody ever comes out and starts telling secrets, they are immediately branded a "giant conspiracy nutjob." And after that.... and after that nothing. Nobody pays attention to them any more. Case closed. I wonder how many of the people who screamed "nutjob" had even finished reading the article before they made up their mind. I wonder how many have done any serious research into the matter.
I'm not saying this guy is for real. You'd think he'd get something better than dialup if this is his obsession. But to claim that a massive conspiracy couldn't work is just ludicrous. It's all about getting people to play along, while compartmentalizing knowledge. It's possible nobody really knows all the big secrets out there. So then is it really even a conspiracy? Sounds more like it's just our fucked up world, where everyone thinks he knows everything.
The NSA can't randomly listen in on international calls for more than a year or two without someone blowing the whistle. The CIA grabs some very bad guy in Pakistan and holds his head underwater, and a few months later we can all read about it in the New Yorker.
The NSA has been listening to domestic calls for over 30 years. Get a clue. Read some of my older posts for more information on this. It's people like you who make "conspiracy" possible, because you don't question what leaders tell you. The reason why nobody is too shocked about Bush's international call spying is because most people of power in Washington know that the NSA has been monitoring domestic calls for decades. It's really not that big of a deal. But you can't talk about it in polite company without being branded a nutjob, no matter how many facts are on your side.
You're not one of those people who doesn't believe in any conspiracies, are you? There are folks out there who reject the very idea of a conspiracy, saying that it has never happened, in all of human history - EVER....And people say conspiracy "theorists" are the nutjobs. sheesh. The whole coincidence theory crowd actually just makes the conspiracy theorist crowd more paranoid because it leads them to believe that everyone has been brainwashed. In a way, I suppose, it's true.
Conspiracies can be very benign and very mundane. For instance, I am party to a secret conspiracy to fool people worldwide. I bet you are, too. It involves telling children that a fat guy in a red suit flies around the planet delivering presents to the entire world in just 24 hours. That's right: Santa Claus. Have you ever really wondered why we tell our children such ridiculous lies? And the creepy thing is that every adult is in on the conspiracy. How can it be possible that we are all a party to this vast conspiracy? What do we even have to gain from it?
The weird thing is, if you dare to tell a child the truth, their parents will get upset at you! It's insane. I met a guy recently who admitted he believed in Santa until he was 16 years old. And somebody had to tell him! He was devastated! Now, if this guy tells me there's no such thing as UFOs, should I believe him? Personally, I was rigging boobytraps for Santa by the time I was 6 or 7 years old.
My point is, don't be so sure that our leaders are telling the truth. Sometimes people -- no, whole cultures lie, for no good reason. That doesn't mean Gary McKinnon isn't full of shit, but it's impossible to know for sure. There is certainly more to our world than meets the eye.
If you want a series similar to Evagelion, I suggest checking out RahXephon. In my opinion it's vastly superior to Neon Genesis in almost every way. Better artwork, better story (and more understandable), less annoying characters and some decent humor. Oh, and giant frickin' robots. Where would anime be without giant robots? RahXephon also has a lot of symbolism and mystery, and a lot of things that really set it apart from NGE. I shouldn't give anything away. I'm only on episode 20 myself...
Or how about: "We shouldn't use computers because they will take over the world and enslave humanity! Terminator and The Matrix says so!"
You ignore the possibility at your peril. But I'm much more worried about humans using technology to enslave other humans. After all, we've been doing that for thousands of years (chains used to be cutting edge) and I see no reason why it won't continue to happen.
Just because a book/movie is fiction doesn't mean it doesn't have truth in it. In fact, people have been hiding truth in fiction for years, as a way of encoding knowledge so that only the initiates or the wise could decrypt it. I think John, author of Revelation, would be just fine if you considered Revelation to be fiction. Do you think he was writing about a literal seven-headed dragon? He was either tripping balls or hiding knowledge in a fictional story (or both).
I think the problem here is your blind hatred of religion and religious people. I understand completely. I hate organized religion with a passion. But I'm not going to automatically hate or distrust a person just because they are involved with religion. Besides, I think Jesus was a pretty cool guy; it's his followers who are a bunch of hypocritical assholes.
As far as RFID sub-dermal implants, you'd have to be incredibly naïve not to think this technology is dangerous. It's not a question of whether it will be abused, it's a question of when. Of course, I can't stop some idiot from getting himself chipped, and I don't really care if he does. But if this becomes as pseudo-necessary as owning a car or having a credit card, we've got problems. The chips, as they become more advanced, will tie the chipped into the grid so deeply that there's no coming back. The government would love to get rid of cash and go all-electronic. And the general public is ignorant about why biosecurity is a bad idea; they think having a chip in your hand means never getting pickpocketed again. This technology is dangerous; you're a fool if you can't see it, but go ahead and get chipped if you think it's so great. Of course to do so is tantamount to admitting colossal ignorance about biosecurity, government oppression, human history, and basic human psychology. So go ahead. Be my guest.
I don't know why you keep responding like that, it just makes me more right and you more childish.
Hahahaaaa..... You really are a treat. You're just like one of those, uhh.. trolls. Wait, wait, Mr. Troll. Tell me again how when I respond that makes me childish, but when you respond it doesn't. Oh, that's right, you're a liar, who is also a delusional psychotic. You lash out angrily at the world and everyone around you. When somebody calls you on it, you accuse them of being exactly what you know that you are. So when you call me childish, we both know that you are secretly aware that you are the one who is acting like a 4 year old with a temper tantrum. A simple glance at your posting history proves that it is you who is acting like a baby, refusing to own up to the fact that you've been proven wrong, several times over. I guess, when your ego is so brutally damaged, you have no choice. I almost feel sorry for you.
Well, at least you're polite enough to sign your posts.
That was the best you could come up with? I called you a liar, with proof galore, and this is all you've got? That's pretty sad, dude. I think you're slipping up. Maybe your Argument Strategies for Fascist Dummies book didn't have an appropriate trick for you to use. Well, better luck next time. I guess you're pretty much beyond trying to prove any of your points (do you have any?) since I've basically crushed your entire argument into a fine powder. That won't stop you, though. I'm sure you'll write back and call me a child. And man will I be impressed by that. Wow! A child?! That is one awesome insult. Ooooooo.... I'm quaking in my boots just thinking about it.
I must admit, I didn't actually read your post. I just got to this part and broke out laughing:
But AGAIN, SLOWLY because that's how you need it, you NEVER refuted me. YOU refuted a STRAW MAN (look it up, I know such concepts are difficult for those like you) and not MY POSITION.
Hahahahahaaaaaaaa! I was the one who explained to you what a straw-man was, you moron.
Jeepers, am I arguing with a random insult generator? What a waste. You're nothing more than a garden-variety troll. COULD you PUT ANY more all-CAPS words IN your POSTS? Hahaa.
In fact, the very idea that you had to look it up AFTER acting as though you knew what it meant demonstrates how far off the mark you were.
Actually, no. It proves how cool I am.:-) Your statement makes no sense because I was right initially and I'm right currently. You have to resort to rhetorical tricks because you have no actual arguments. If you really wanna rehash it, we can go over it again. I'm fine with continuing this flamewar indefinitely. I proved you wrong, and I'm not going to let you spin it any other way. So spin away, spinmeister.
I guess you think saying the last thing makes it true, but in reality it only leaves the readers of your post with the distinct idea that you're too pathetic and cowardly to admit all the things you got wrong.
Please list all of the things I've gotten wrong.
I've already listed the major point of contention as a victory for me. You really have nothing else going for you except insults and ultimatums. You keep implying that if I reply to your posts that means you were proved right somehow. Yet another fallacious argument from a person who does nothing but insult me and make bold statements with absolutely nothing to back them up. So, keep it up. We can keep this sorry excuse for a flamewar going all week.
And yet, again I'm right and you're not.
Wow. You summarized your whole "argument" in one sentence. So what are all the other sentences for? Oh that's right: insults.
You should try to rise above your obvious intellectual inferiority and accept that my points are stronger, more reasoned, and more accurate than yours.
AHAHaahahahaaaaaa!!! Funny. Good one. That was very Stephen Colbert of you. You're relying on "truthiness" rather than "truth." Very funny, except that Colbert does it better and I get the nagging impression that you weren't trying to be funny.
Anyway, I shouldn't even reply to your "post", but I thought I'd call you on a couple of your more obvious failings. First, you threatened not to reply last time... but you did. In fact, it took you 3 days to come up with a reply to my post. But your reply contains nothing but insults. NOTHING. It's not even a reply so much as a random insult generator. Your insults of my intellect have revealed nothing but your own lacking in that regard. You have no facts. You have no arguments. You were afraid to attack the meat of my argument wherein I stripped your argument to the bone and reduced it to confetti-like shreds. You were proven absolutely, 100% wrong, and you don't seem to be taking that very well. So you decided to flame me instead of taking on my arguments. What are we even arguing about except your damaged ego? That's what this is really about, isn't it? Look, you gave yourself some good advice: get over it. It's okay to be wrong.... as long as you're man enough to admit it.
I'm sure it's not the first time you've failed to win a debate. In fact I can guess it's not the first time today (since I've wiped the floor with you repeatedly already).
I'm sorry. I really shouldn't belabor the point, but this quote is sooo funny. You're so completely in denial that it's sad, but the fact that you're lying on the ground, bleeding profusely and saying, "okay, I've whopped ya ass. I'll give you one more chance to walk away" is so funny that I can't stop laughing.
Anyway, your bruised ego isn't a laughing matter and I should be more kind. Be that as it may, the fact remains that I won this argument. You may not want it to be true, but it is. In your initial reply to my post, you slagged me for not understanding NPOV. But in subsequent posts I was able to demonstrate exactly what NPOV means in the Wikipedia context by quoting directing from the relevant page. It proved your point wrong. End of story.
First off: thanks for the rational, non-hatefilled post. It's a rarity in this thread.
He didn't, according to his actual post... he moved what are by any reasonable measure "fringe" theories about 9/11 to the bottom of the article, rather than keeping them in the main body.
You put "fringe" in quotes. Why? Perhaps you realize that people who don't like a theory will often deride it as "extremist" or "fringe" or "loony." It has nothing to do with whether it's factual; it's a prejorative slam that completely sidesteps any meaningful research into whether or not a theory has any factual basis. If we let all alternative theories be rejected in such a manor, there wouldn't BE any alternative theories presented.
You're taking too many liberties in assuming that any alternative theories surrounding 9/11 are fringe. There was a Zogby poll that revealed Half of New Yorkers Believe US Let 9/11 Happen. That doesn't sound very "fringe" to me. Especially since there has been a near-total mainstream media blackout on alternative theories. I'm sure you'd get different results in Oklahoma, but the fact that they polled New Yorkers is extremely relevant in this context.
You can't "disagree" with evidence (it either exists or it doesn't... though which one is the case can itself be a point of disagreement) -- you can, however, disagree with a particular interpretation of the evidence. However, again judging by his post, it doesn't seem like he was concerned by particular evidence that was presented in the article, but by extremist theories. You seem to lump theories and evidence together, which isn't really appropriate. It is reasonable to say that all the evidence should be presented. It is not reasonable to say that every theory, regardless of the corresponding evidence, should be included in the main body of the article.
You're saying a lot here, but let me yank a few things out and lend them a different perspective. In a perfect word, you can't disagree with evidence. But we don't live in one, and there are a lot of people (on all sides) who cherry-pick the evidence to support their claims, and intentionally exclude evidence which supports alternative theories, even if that same evidence does not directly undermind their preferred theory. What I'm saying is that evidence that supports alternative theories is systematically erased by the pro-official story crowd. Huge facts, like the collapse of WTC 7 are completely ignored by the media and supporters of the gov's theory. I personally don't know which (if any) alernate theory is correct, but I do know a coverup when I see one. I think ALL of the facts should be presented, regardless of whether somebody was able to tar them with the "fringe" label. I think we mostly agree in this regard, but I'm concerned about your "fringe" usage, because it makes it too easy to exclude theories. And when you exclude theories, than the facts and evidence that support those theories tends to get shoved down the memory hole as well.
Also, perhaps this is just a phrasing issue, but even if (and I don't agree with this) a NPOV means you are obligated to mention all existing explanations, it does not mean you have to highlight (your word) the ones you disagree with. It is reasonable to distinguish between theories that are supported by a large amount of evidence or that are the simplest explanations, versus complicated conspiracy theories that are pieced together by obscure, contested partial evidence.
Maybe YOU don't have to highlight theories you don't agree with, but does that give you the right to suppress somebody who does agree with them? I agree that weaker theories should be called out as lacking evidence, but you seem to be unaware that the government's official story IS a conspiracy theory, and one that is not well supported by the facts at that. Physicists, demolition experts and architects are questioning how the twin towers collapsed, and the government has yet to
Ok Mr. I like to accuse others of using logical fallacies while using one myself. WHERE DID I ATTRIBUTE THAT STATEMENT TO YOU?
Well, let's see: you used quotes. You replied to my post. And you implied that you were refuting my arguments, even though you had made up your own. Can you not see it from my POV? Lacking some objectivity are we? I can see it from your POV, and I can see how it would be an honest (or at least mostly-honest) mistake. Apology accepted.
Your assumption that opposing viewpoints belong in an article is the explanation for MY statement.
Your implicit assumption that opposing viewpoints do NOT belong in a given article is downright scary. Your One-POV-per-article idea reeks of fascism. And it has become clear that it is you who does not understand NPOV, so let me quote it for you:
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
Emphasis mine.
So, while you were quick to tar me as ignorant, it is you who does not understand. I think what you're missing is that NPOV is a meta-point-of-view. It contains multiple contradictory POVs within it. It is neutral in that it does not claim that one of the POVs is unquestionably correct, nor does it attempt to find the middle ground and declare that correct. The idea is to describe all significant POVs, fairly, and let the reader decide.
I can see where the next sticking point is: the word "significant." Well, let me just say that I am as surprised as anyone that my original post wasn't modded into oblivion. Perhaps the alternative theories are more popular than you might imagine. But as mentioned above, popularity is not the deciding factor. We have to look at the evidence; something you've been reluctant to do, it seems. Maybe you should spend less time arguing with me and more time researching what may be the greatest crime/coverup in our lifetimes.
Re:No, and they've explained it OVER AND OVER
on
Wal-mart's Wikipedia War
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
NPOV does not mean "give equal treatment to all viewpoints".
Where exactly did I say that it did? Go back and reread my original post and you won't find anything like the words you have in quotes. Seems to me that you are intentionally making up bogus arguments so it will be easier for you to rebut them. That's a classic straw-man argument.
Where do you get off insisting they be included? Again NPOV DOES NOT mean equal treatment for all view points.
Your straw-men notwithstanding, if you reread my orginal post, you'll note that I pointed to the available evidence that supports alternative theories. There's evidence that pokes huge, gaping holes in the official story (why did building 7 collapse, for instance?). There is also evidence that supports the official story. My point is that there should be no litmus test (i.e. does this evidence support the official story? if not, we shouldn't include it), except that of NPOV and truth. Both are impossible to achieve, but the important thing is to aim for objectivity. This has nothing to do with "equal treatment." It has everything to do with facts and reality. It may not be a comforting thought that our government would do something like this, but your personal feelings don't amount to squat in the context of NPOV. All that matters is facts and evidence, and there are plenty of both to suggest that the official story is bunk.
Links to conspiracy articles, including some that claim the U.S. government was directly responsible, were contained within the core of the article.
So? A lot of the available evidence points to a possible conspiracy within the government. Wikipedia is supposed to have a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). That includes highlighting theories and evidence that you don't agree with. Since when did you have a right to scrub the entry "clean" for the rest of us. Where do you get off deleting opposing points of view?
9/11 is messy business. Give us the facts, give us the evidence, give us theories (both mainstream and alternative) and let us -- the reader -- decide. That fact that your deletions/modifications were overturned indicates to me that the system was working.
...literally. I'm sure some of you are already aware of the open-source Democracy Player that the Participatory Culture Foundation has pulled together. For those who aren't, I would urge you to download it and give it a spin. The player merges bittorrent, rss and VLC (or Quicktime on the Mac) into a single cohesive platform. You can start your own channels if you've got content and a webserver. Bittorrent is built into it so that you're sharing as you're downloading, which takes some of the load off your webserver. It sounds like a really cool idea, but it needs some help to get off the ground floor.
It's still in beta, and it runs slowly on my Mac, but the way you can subscribe to channels or just download individual shows/clips is pretty cool. Could this be the future of TV? It's not really on-demand; it's more like demand-then-wait-for-download, but you get better video quality than most streaming solutions. I'd be curious to know what people think of this idea.
There's plenty of wars out there to keep all of them rich; there's no requirememnt to start new ones.
That's circular logic, falling on the negative side. You're assuming that they didn't start any of the "plenty" wars that already exist (and feed into each other, creating new ones). They are rich because they know how to start wars. They are in the business of war - you don't think they have any vested interest in constant warfare? I've got news for you: every company wants a stable (and rising) bottom line. And if the executives in charge can't deliver that, the board will usually remove them and fine someone who can.
Congressmen often say that they get a lot of dire predictions and studies and sales pitches right around budget time from all the bureaucrats in the Pentagon, and from the defense companies and their lobbyists. They use fear to encourage our congress critters to pony up the dough for a budget that was bigger than last year, and the year before that. They have a nexus generals who will play into this fear campaign and give apocalyptic prognostications on demand (military men aren't idealists).
Face facts: our leaders and our business community and our military command structure all get together and create wars on whatever pretext they can muster. They consider it good for the economy and good for America. I consider it evil.
It seems pretty clear that Iran is next on the list.
Where the hell do you get these ideas?
I read. I read books that aren't just patriotic hornblowing. I also have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single fucking thing any politician says when a mic's on. It's a very rare condition, apparently. Only known cure is execution.
i have to agree that america needs war, but look at how the economy changes for the better everytime there is a war. truly their is more then likly a better solution but at the same time look what war weeds out of the country. if there was a draft wouldnt the country be completly different, no more murders on the loose all of them weilding guns in a foreign country doning what they do best. not to mention that fact that this country was born out of war. so is it even a surpise, i for one believe that war for america is a good thing
You speak of the economy as if that was the only thing we need to consider. The equation is far more complex than you make it out to be. You say it's all about the economy. I say, what about morality? What about the basic human kindness of not rampantly killing each other? Besides, war is only fun if you're winning. But you always lose eventually.
Your fantasic delusions of a crime-free society in an endless series of wars reminds me greatly of 1984. Perhaps you should read that book.
People blame one president for what the FBI, NSA, DHS, etc. are up to, and when that president leaves, it all continues as if nothing had changed. Aren't government bureaucracies the same, the world over?
You are very much correct. In the US, we refer to it as the Military-Industrial Complex. Some things don't change every 4 years, and the MIC is one of them. The Military-Industrial Complex is a term coined by Eisenhower to describe the entangled relationship of Congress, the Military and Big Business (industry - especially defense contractors).
I've noticed how somethings in our government really don't change. Take Cuba for example. It's been over 45 years and our policy towards Cuba hasn't changed on iota, even after all the different administrations we've been through. In fact, the military very much wanted to attack Cuba back in the 60's. After JFK was able to defuse that situation they decided to escalate Vietnam instead. You see, we need to have wars every few years in order to keep our poor defense contractors fed. We try to minimize (American) casualties, but it's very important that we bomb the hell out of some poor backwards-ass country every few years so we can test out all our cool new weapons, while using up the old ones. We can't buy too many new bombs until we use up the old ones, and how will we field-test each new generation of soldiers unless there's a real conflict to fight in? War is just a business like any other. In fact, you could say it's the engine of our whole economy. Now that you know the War in Iraq is all about buying yachts for the executives and lobbyists of Boeing, Lockheed, and other megacorps, don't you feel so much better about it? War is the American way.
There's a word for that system of government: Fascism.
I'm surprised that you haven't been modded flamebait already by the (guess who!) fascists. I'm glad you weren't modded down, because you are 100% correct.
I understand those of you who are in denial, however. The idea that America is slowly going fascist is a big, painful pill to swallow. However, the fact remains that corporations have unprecedented control of our society, and our government. Corporations are the primary institution of our time, just as capitalism is primary ideology (not democracy, that's for sure. How often do you vote? How often do you shop? Compare.) of 21st century America. Add to this unfortunate mix the shadow government in the form of the Military-Industrial Complex, and you have a recipe for the hidden hand of fascism.
I leave you with a quote from Mussolini:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
That would only require AT&T to spend millions of dollars on additional infrastructure. AT&T being a business, they would fight the order tooth and nail. Has that happened?
Doubt it. The companies involved the first time around (during the Cold War) apparently did it for free. The government simply appealed to their patriotism (the military was the group that actually asked them - would you say no to the military?) and apparently never compensated them, though that may not really be the case. There was probably some tit-for-tat going on. Besides, any company wants to be on the government's good side, right? They probably see it as a cost of doing business. See the recent Google Goes to China fiasco for more insight into that mindset. As long as it's not prohibitively expensive (read: difficult to make a profit) most companies probably wouldn't have a problem with it. It's all to save us from Teh Terr'rists after all.
I don't doubt that the NSA has massive surveillance resources, but they're not the fuckin' Illuminati for christ's sake. They're a government organization staffed by human beings, and as such they probably don't have their shit together enough to do all the shadowy things you think they're doing.
You're right, they're not omnipotent, but they're not idiots either. They own and operate what is probably the largest supercomputer on the planet. They operate in the shadows, with virtually no oversight from Congress, and the current administration is obsessed with secrecy and spying. Whether they can spy successfully is an open question, but there's no question that they are trying. I think it's actually much more likely that you are the deluded one. They are probably doing way more stuff than I have mentioned so far, and probably doing it well. Their foreign surveillance work is top-notch; we didn't become the sole superpower by sucking at signals intelligence, that's for sure. I would encourage you to do some research on the matter before falling back into that "teh guvmint is incompetent and they sux"-style of "logic." I've provided facts, links and insight. Now it's your turn to follow up.
ECHELON is a highly secretive world-wide signals intelligence and analysis network run by the UKUSA Community. [1] ECHELON can capture radio and satellite communications, telephone calls, faxes and e-mails nearly anywhere in the world and includes computer automated analysis and sorting of intercepts. [2] ECHELON is estimated to intercept up to 3 billion communications every day.
3 billions sounds like a lot to me. It's a good thing that NSA has some of the most advanced and powerful computers on the planet. It's top secret of course, but you can probably imagine that their setup makes Google's look like an old Acer on dialup.
Now, are they talking about forwarding ALL AT&T traffic to NSA? I find that really really hard to believe. How much data is that? Can someone point to some known tech that can handle that....ALL that data? I'm not asking for "secret-I-bet-they-have-cold-fusion-computers" BS tech that someone *thinks* the NSA has.
You had it right in your first sentence. AT&T is forwarding all of their call data to the NSA. The NSA doesn't need any super-cool tech in order to intercept this data since AT&T (and the other telecom companies) simply send this data directly to them. Don't get me wrong, though - the NSA has some amazing technology. All of this data is processed, filtered, tagged and entered into a massive database.
I'm currently reading Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency by James Bamford. It's not light reading, but it's fascinating....and extremely disturbing. The fascinating part is that we've been here before. This exact scenario already happened in the 60's and 70's, until information about it was leaked (by the NY Times, no less) and it was investigated by the Church Committee circa 1975. It was called Project SHAMROCK then, and it involved the phone companies and Western Union delivering huge magnetic tape reels to the NSA on a regular basis. The project was so secret that only a few people within the NSA where even aware of it.
Until the Congressional investigation, hardly anybody within the White House or Justice Department had even heard whispers of it. Congress, of course, was completely out of the loop. This obsession with secrecy goes back to the very founding of the NSA. The NSA operated with no Congressional oversight for decades (it was called "No Such Agency"), and its existance probably wasn't even constitutionally legal/valid, but the information that it provided to other agencies (mostly the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff) was so good that by the time Congress found out about it, it was indispensible. Today the NSA is the largest of the intelligence agencies (yes you read that right - larger than the CIA), although its exact budget is classified.
Second, this is just an accusation. There's one guy that has some documents that say that's what AT&T is doing. For all we know, this guy could be wearing tin-foil hats and singing to his dog about the aliens.
The only loonies around here are the people who think that the government isn't spying on Americans every single day. Now, that doesn't mean that they are listening to you in real time, and hanging on your every word. But all/most of your calls are recorded, digitized and handed to the NSA. From there, it is probably entered into a massive database. From there they can filter out unimportant calls and use data mining techniques to pull up relevant information. They use the ECHELON computer software to sift through information, which probably works similar to Google, with keyword searches and a list of search results.
If you still don't believe me, why don't you have a conversation with a friend, where you discuss planting bombs around town. See how long it takes the feds to show up.
I think the identity theft problem could be solved fairly easily if we persuaded Congress to pass legislation stating that whenever a company (or government branch) loses person's private information then that person is owed, say $1,000. I think banks would get serious about the public's privacy pretty damn quick. Now all we need to do is get Congress to pass this legislation, which is clearly pro-consumer and somewhat burdensome to big-finance...
The Bush administration has announced plans to kill the Freedom of Information Act, saying that it "gives the terr'rists aid and comfort."
When asked if he would support the administration's efforts, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said, "I...uh... what? They're going to kill what? Oh, well. I guess. I must obey my masters."
The ACLU released a statement condemning the move, but they were clubbed and beaten by government thugs before they could take any questions from reporters.
It's curious you would mention the Popular Mechanics article because that was the article that got me doubting the official story in the first place! At the time, I was still undecided on the issue and that article pushed me in the exact opposite direction they were aiming for. The piece was so filled with absolute hatred for anybody who dared to question the official story that it set off warning bells in my head. After that, I resolved to find out the truth for myself.
Give it up. You're part of the new generation of moon hoaxers who are some of the most annoying, blindingly ignorant and uneducated people ever.
Actually, I am ignorant. That's why I'm asking questions. I am curious as to the true nature of many fantastic events. Those questions are considered unpatriotic, "uneducated" and "annoying," but I don't care. I want to know the truth, and I will keep asking questions until I know it.
Since you're obviously so smart, perhaps you can help me. Please answer me this: Why did WTC Building 7 collapse? It was not hit by an airplane and it had only small fires. Larry Silverstein, lease-holder for the whole WTC complex, said on PBS that they decided to "pull" the building. Can you please explain how they managed to arrange a controlled demolition while it was still on fire, on 9/11.
Please let me know. I am really curious.
Mods: Parent post is flamebait and offtopic. If this post is modded offtopic then the parent post should be modded the same.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not as far out as it seems. What everybody seems to forget is that Bin Laden was a CIA agent for years and years when he was part of the mujahideen that were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. He was our boy, on our payroll. We gave him cash, weapons, logistical support, equipment and god knows what else. So what I wanna know is this:
When exactly did Bin Laden quit the CIA?
That's all I wanna know. Well, that and how he did it. I just can't imagine that leaving the employ of the CIA is as easy as leaving, say, Sears. Do they hold you an office party where you're blindfolded the whole time or something? Do they just say, "Remember all that classified info you were privy to over the years? Can you, like, not say anything to anyone about that? K, thx, bye."
It all seems a little fishy. Can somebody point me to a document proving Bin Laden is no longer working for the CIA? Otherwise, don't we have to assume that he is still in their pocket?
This isn't Bush's fault (well, the spying part is). This is the fault of the American people. Fucking sheep. We deserve to suffer for this. And we will.
If we don't stand up and say "Enough!" now, then we might as well forget about exercising our rights in the future. If the government can simultaneously violate the 4th amendment rights of 200 million Americans and not catch hell for it, then we're fucked. Game over. No more democracy. It was a fun experiment, but apparently people are stupid and want to be ruled with an iron fist. Democracy is hard. It requires too much thinking, voting, paying attention and other hard stuff. Stuff that's hard is bad! Waaahhh!!
We've got the government we deserve.
Works pretty well, I'd say. If somebody ever comes out and starts telling secrets, they are immediately branded a "giant conspiracy nutjob." And after that.... and after that nothing. Nobody pays attention to them any more. Case closed. I wonder how many of the people who screamed "nutjob" had even finished reading the article before they made up their mind. I wonder how many have done any serious research into the matter.
I'm not saying this guy is for real. You'd think he'd get something better than dialup if this is his obsession. But to claim that a massive conspiracy couldn't work is just ludicrous. It's all about getting people to play along, while compartmentalizing knowledge. It's possible nobody really knows all the big secrets out there. So then is it really even a conspiracy? Sounds more like it's just our fucked up world, where everyone thinks he knows everything.
The NSA can't randomly listen in on international calls for more than a year or two without someone blowing the whistle. The CIA grabs some very bad guy in Pakistan and holds his head underwater, and a few months later we can all read about it in the New Yorker.
The NSA has been listening to domestic calls for over 30 years. Get a clue. Read some of my older posts for more information on this. It's people like you who make "conspiracy" possible, because you don't question what leaders tell you. The reason why nobody is too shocked about Bush's international call spying is because most people of power in Washington know that the NSA has been monitoring domestic calls for decades. It's really not that big of a deal. But you can't talk about it in polite company without being branded a nutjob, no matter how many facts are on your side.
You're not one of those people who doesn't believe in any conspiracies, are you? There are folks out there who reject the very idea of a conspiracy, saying that it has never happened, in all of human history - EVER....And people say conspiracy "theorists" are the nutjobs. sheesh. The whole coincidence theory crowd actually just makes the conspiracy theorist crowd more paranoid because it leads them to believe that everyone has been brainwashed. In a way, I suppose, it's true.
Conspiracies can be very benign and very mundane. For instance, I am party to a secret conspiracy to fool people worldwide. I bet you are, too. It involves telling children that a fat guy in a red suit flies around the planet delivering presents to the entire world in just 24 hours. That's right: Santa Claus. Have you ever really wondered why we tell our children such ridiculous lies? And the creepy thing is that every adult is in on the conspiracy. How can it be possible that we are all a party to this vast conspiracy? What do we even have to gain from it?
The weird thing is, if you dare to tell a child the truth, their parents will get upset at you! It's insane. I met a guy recently who admitted he believed in Santa until he was 16 years old. And somebody had to tell him! He was devastated! Now, if this guy tells me there's no such thing as UFOs, should I believe him? Personally, I was rigging boobytraps for Santa by the time I was 6 or 7 years old.
My point is, don't be so sure that our leaders are telling the truth. Sometimes people -- no, whole cultures lie, for no good reason. That doesn't mean Gary McKinnon isn't full of shit, but it's impossible to know for sure. There is certainly more to our world than meets the eye.
If you want a series similar to Evagelion, I suggest checking out RahXephon. In my opinion it's vastly superior to Neon Genesis in almost every way. Better artwork, better story (and more understandable), less annoying characters and some decent humor. Oh, and giant frickin' robots. Where would anime be without giant robots? RahXephon also has a lot of symbolism and mystery, and a lot of things that really set it apart from NGE. I shouldn't give anything away. I'm only on episode 20 myself...
You ignore the possibility at your peril. But I'm much more worried about humans using technology to enslave other humans. After all, we've been doing that for thousands of years (chains used to be cutting edge) and I see no reason why it won't continue to happen.
Just because a book/movie is fiction doesn't mean it doesn't have truth in it. In fact, people have been hiding truth in fiction for years, as a way of encoding knowledge so that only the initiates or the wise could decrypt it. I think John, author of Revelation, would be just fine if you considered Revelation to be fiction. Do you think he was writing about a literal seven-headed dragon? He was either tripping balls or hiding knowledge in a fictional story (or both).
I think the problem here is your blind hatred of religion and religious people. I understand completely. I hate organized religion with a passion. But I'm not going to automatically hate or distrust a person just because they are involved with religion. Besides, I think Jesus was a pretty cool guy; it's his followers who are a bunch of hypocritical assholes.
As far as RFID sub-dermal implants, you'd have to be incredibly naïve not to think this technology is dangerous. It's not a question of whether it will be abused, it's a question of when. Of course, I can't stop some idiot from getting himself chipped, and I don't really care if he does. But if this becomes as pseudo-necessary as owning a car or having a credit card, we've got problems. The chips, as they become more advanced, will tie the chipped into the grid so deeply that there's no coming back. The government would love to get rid of cash and go all-electronic. And the general public is ignorant about why biosecurity is a bad idea; they think having a chip in your hand means never getting pickpocketed again. This technology is dangerous; you're a fool if you can't see it, but go ahead and get chipped if you think it's so great. Of course to do so is tantamount to admitting colossal ignorance about biosecurity, government oppression, human history, and basic human psychology. So go ahead. Be my guest.
Hahahaaaa..... You really are a treat. You're just like one of those, uhh.. trolls. Wait, wait, Mr. Troll. Tell me again how when I respond that makes me childish, but when you respond it doesn't. Oh, that's right, you're a liar, who is also a delusional psychotic. You lash out angrily at the world and everyone around you. When somebody calls you on it, you accuse them of being exactly what you know that you are. So when you call me childish, we both know that you are secretly aware that you are the one who is acting like a 4 year old with a temper tantrum. A simple glance at your posting history proves that it is you who is acting like a baby, refusing to own up to the fact that you've been proven wrong, several times over. I guess, when your ego is so brutally damaged, you have no choice. I almost feel sorry for you.
Well, at least you're polite enough to sign your posts.
That was the best you could come up with? I called you a liar, with proof galore, and this is all you've got? That's pretty sad, dude. I think you're slipping up. Maybe your Argument Strategies for Fascist Dummies book didn't have an appropriate trick for you to use. Well, better luck next time. I guess you're pretty much beyond trying to prove any of your points (do you have any?) since I've basically crushed your entire argument into a fine powder. That won't stop you, though. I'm sure you'll write back and call me a child. And man will I be impressed by that. Wow! A child?! That is one awesome insult. Ooooooo.... I'm quaking in my boots just thinking about it.
But AGAIN, SLOWLY because that's how you need it, you NEVER refuted me. YOU refuted a STRAW MAN (look it up, I know such concepts are difficult for those like you) and not MY POSITION.
Hahahahahaaaaaaaa! I was the one who explained to you what a straw-man was, you moron.
Jeepers, am I arguing with a random insult generator? What a waste. You're nothing more than a garden-variety troll. COULD you PUT ANY more all-CAPS words IN your POSTS? Hahaa.
There wasn't a single insult in my entire post.
AAHAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
In fact, the very idea that you had to look it up AFTER acting as though you knew what it meant demonstrates how far off the mark you were.
Actually, no. It proves how cool I am. :-) Your statement makes no sense because I was right initially and I'm right currently. You have to resort to rhetorical tricks because you have no actual arguments. If you really wanna rehash it, we can go over it again. I'm fine with continuing this flamewar indefinitely. I proved you wrong, and I'm not going to let you spin it any other way. So spin away, spinmeister.
I guess you think saying the last thing makes it true, but in reality it only leaves the readers of your post with the distinct idea that you're too pathetic and cowardly to admit all the things you got wrong.
Please list all of the things I've gotten wrong.
I've already listed the major point of contention as a victory for me. You really have nothing else going for you except insults and ultimatums. You keep implying that if I reply to your posts that means you were proved right somehow. Yet another fallacious argument from a person who does nothing but insult me and make bold statements with absolutely nothing to back them up. So, keep it up. We can keep this sorry excuse for a flamewar going all week.
And yet, again I'm right and you're not.
Wow. You summarized your whole "argument" in one sentence. So what are all the other sentences for? Oh that's right: insults.
AHAHaahahahaaaaaa!!! Funny. Good one. That was very Stephen Colbert of you. You're relying on "truthiness" rather than "truth." Very funny, except that Colbert does it better and I get the nagging impression that you weren't trying to be funny.
Anyway, I shouldn't even reply to your "post", but I thought I'd call you on a couple of your more obvious failings. First, you threatened not to reply last time... but you did. In fact, it took you 3 days to come up with a reply to my post. But your reply contains nothing but insults. NOTHING. It's not even a reply so much as a random insult generator. Your insults of my intellect have revealed nothing but your own lacking in that regard. You have no facts. You have no arguments. You were afraid to attack the meat of my argument wherein I stripped your argument to the bone and reduced it to confetti-like shreds. You were proven absolutely, 100% wrong, and you don't seem to be taking that very well. So you decided to flame me instead of taking on my arguments. What are we even arguing about except your damaged ego? That's what this is really about, isn't it? Look, you gave yourself some good advice: get over it. It's okay to be wrong.... as long as you're man enough to admit it.
I'm sure it's not the first time you've failed to win a debate. In fact I can guess it's not the first time today (since I've wiped the floor with you repeatedly already).
I'm sorry. I really shouldn't belabor the point, but this quote is sooo funny. You're so completely in denial that it's sad, but the fact that you're lying on the ground, bleeding profusely and saying, "okay, I've whopped ya ass. I'll give you one more chance to walk away" is so funny that I can't stop laughing.
Anyway, your bruised ego isn't a laughing matter and I should be more kind. Be that as it may, the fact remains that I won this argument. You may not want it to be true, but it is. In your initial reply to my post, you slagged me for not understanding NPOV. But in subsequent posts I was able to demonstrate exactly what NPOV means in the Wikipedia context by quoting directing from the relevant page. It proved your point wrong. End of story.
He didn't, according to his actual post... he moved what are by any reasonable measure "fringe" theories about 9/11 to the bottom of the article, rather than keeping them in the main body.
You put "fringe" in quotes. Why? Perhaps you realize that people who don't like a theory will often deride it as "extremist" or "fringe" or "loony." It has nothing to do with whether it's factual; it's a prejorative slam that completely sidesteps any meaningful research into whether or not a theory has any factual basis. If we let all alternative theories be rejected in such a manor, there wouldn't BE any alternative theories presented.
You're taking too many liberties in assuming that any alternative theories surrounding 9/11 are fringe. There was a Zogby poll that revealed Half of New Yorkers Believe US Let 9/11 Happen. That doesn't sound very "fringe" to me. Especially since there has been a near-total mainstream media blackout on alternative theories. I'm sure you'd get different results in Oklahoma, but the fact that they polled New Yorkers is extremely relevant in this context.
You can't "disagree" with evidence (it either exists or it doesn't... though which one is the case can itself be a point of disagreement) -- you can, however, disagree with a particular interpretation of the evidence. However, again judging by his post, it doesn't seem like he was concerned by particular evidence that was presented in the article, but by extremist theories. You seem to lump theories and evidence together, which isn't really appropriate. It is reasonable to say that all the evidence should be presented. It is not reasonable to say that every theory, regardless of the corresponding evidence, should be included in the main body of the article.
You're saying a lot here, but let me yank a few things out and lend them a different perspective. In a perfect word, you can't disagree with evidence. But we don't live in one, and there are a lot of people (on all sides) who cherry-pick the evidence to support their claims, and intentionally exclude evidence which supports alternative theories, even if that same evidence does not directly undermind their preferred theory. What I'm saying is that evidence that supports alternative theories is systematically erased by the pro-official story crowd. Huge facts, like the collapse of WTC 7 are completely ignored by the media and supporters of the gov's theory. I personally don't know which (if any) alernate theory is correct, but I do know a coverup when I see one. I think ALL of the facts should be presented, regardless of whether somebody was able to tar them with the "fringe" label. I think we mostly agree in this regard, but I'm concerned about your "fringe" usage, because it makes it too easy to exclude theories. And when you exclude theories, than the facts and evidence that support those theories tends to get shoved down the memory hole as well.
Also, perhaps this is just a phrasing issue, but even if (and I don't agree with this) a NPOV means you are obligated to mention all existing explanations, it does not mean you have to highlight (your word) the ones you disagree with. It is reasonable to distinguish between theories that are supported by a large amount of evidence or that are the simplest explanations, versus complicated conspiracy theories that are pieced together by obscure, contested partial evidence.
Maybe YOU don't have to highlight theories you don't agree with, but does that give you the right to suppress somebody who does agree with them? I agree that weaker theories should be called out as lacking evidence, but you seem to be unaware that the government's official story IS a conspiracy theory, and one that is not well supported by the facts at that. Physicists, demolition experts and architects are questioning how the twin towers collapsed, and the government has yet to
Well, let's see: you used quotes. You replied to my post. And you implied that you were refuting my arguments, even though you had made up your own. Can you not see it from my POV? Lacking some objectivity are we? I can see it from your POV, and I can see how it would be an honest (or at least mostly-honest) mistake. Apology accepted.
Your assumption that opposing viewpoints belong in an article is the explanation for MY statement.
Your implicit assumption that opposing viewpoints do NOT belong in a given article is downright scary. Your One-POV-per-article idea reeks of fascism. And it has become clear that it is you who does not understand NPOV, so let me quote it for you:
Emphasis mine.So, while you were quick to tar me as ignorant, it is you who does not understand. I think what you're missing is that NPOV is a meta-point-of-view. It contains multiple contradictory POVs within it. It is neutral in that it does not claim that one of the POVs is unquestionably correct, nor does it attempt to find the middle ground and declare that correct. The idea is to describe all significant POVs, fairly, and let the reader decide.
I can see where the next sticking point is: the word "significant." Well, let me just say that I am as surprised as anyone that my original post wasn't modded into oblivion. Perhaps the alternative theories are more popular than you might imagine. But as mentioned above, popularity is not the deciding factor. We have to look at the evidence; something you've been reluctant to do, it seems. Maybe you should spend less time arguing with me and more time researching what may be the greatest crime/coverup in our lifetimes.
Where exactly did I say that it did? Go back and reread my original post and you won't find anything like the words you have in quotes. Seems to me that you are intentionally making up bogus arguments so it will be easier for you to rebut them. That's a classic straw-man argument.
Where do you get off insisting they be included? Again NPOV DOES NOT mean equal treatment for all view points.
Your straw-men notwithstanding, if you reread my orginal post, you'll note that I pointed to the available evidence that supports alternative theories. There's evidence that pokes huge, gaping holes in the official story (why did building 7 collapse, for instance?). There is also evidence that supports the official story. My point is that there should be no litmus test (i.e. does this evidence support the official story? if not, we shouldn't include it), except that of NPOV and truth. Both are impossible to achieve, but the important thing is to aim for objectivity. This has nothing to do with "equal treatment." It has everything to do with facts and reality. It may not be a comforting thought that our government would do something like this, but your personal feelings don't amount to squat in the context of NPOV. All that matters is facts and evidence, and there are plenty of both to suggest that the official story is bunk.
So? A lot of the available evidence points to a possible conspiracy within the government. Wikipedia is supposed to have a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). That includes highlighting theories and evidence that you don't agree with. Since when did you have a right to scrub the entry "clean" for the rest of us. Where do you get off deleting opposing points of view?
9/11 is messy business. Give us the facts, give us the evidence, give us theories (both mainstream and alternative) and let us -- the reader -- decide. That fact that your deletions/modifications were overturned indicates to me that the system was working.
It's still in beta, and it runs slowly on my Mac, but the way you can subscribe to channels or just download individual shows/clips is pretty cool. Could this be the future of TV? It's not really on-demand; it's more like demand-then-wait-for-download, but you get better video quality than most streaming solutions. I'd be curious to know what people think of this idea.
That's circular logic, falling on the negative side. You're assuming that they didn't start any of the "plenty" wars that already exist (and feed into each other, creating new ones). They are rich because they know how to start wars. They are in the business of war - you don't think they have any vested interest in constant warfare? I've got news for you: every company wants a stable (and rising) bottom line. And if the executives in charge can't deliver that, the board will usually remove them and fine someone who can.
Congressmen often say that they get a lot of dire predictions and studies and sales pitches right around budget time from all the bureaucrats in the Pentagon, and from the defense companies and their lobbyists. They use fear to encourage our congress critters to pony up the dough for a budget that was bigger than last year, and the year before that. They have a nexus generals who will play into this fear campaign and give apocalyptic prognostications on demand (military men aren't idealists).
Face facts: our leaders and our business community and our military command structure all get together and create wars on whatever pretext they can muster. They consider it good for the economy and good for America. I consider it evil.
It seems pretty clear that Iran is next on the list.
Where the hell do you get these ideas?
I read. I read books that aren't just patriotic hornblowing. I also have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single fucking thing any politician says when a mic's on. It's a very rare condition, apparently. Only known cure is execution.
You speak of the economy as if that was the only thing we need to consider. The equation is far more complex than you make it out to be. You say it's all about the economy. I say, what about morality? What about the basic human kindness of not rampantly killing each other? Besides, war is only fun if you're winning. But you always lose eventually.
Your fantasic delusions of a crime-free society in an endless series of wars reminds me greatly of 1984. Perhaps you should read that book.
You are very much correct. In the US, we refer to it as the Military-Industrial Complex. Some things don't change every 4 years, and the MIC is one of them. The Military-Industrial Complex is a term coined by Eisenhower to describe the entangled relationship of Congress, the Military and Big Business (industry - especially defense contractors).
I've noticed how somethings in our government really don't change. Take Cuba for example. It's been over 45 years and our policy towards Cuba hasn't changed on iota, even after all the different administrations we've been through. In fact, the military very much wanted to attack Cuba back in the 60's. After JFK was able to defuse that situation they decided to escalate Vietnam instead. You see, we need to have wars every few years in order to keep our poor defense contractors fed. We try to minimize (American) casualties, but it's very important that we bomb the hell out of some poor backwards-ass country every few years so we can test out all our cool new weapons, while using up the old ones. We can't buy too many new bombs until we use up the old ones, and how will we field-test each new generation of soldiers unless there's a real conflict to fight in? War is just a business like any other. In fact, you could say it's the engine of our whole economy. Now that you know the War in Iraq is all about buying yachts for the executives and lobbyists of Boeing, Lockheed, and other megacorps, don't you feel so much better about it? War is the American way.
I'm surprised that you haven't been modded flamebait already by the (guess who!) fascists. I'm glad you weren't modded down, because you are 100% correct.
I understand those of you who are in denial, however. The idea that America is slowly going fascist is a big, painful pill to swallow. However, the fact remains that corporations have unprecedented control of our society, and our government. Corporations are the primary institution of our time, just as capitalism is primary ideology (not democracy, that's for sure. How often do you vote? How often do you shop? Compare.) of 21st century America. Add to this unfortunate mix the shadow government in the form of the Military-Industrial Complex, and you have a recipe for the hidden hand of fascism.
I leave you with a quote from Mussolini:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
Doubt it. The companies involved the first time around (during the Cold War) apparently did it for free. The government simply appealed to their patriotism (the military was the group that actually asked them - would you say no to the military?) and apparently never compensated them, though that may not really be the case. There was probably some tit-for-tat going on. Besides, any company wants to be on the government's good side, right? They probably see it as a cost of doing business. See the recent Google Goes to China fiasco for more insight into that mindset. As long as it's not prohibitively expensive (read: difficult to make a profit) most companies probably wouldn't have a problem with it. It's all to save us from Teh Terr'rists after all.
I don't doubt that the NSA has massive surveillance resources, but they're not the fuckin' Illuminati for christ's sake. They're a government organization staffed by human beings, and as such they probably don't have their shit together enough to do all the shadowy things you think they're doing.
You're right, they're not omnipotent, but they're not idiots either. They own and operate what is probably the largest supercomputer on the planet. They operate in the shadows, with virtually no oversight from Congress, and the current administration is obsessed with secrecy and spying. Whether they can spy successfully is an open question, but there's no question that they are trying. I think it's actually much more likely that you are the deluded one. They are probably doing way more stuff than I have mentioned so far, and probably doing it well. Their foreign surveillance work is top-notch; we didn't become the sole superpower by sucking at signals intelligence, that's for sure. I would encourage you to do some research on the matter before falling back into that "teh guvmint is incompetent and they sux"-style of "logic." I've provided facts, links and insight. Now it's your turn to follow up.
3 billions sounds like a lot to me. It's a good thing that NSA has some of the most advanced and powerful computers on the planet. It's top secret of course, but you can probably imagine that their setup makes Google's look like an old Acer on dialup.
You had it right in your first sentence. AT&T is forwarding all of their call data to the NSA. The NSA doesn't need any super-cool tech in order to intercept this data since AT&T (and the other telecom companies) simply send this data directly to them. Don't get me wrong, though - the NSA has some amazing technology. All of this data is processed, filtered, tagged and entered into a massive database.
I'm currently reading Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency by James Bamford. It's not light reading, but it's fascinating....and extremely disturbing. The fascinating part is that we've been here before. This exact scenario already happened in the 60's and 70's, until information about it was leaked (by the NY Times, no less) and it was investigated by the Church Committee circa 1975. It was called Project SHAMROCK then, and it involved the phone companies and Western Union delivering huge magnetic tape reels to the NSA on a regular basis. The project was so secret that only a few people within the NSA where even aware of it.
Until the Congressional investigation, hardly anybody within the White House or Justice Department had even heard whispers of it. Congress, of course, was completely out of the loop. This obsession with secrecy goes back to the very founding of the NSA. The NSA operated with no Congressional oversight for decades (it was called "No Such Agency"), and its existance probably wasn't even constitutionally legal/valid, but the information that it provided to other agencies (mostly the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff) was so good that by the time Congress found out about it, it was indispensible. Today the NSA is the largest of the intelligence agencies (yes you read that right - larger than the CIA), although its exact budget is classified.
Second, this is just an accusation. There's one guy that has some documents that say that's what AT&T is doing. For all we know, this guy could be wearing tin-foil hats and singing to his dog about the aliens.
The only loonies around here are the people who think that the government isn't spying on Americans every single day. Now, that doesn't mean that they are listening to you in real time, and hanging on your every word. But all/most of your calls are recorded, digitized and handed to the NSA. From there, it is probably entered into a massive database. From there they can filter out unimportant calls and use data mining techniques to pull up relevant information. They use the ECHELON computer software to sift through information, which probably works similar to Google, with keyword searches and a list of search results.
If you still don't believe me, why don't you have a conversation with a friend, where you discuss planting bombs around town. See how long it takes the feds to show up.
Uh... okay. I guess I'm living in fantasyland.
Nevermind.
When asked if he would support the administration's efforts, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said, "I...uh... what? They're going to kill what? Oh, well. I guess. I must obey my masters."
The ACLU released a statement condemning the move, but they were clubbed and beaten by government thugs before they could take any questions from reporters.
It's curious you would mention the Popular Mechanics article because that was the article that got me doubting the official story in the first place! At the time, I was still undecided on the issue and that article pushed me in the exact opposite direction they were aiming for. The piece was so filled with absolute hatred for anybody who dared to question the official story that it set off warning bells in my head. After that, I resolved to find out the truth for myself.
Here's a rebuttal to the Popular Mechanics article.
Actually, I am ignorant. That's why I'm asking questions. I am curious as to the true nature of many fantastic events. Those questions are considered unpatriotic, "uneducated" and "annoying," but I don't care. I want to know the truth, and I will keep asking questions until I know it.
Since you're obviously so smart, perhaps you can help me. Please answer me this: Why did WTC Building 7 collapse? It was not hit by an airplane and it had only small fires. Larry Silverstein, lease-holder for the whole WTC complex, said on PBS that they decided to "pull" the building. Can you please explain how they managed to arrange a controlled demolition while it was still on fire, on 9/11.
Please let me know. I am really curious.
Mods: Parent post is flamebait and offtopic. If this post is modded offtopic then the parent post should be modded the same.