This board makes me laugh (a reality check)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
By keeping [your responses] shorter, when Cyrus feels compelled to parse them line by line and word by word and rebut to each minute part, then his overall reply post won't have to be 3 monitor screens high.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The sentence above looks like a cut-up. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

2. Some posts make a lot of worthwhile points, e.g. PartyRocks' OP. Other posts are short on quantity but long on quality. Both kinds deserve a substantial response, which could also be a lengthy one. Nevertheless, I try to make 'em short 'n sweet. And they mostly are.

Take care.

[zipo]

>>but just that by keeping them shorter, when Cyrus feels compelled to parse them line by line and word by word and rebut to each minute part, then his overall reply post won't have to be 3 monitor screens high.<<

What a hoot - Wind him up and watch him go LMAO

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
What a hoot - Wind him up and watch him go

[/ QUOTE ] Hey, where you been? I'd flame your little behind some more -- but you're making way too much sense in this thread.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
And, by the way: The NSA kind of technology is mostly useless against the low-tech threat that is Qaeda and its branches. Bear that in mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is incredibly wrong. And that is not an exaggeration in the least.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And, by the way: The NSA kind of technology is mostly useless against the low-tech threat that is Qaeda and its branches.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is incredibly wrong. And that is not an exaggeration in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand by my claim - "mostly" an' all.

Those guys are fanatics, criminals, etc, but they are not stupider than the drug dealers in The Wire, Season 1.

[vulturesrow]

Al-Qaeda and their ilk make heavy use of satellite communications, cellular technology, and the Internet. How is the NSA 'mostly useless' against this?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Al-Qaeda and their ilk make heavy use of satellite communications, cellular technology, and the Internet. How is the NSA 'mostly useless' against this?

[/ QUOTE ] I would guess that they are using the internet, yes -- so they'd know a thing or two about ops like the NSA's!

I would also guess (that's what I'd do anyway) they are communicating outside electronic means. I don't buy all that stuff about sat phones, etcetera. What's the hurry anyway?

At the outside, they would be using (also) electronic means of communication the old fashioned way: to trigger events through innocuous code - rather than exchange info.

"The NSA isn’t listening to you talk to your wife about picking up a loaf of bread on the way home."

"But they are! The NSA are also listen in on you talk to your lover - or your boss - or whomever. They are supposed to listen to most everything and then filter out the noise and stick to the juice. And with PATRIOT, it only gets worse. So if you think that there is not enormous room for abuse here, you are mistaken."

You are correct on every point. Although I think they hear every call you make on your cell phone, I would hope they are not listening . I don't like hope as a course of action, but what is the alternative?

"Over 80% of people like me agree that he’s doing a pretty good job based on the military vote in the last election."

If you want only professional soldiers to have the right to vote, just say so. In the meantime, this kind of percentage is as meaningful as the voting proclivities of Blonde American Women."

Only if Blonde American Women had the most recent, hands on experience in the most important issue today.

"You really don’t know anything more than what you read or hear about second hand instead of seeing or touching or feeling it first hand, so keep that in mind when you state your opinion."

No-nonsense Americans, people who are siding with the military first and looking at the question second, experts such as Melvin Laird, ex-Sec of Defense during Vietnam's most ferocious phase, or Zbigniew Brzezinky, ex-NSC chief and extreme anti-Soviet, or Henry Kissinger, a known war criminal, are not exactly saying kind things about the war that Bush is conduting! From one perspective or others, it is being suggested, with very delicate words, that the war is a huge SNAFU. And these are folks who are genuinely interested in America advanncing its interests in the world and strengthening its security. These guys are all enthusiastic imperialists!

You choose to discount such input, and others' like them, that's your prerogative. I'd say you're perhaps too close to the action to see the big picture but then perhaps you'd flame me. (Perhaps literally. ) "

I was a bit harsh in the way my closing sounded. I respect everyones right to an opinion and to state that opinion. But in my opinion, it is an opinion that is incomplete from a lack of hands on experience with terrorists. I don't discount it out of hand, I just know something else and have a different perspective.

I can assure you, a lot of the analysis I see on TV or read in the news is so fundementally flawed that its laughable. I think the one question we all need to ask ourselves is "do we really want to win this thing or not?" Clearly we disagree on the stakes we are fighting for. I think a lot of the posters who say we are not fighting for national survival think that winning is a given. Its not. And the consequences of losing impacts our ability to discuss the right and wrong of any subject.

If we stop fighting the war, it will still be fought against us.

[BluffTHIS!]

I posted the below in one of the spy/wiretap threads in response to Elliot and think it is applicable here as well.

"Do you remember in the film The Untouchables where Sean Connery's character asked Costner's character, "What are you willing do do?", and Costner/Ness responded, "All that the law allows". And then Connery asked, "And then what?".

The terrorists have that determination and so should we as far as making temporary exceptions regarding some personal liberties. If we're not willing to do that then either we will fail to defeat them or the cost will be much higher in american lives if we do succeed.

The positions of those such as yourself who see dictatorship looming when we make reasonable sacrifices with restrictions on our liberties during wartime are what makes terrorists and rogue nations think we are weak and that they can defeat us by dragging out a conflict and sapping our political will.

And the sacrifices such as I have adovcated here being correct, are what helps save the lives of our soldiers and intelligence agents in the field. They're doing their duty and we need to do ours to them. "

[zipo]

>>The terrorists have that determination and so should we as far as making temporary exceptions regarding some personal liberties<<

The problem here is the 'slippery slope'.

The Executive already has the power to use the NSA for domestic spying purposes. There is a check on this power, the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Prior approval from this court is not necessary - it can be granted 'after the fact'.

So, if Bush can use the NSA, and does not currently need prior approval to use it (negating the argument that he needs this power to 'move quickly'), why cut this check on executive power out of the loop? Honestly, this just doesn't pass the smell test.

Put that together with recent revelations that the FBI is using precious assets and personnel to spy on vegans, Quakers, and Greenpeace members instead of islamic terrorists, and connect the dots.

The war on islamic terror is real. It is also a fact that the executive is taking advantage of this reality to greatly expand their powers in areas unrelated to the war on terror.

We need to keep paying attention.