You didn't even read the various articles, available with a simple Google search, did you?... Everyone involved knew that Boeing was the front runner. Everyone. No one expected the contract to go to anyone, other than Boeing.
The inside word in Brasilia is that the Brazilian Air Force had always favored the Gripen. No wonder Dassault officially took it very badly; the Gripen was dismissed as not nearly as sophisticated as the Rafale.
French jet fighter Rafale was the hot favorite after former French President Nicolas Sarkozy canvassed for manufacturer Dassault Aviation during talks with former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
Following the announcement that the Dassault Rafale had emerged as the lowest bidder in the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender for the Indian Air Force, it appears that Brazil could select this aircraft against the F-18 Super Hornet and Sweden’s Saab Gripen.
Based on some of your comments in another post discussing one of the news stories it looks to me like you either missed or misinterpreted various points in that story as well in regards to the fighter competition.
You also apparently didn't read many of the posts from people commenting favorably on the Grippen in this story on Slashdot:
So we have the Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16, Sukhoi Su-35, Dassault Rafael, and Boeing Super Hornet in competition with Saab's Grippen, but all lost to Saab's Grippen. Do you think that the winner didn't offer the best deal overall? Do you think it isn't possible that the US was given a twist of the knife since it only cost a few anonymously spoken words in a newspaper, with no documentation to back it up? Do you think that only the US spies on Brazil? The Russians, British, and French don't? Do I need to answer that for you?
You know, I'm slow to accuse people of being paid shills, but I'm getting close to that point in your case.
Believe what you will. If you want to engage in honest, open, respectful discussion, fine. But understand I won't be neutral about how you address me. If you want to refer to me as a "paid shill," then I will have to conclude that you are a narrow minded jackass that has such a stunted view that you are unable to fathom the possibility that of the tens of millions of people that have views similar to mine in some respect that one of them could have showed up on Slashdot, and long before you at that. On the plus side you'll have plenty of company since Sturgeon's law applies here.
Your flag is going to be ruled invalid. The problem is that revealing broken crypto, or the means of surveillance to al Qaida also informs the Chinese, Iranians, Russians, and anyone else that cares to know.
The 1960s are over, we are currently fighting new battles.
Not really, no. Bank robbery and thefts of goods from cars are effectively different markets. The FBI is going to be involved with bank robberies, but not stolen stereos from cars. The local police will be involved with stolen stereos. Their responsiveness is entirely dependent upon the local department resources and policies. So no, it isn't simply a question of "haggling over price" between the two of them.
You seem to have a very "unusual" view of the FBI and the courts. Given that view you'll have to state what you consider to be adequate evidence. I have no idea what is going to penetrate into the fantasy you've erected to exclude facts from the usual sources.
Apparently you have no idea how the committee system in Congress works. That would seem to invalidate many of your comments about Congress.
Claiming that Saddam had no choice about invading Kuwait is rubbish.
If you want to claim that the text I posted is "incorrect," please indicate where. You did in fact distort the message if you are summarizing it with just that one line, which you then expound upon. The purpose of the speech was a request to be cautious about releasing information.
It is more accurate to say that people claim I'm a "shill" since that is far easier to do than to confront facts and arguments that have them at a disadvantage.
In all fairness, what you think is obvious is false, what is true apparently isn't obvious to you, and you would likely reject what is true if you actually saw it. Furthermore, you apparently approve of the fascist practice of shutting down debate by concealing opposing viewpoints from the typical reader.
Because all members of Congress have complete knowledge of what the NSA is doing? The NSA chief is held accountable for lying to Congress? Neither of those two things are true, so you are untruthful at best.
It is often the case that all members of Congress are not equally informed. In some cases, to their shame, virtually none of them are as was the case in passing Obamacare. But it is far from clear that the NSA chief actually lied to Congress since we don't know what was said behind closed doors. We only know that some Congressmen are willing to engage in theatrics.
I agree that some aspects of the Constitution have been abused to increase Federal power, especially the commerce clause. I would like to see at least some of that being rolled back.
I'm not sure what you are referring to in regards to the first Gulf War - the one in 1991? What do you think was lied about there?
This is why what JFK said was so very important. "The very idea of secrecy in a free and democratic society is repugnant." Secrets beget more secrets, and things begin to escalate in order to protect the secrets, and the secrets that protected the secret.
You distort JFK's message, or at least leave out some very important parts that are relevant today. Perhaps it has been too long since you read it. I suggest you read the whole thing, but I've included a portion below. It says something quite different than you suggest with your snippet as noted by the Miller Center's side note, "President Kennedy speaks at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City before the American Newspaper Publishers Association. Kennedy asks the press for their cooperation in fighting Communism by applying the same standards for publishing sensitive materials in the current Cold War that they would apply in an officially declared war."
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared—and however fierce the struggle may be—it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions—by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence—on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
I provided 5 links that claim losses due to spying.
Exactly, just like in the case of Brazil you can link to claims. In the case of Brazil it was an unnamed government official twisting the knife. In the case of Cisco it was a company executive making excuses. Maybe it was true in Cisco's case, maybe not. Did any of their customers directly tell them that? Is it in writing? Or is it an easy excuse to deflect blame: "Look, it's not our fault! It was NSA! Our products aren't overpriced! We didn't make a bad bid. The stagnant economy is having no effect on our growth. Don't downgrade our stock rating."
The response to the rest of your post is "You are a Shill", followed by "more Shilling", and finally a "Fuck off Shill". Go pound some sand, and have fun doing it.
Ad hominem, invective, no logic.
This is interesting, did you know the packets you are sending could be passing through Iceland and Belarus? That could mean that your email and and internet posts pass through the internet spying equipment of Russia, Belarus, Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark, Canada, and the US. I wouldn't be surprised if China could work its way in there too. How big do you think your dossiers are by now?
Anonymous statements to the press are cheap and easy to make, especially when no proof is offered. It is most likely just a troll on the part of Brazil's government, and Boeing would have lost anyway. They had an opportunity to "twist the knife" over losing by claiming it was NSA, so they did. If you don't want to believe that, then why did France's Dassault lose too? When your government is spending billions of dollars it is going to look for the best deal, the best value for the country. Brazil has bought $1 billion in Russian missiles despite the fact that Russia without a doubt has an aggressive spying program in Brazil, enough so that the Brazilian government decided to spy on them just like they did the US. But, believe what you want. But if you believe that it was the NSA that cost Boeing, then the lose of Dassault and the buys of Russian missiles should nag at you somewhere in your mind - why did those happen too?
Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.
Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center
U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.
Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings
Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery.
1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa
A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives.
2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab
A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa.
We realize that France has been compliant with, and complicit with, the NSA spying ring correct (as has the UK, Germany, Italy, etc..). If the NSA was the reason for Brazil to boot the US company, France would surely be held to the same level of scrutiny.
Somebody directly stated that Boeing lost due to NSA despite the fact it was unattributed, and no evidence was offered. Surely Brazil would have less to worry about by angering France than the US. Why wasn't it directly stated that Dassault lost due to French spying or the NSA? It hasn't crossed your mind that it might not be true?
It is very likely that both the Boeing and Dassault were held to the same standard, as was Saab: make the best offer for a business deal with Brazil. Saying it was NSA was just a "twist of the knife" but isn't likely to be true. Saab's fighter is know for being relatively inexpensive to purchase and operate. Saab has offered very favorable financial terms as well in previous deals.
As to an "unattributed comment about Boing", are you implying that there is no source of information that you can find which spells this out very clearly? That Boeing losing the Brazil deal due to NSA spying is only speculation? I think you can search and find proof that those allegations are false, just as easy as the next person.
You can certainly find the unattributed statement in print, but you can't find the formal Brazilian government documents that discuss the reasoning. Somebody can say anything to the press as a comment, but that doesn't make it true. You regularly claim that the US government lies regarding just about anything, while seldom offering hard proof. You don't see the possibility that someone in the Brazilian government is taking petty revenge on the US over the NSA scandal by making an essentially unproven statement in the press (unless the Brazilian government wants to release their actual documentation and the bids).
(don't answer the questions, they are rhetorical intended to display you are a liar)
You seem to have difficulty differentiating between the reasonable and unreasonable, the truth, a likely or possible falsehood, and a certain falsehood.
Straw man, Red Herring, Straw man, reductio ad absurdum. Nothing to see in that whole paragraph, move alone.
You don't need to label your arguments, most people can see the nonsense in your points. Nonetheless you don't answer the question: why would Brazil not do business with the US over spying, but do business with Russia despite spying?
Denying what Brazil stated as the reason is asinine. That is beyond delusional, it is a bold faced lie.
If it was the US government you would certainly claim to see through the "lies" as you regularly do, and offer some theory in place of it. It is entirely reasonable to believe that both Dassault and Boeing lost to Saab as either the low bidder or as offering a better overall value. For some reason you think that is delusional. It may be, on your part.
I can see through your fallacies pretty easily, take your shilling elsewhere.
Can we get the same deal? Will you take your crank conspiracy theories elsewhere? Or do you have an update on building 7 for us, a new "question"?
The same thing could be said about problem gambling at some level. As far as the rest of your post, I think it applies more to the one I replied to than to mine.
Secrets from everybody. Marvin is dead. He doesn't know how or why. Marvin and his friends don't know if it was because he used a cell phone, or was followed, or if there is a spy among them, or if somebody dropped a paper at the gas station and it was turned in to the police.
To get a better understanding of this issue, look into the use of Enigma against the U-boats in WW2. Britain was in danger of being starved into submission if the U-boats weren't stopped. The breaking of the Enigma code was a vital national secret. Had it leaked out the Germans would have been able to take countermeasures easily and rapidly, and that could have cost the Western allies dearly, and many more people would have died. The Allies took enormous precautions in multiple ways to prevent that from happening. And yet people here treat the loss of top secret information from Snowden as nothing more that releasing the list of ingredients in a popular sandwich.
You are apparently confused. (Or is that a troll you wrote?) I don't recall citing the Boeing contact as evidence of damage caused by Snowden. The damage I likely would have cited is the lost of intelligence information and compromise of intelligence methods and sources.
Question for you - If Boeing lost because of NSA, why did the French company Dassault lose? They were bidding on the same contract in competition with Saab. Saab won. Dassault had nothing to do with NSA.
I see you used snark tags in your post. Did it occur to you that the unattributed comment about Boeing losing due to NSA was just a snarky "twist of the knife" at an opportune time? I don't suppose it would. So, why did Dassault lose, and why would Boeing's loss be any different than Dassault's loss in reality?
Brazil has bought $1 billion in missiles from Russia, and yet they considered Russia a target for Brazilian spying, just like they spied on the US. And certainly you don't think that Brazil is free from Russian spies. So there is a mystery. Why would they buy from Russia if Russia is spying, but not the US?
You don't suppose it could be simply do to the quality of goods, the business terms, and the price, do you? Nah, that wouldn't indict the US!
Since there are hundreds of people in the US that have been arrested and imprisoned for terrorism related offenses in the last 12 years there must be something working. I don't think that magic rocks are admissible in court.
I'm really curious what other US citizen could directly and provably lie to congress, and not be arrested and indited for it, like J. Clapper?
Why has he not gotten in trouble legally yet?
Why hasn't he gotten in trouble legally? Probably because Congress had already been informed of the truth, and Wyden asked a highly inappropriate question in an inappropriate place as a form of grandstanding.
I'll break the code on that for you. The French company Dassault competed for that contract, but the Swedish company Saab made a better bid, so Dassault lost. The US company Boeing competed for that contract, but the Swedish company Saab made a better bid, so Boeing lost. Claiming it had anything to do with the NSA was just a "twist of the knife" at an opportune time. If you want to claim that it was due to NSA, they why did Dassault lose?
Or go out on the internet and look. Saab has a competitive fighter that has won a number of contracts, both in Europe and around the world.
People are going to be claiming that every lost contract or bid has to do with NSA now, but little of it will be true. But that is an easier explanation to make than how you were underbid, or otherwise made a bad business decision.
That's essentially EXACTLY what they said. They claimed several prevented attacks but refused to provide details.
That is the way the intelligence game works. Your successes are secrets, and your failures tend to get publicized. If you don't keep your successes secret, you may not be able to repeat them, ever.
If they are briefing Congress about this it is almost certainly occurring behind closed doors, and may be limited to specific members.
Yes. There are nearly 200 countries filled with radios, radars, beacons, phones, networks, and so on that are controlling satellites, armies, air forces, and navies that produce data that gets captured and stored. The NSAs domestic phone record surveillance program is a small program.
Not to be all conspiratorial, but I think it's been a while now since politicians were really in charge of this sort of thing.
That is conspiratorial. The armed forces have grown and shrunk by hundreds of thousands over the last 20 years, and by tens of thousands over the last decade. Congress clearly has the power. The armed forces have started shrinking again. The NSA could certainly have its rules changed by the Congress, the courts, or the President.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't even read the various articles, available with a simple Google search, did you? ... Everyone involved knew that Boeing was the front runner. Everyone. No one expected the contract to go to anyone, other than Boeing.
I could ask you the same thing.
L’aventure brésilienne du Gripen
The inside word in Brasilia is that the Brazilian Air Force had always favored the Gripen. No wonder Dassault officially took it very badly; the Gripen was dismissed as not nearly as sophisticated as the Rafale.
Brazil expects a better jet fighter deal
French jet fighter Rafale was the hot favorite after former French President Nicolas Sarkozy canvassed for manufacturer Dassault Aviation during talks with former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
Dassault Rafale for Brazil
Following the announcement that the Dassault Rafale had emerged as the lowest bidder in the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender for the Indian Air Force, it appears that Brazil could select this aircraft against the F-18 Super Hornet and Sweden’s Saab Gripen.
Based on some of your comments in another post discussing one of the news stories it looks to me like you either missed or misinterpreted various points in that story as well in regards to the fighter competition.
You also apparently didn't read many of the posts from people commenting favorably on the Grippen in this story on Slashdot:
US Spying Costs Boeing Military Jet Deal With Brazil
So we have the Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16, Sukhoi Su-35, Dassault Rafael, and Boeing Super Hornet in competition with Saab's Grippen, but all lost to Saab's Grippen. Do you think that the winner didn't offer the best deal overall? Do you think it isn't possible that the US was given a twist of the knife since it only cost a few anonymously spoken words in a newspaper, with no documentation to back it up? Do you think that only the US spies on Brazil? The Russians, British, and French don't? Do I need to answer that for you?
You know, I'm slow to accuse people of being paid shills, but I'm getting close to that point in your case.
Believe what you will. If you want to engage in honest, open, respectful discussion, fine. But understand I won't be neutral about how you address me. If you want to refer to me as a "paid shill," then I will have to conclude that you are a narrow minded jackass that has such a stunted view that you are unable to fathom the possibility that of the tens of millions of people that have views similar to mine in some respect that one of them could have showed up on Slashdot, and long before you at that. On the plus side you'll have plenty of company since Sturgeon's law applies here.
Your flag is going to be ruled invalid. The problem is that revealing broken crypto, or the means of surveillance to al Qaida also informs the Chinese, Iranians, Russians, and anyone else that cares to know.
The 1960s are over, we are currently fighting new battles.
Because I don't believe there have been any al Qaida killed in the US since 9/11. That isn't a real mystery. Or did you mean something else?
Not really, no. Bank robbery and thefts of goods from cars are effectively different markets. The FBI is going to be involved with bank robberies, but not stolen stereos from cars. The local police will be involved with stolen stereos. Their responsiveness is entirely dependent upon the local department resources and policies. So no, it isn't simply a question of "haggling over price" between the two of them.
And again.
You seem to have a very "unusual" view of the FBI and the courts. Given that view you'll have to state what you consider to be adequate evidence. I have no idea what is going to penetrate into the fantasy you've erected to exclude facts from the usual sources.
Apparently you have no idea how the committee system in Congress works. That would seem to invalidate many of your comments about Congress.
Claiming that Saddam had no choice about invading Kuwait is rubbish.
If you want to claim that the text I posted is "incorrect," please indicate where. You did in fact distort the message if you are summarizing it with just that one line, which you then expound upon. The purpose of the speech was a request to be cautious about releasing information.
It is more accurate to say that people claim I'm a "shill" since that is far easier to do than to confront facts and arguments that have them at a disadvantage.
In all fairness, what you think is obvious is false, what is true apparently isn't obvious to you, and you would likely reject what is true if you actually saw it. Furthermore, you apparently approve of the fascist practice of shutting down debate by concealing opposing viewpoints from the typical reader.
Because all members of Congress have complete knowledge of what the NSA is doing? The NSA chief is held accountable for lying to Congress? Neither of those two things are true, so you are untruthful at best.
It is often the case that all members of Congress are not equally informed. In some cases, to their shame, virtually none of them are as was the case in passing Obamacare. But it is far from clear that the NSA chief actually lied to Congress since we don't know what was said behind closed doors. We only know that some Congressmen are willing to engage in theatrics.
Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst
I agree that some aspects of the Constitution have been abused to increase Federal power, especially the commerce clause. I would like to see at least some of that being rolled back.
I'm not sure what you are referring to in regards to the first Gulf War - the one in 1991? What do you think was lied about there?
This is why what JFK said was so very important. "The very idea of secrecy in a free and democratic society is repugnant." Secrets beget more secrets, and things begin to escalate in order to protect the secrets, and the secrets that protected the secret.
You distort JFK's message, or at least leave out some very important parts that are relevant today. Perhaps it has been too long since you read it. I suggest you read the whole thing, but I've included a portion below. It says something quite different than you suggest with your snippet as noted by the Miller Center's side note, "President Kennedy speaks at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City before the American Newspaper Publishers Association. Kennedy asks the press for their cooperation in fighting Communism by applying the same standards for publishing sensitive materials in the current Cold War that they would apply in an officially declared war."
President and the Press" Speech (April 27, 1961)
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared—and however fierce the struggle may be—it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions—by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence—on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
I provided 5 links that claim losses due to spying.
Exactly, just like in the case of Brazil you can link to claims. In the case of Brazil it was an unnamed government official twisting the knife. In the case of Cisco it was a company executive making excuses. Maybe it was true in Cisco's case, maybe not. Did any of their customers directly tell them that? Is it in writing? Or is it an easy excuse to deflect blame: "Look, it's not our fault! It was NSA! Our products aren't overpriced! We didn't make a bad bid. The stagnant economy is having no effect on our growth. Don't downgrade our stock rating."
Something to chew on: Snowden Hasn’t Hurt Trade Talks, Official Says
The response to the rest of your post is "You are a Shill", followed by "more Shilling", and finally a "Fuck off Shill". Go pound some sand, and have fun doing it.
Ad hominem, invective, no logic.
This is interesting, did you know the packets you are sending could be passing through Iceland and Belarus? That could mean that your email and and internet posts pass through the internet spying equipment of Russia, Belarus, Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark, Canada, and the US. I wouldn't be surprised if China could work its way in there too. How big do you think your dossiers are by now?
Anonymous statements to the press are cheap and easy to make, especially when no proof is offered. It is most likely just a troll on the part of Brazil's government, and Boeing would have lost anyway. They had an opportunity to "twist the knife" over losing by claiming it was NSA, so they did. If you don't want to believe that, then why did France's Dassault lose too? When your government is spending billions of dollars it is going to look for the best deal, the best value for the country. Brazil has bought $1 billion in Russian missiles despite the fact that Russia without a doubt has an aggressive spying program in Brazil, enough so that the Brazilian government decided to spy on them just like they did the US. But, believe what you want. But if you believe that it was the NSA that cost Boeing, then the lose of Dassault and the buys of Russian missiles should nag at you somewhere in your mind - why did those happen too?
Looks like we need to submit a sample.
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012
Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.
Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center
U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.
Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings
Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery.
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012
1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa
A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives.
2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab
A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa.
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011
Seattle: Man Pleads Guilty in Plot to Attack Military Processing Center
A former Los Angeles man pled guilty in connection with the June 2011 plot to attack a military installation in Seattle.
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 2, 2011
San Diego: Woman Guilty of Conspiring to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab
Nima Yusuf, 25, a resident of San Diego, pled guilty to conspiring to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization.
More here.
There are plenty more. Maybe I'll have to start digging them up since we seem to have a problem with getting honest moderation.
The bar between bank robberies and a stereo stolen from a car is pretty substantial.
I see this question as an absurdity,
You are the primary dealer in absurdity.
We realize that France has been compliant with, and complicit with, the NSA spying ring correct (as has the UK, Germany, Italy, etc..). If the NSA was the reason for Brazil to boot the US company, France would surely be held to the same level of scrutiny.
Somebody directly stated that Boeing lost due to NSA despite the fact it was unattributed, and no evidence was offered. Surely Brazil would have less to worry about by angering France than the US. Why wasn't it directly stated that Dassault lost due to French spying or the NSA? It hasn't crossed your mind that it might not be true?
It is very likely that both the Boeing and Dassault were held to the same standard, as was Saab: make the best offer for a business deal with Brazil. Saying it was NSA was just a "twist of the knife" but isn't likely to be true. Saab's fighter is know for being relatively inexpensive to purchase and operate. Saab has offered very favorable financial terms as well in previous deals.
As to an "unattributed comment about Boing", are you implying that there is no source of information that you can find which spells this out very clearly? That Boeing losing the Brazil deal due to NSA spying is only speculation? I think you can search and find proof that those allegations are false, just as easy as the next person.
You can certainly find the unattributed statement in print, but you can't find the formal Brazilian government documents that discuss the reasoning. Somebody can say anything to the press as a comment, but that doesn't make it true. You regularly claim that the US government lies regarding just about anything, while seldom offering hard proof. You don't see the possibility that someone in the Brazilian government is taking petty revenge on the US over the NSA scandal by making an essentially unproven statement in the press (unless the Brazilian government wants to release their actual documentation and the bids).
(don't answer the questions, they are rhetorical intended to display you are a liar)
You seem to have difficulty differentiating between the reasonable and unreasonable, the truth, a likely or possible falsehood, and a certain falsehood.
Straw man, Red Herring, Straw man, reductio ad absurdum. Nothing to see in that whole paragraph, move alone.
You don't need to label your arguments, most people can see the nonsense in your points. Nonetheless you don't answer the question: why would Brazil not do business with the US over spying, but do business with Russia despite spying?
Denying what Brazil stated as the reason is asinine. That is beyond delusional, it is a bold faced lie.
If it was the US government you would certainly claim to see through the "lies" as you regularly do, and offer some theory in place of it. It is entirely reasonable to believe that both Dassault and Boeing lost to Saab as either the low bidder or as offering a better overall value. For some reason you think that is delusional. It may be, on your part.
I can see through your fallacies pretty easily, take your shilling elsewhere.
Can we get the same deal? Will you take your crank conspiracy theories elsewhere? Or do you have an update on building 7 for us, a new "question"?
The same thing could be said about problem gambling at some level. As far as the rest of your post, I think it applies more to the one I replied to than to mine.
Secrets from everybody. Marvin is dead. He doesn't know how or why. Marvin and his friends don't know if it was because he used a cell phone, or was followed, or if there is a spy among them, or if somebody dropped a paper at the gas station and it was turned in to the police.
To get a better understanding of this issue, look into the use of Enigma against the U-boats in WW2. Britain was in danger of being starved into submission if the U-boats weren't stopped. The breaking of the Enigma code was a vital national secret. Had it leaked out the Germans would have been able to take countermeasures easily and rapidly, and that could have cost the Western allies dearly, and many more people would have died. The Allies took enormous precautions in multiple ways to prevent that from happening. And yet people here treat the loss of top secret information from Snowden as nothing more that releasing the list of ingredients in a popular sandwich.
You are apparently confused. (Or is that a troll you wrote?) I don't recall citing the Boeing contact as evidence of damage caused by Snowden. The damage I likely would have cited is the lost of intelligence information and compromise of intelligence methods and sources.
The total of 54 or so may be correct, but apparently only a couple are domestic and the rest are international.
Question for you - If Boeing lost because of NSA, why did the French company Dassault lose? They were bidding on the same contract in competition with Saab. Saab won. Dassault had nothing to do with NSA.
I see you used snark tags in your post. Did it occur to you that the unattributed comment about Boeing losing due to NSA was just a snarky "twist of the knife" at an opportune time? I don't suppose it would. So, why did Dassault lose, and why would Boeing's loss be any different than Dassault's loss in reality?
Brazil has bought $1 billion in missiles from Russia, and yet they considered Russia a target for Brazilian spying, just like they spied on the US. And certainly you don't think that Brazil is free from Russian spies. So there is a mystery. Why would they buy from Russia if Russia is spying, but not the US?
You don't suppose it could be simply do to the quality of goods, the business terms, and the price, do you? Nah, that wouldn't indict the US!
Since there are hundreds of people in the US that have been arrested and imprisoned for terrorism related offenses in the last 12 years there must be something working. I don't think that magic rocks are admissible in court.
I'm really curious what other US citizen could directly and provably lie to congress, and not be arrested and indited for it, like J. Clapper?
Why has he not gotten in trouble legally yet?
Why hasn't he gotten in trouble legally? Probably because Congress had already been informed of the truth, and Wyden asked a highly inappropriate question in an inappropriate place as a form of grandstanding.
Wyden’s Stunt Was Congress at its Worst
Tell that to Boeing, who just lost a major deal with Brazil over this.
I'll break the code on that for you. The French company Dassault competed for that contract, but the Swedish company Saab made a better bid, so Dassault lost. The US company Boeing competed for that contract, but the Swedish company Saab made a better bid, so Boeing lost. Claiming it had anything to do with the NSA was just a "twist of the knife" at an opportune time. If you want to claim that it was due to NSA, they why did Dassault lose?
Dassault Blasts Brazil's Fighter Decision
You can read a number of comments about the strong position of Saab in the Slashdot story on this.
US Spying Costs Boeing Military Jet Deal With Brazil -- Example
Or go out on the internet and look. Saab has a competitive fighter that has won a number of contracts, both in Europe and around the world.
People are going to be claiming that every lost contract or bid has to do with NSA now, but little of it will be true. But that is an easier explanation to make than how you were underbid, or otherwise made a bad business decision.
That's essentially EXACTLY what they said. They claimed several prevented attacks but refused to provide details.
That is the way the intelligence game works. Your successes are secrets, and your failures tend to get publicized. If you don't keep your successes secret, you may not be able to repeat them, ever.
If they are briefing Congress about this it is almost certainly occurring behind closed doors, and may be limited to specific members.
Yes. There are nearly 200 countries filled with radios, radars, beacons, phones, networks, and so on that are controlling satellites, armies, air forces, and navies that produce data that gets captured and stored. The NSAs domestic phone record surveillance program is a small program.
Not to be all conspiratorial, but I think it's been a while now since politicians were really in charge of this sort of thing.
That is conspiratorial. The armed forces have grown and shrunk by hundreds of thousands over the last 20 years, and by tens of thousands over the last decade. Congress clearly has the power. The armed forces have started shrinking again. The NSA could certainly have its rules changed by the Congress, the courts, or the President.