Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You forgot the one where they spent a year sitting on the Nassar allegations and did nothing.

https://www.nytimes.com/...orts/nassar-fbi.html

"Nearly a year passed before agents interviewed two of the young women."



But maybe they were too busy running child porn servers...








There are three kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [Guffaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Guffaw wrote:
Here are some other FBI failures to prevent crimes and terror:

- 1949 Camden, New Jersey residential neighborhood mass shooting
- 1955 United Air Lines DC-8 bombing
- 1960's Zodiac Killer
- 1963 John F. Kennedy assassination (or was this a FBI success? Enquiring minds want to know)
- 1966 University of Texas tower sniper
- 1969 Charles Manson family murders
- 1975 La Guardia Airport bombing
- 1980 Murder of John Lennon
- 1984 San Ysidro, California McDonald's Restaurant shootings
- 1993 Waco, Texas cluster-mess

Based on this and your theory its only logical to suppose the FBI has been crap after the Elliott Ness days.
or...
Maybe its not reasonable to expect the FBI to catch everything...

See my responses to Mr. Kevin and Mr. SH. According to the Department of Justice, the FBI's requested budget authorization for 2018 was $8,774,477,000. Of that amount, $8,772,582,000 is for Salaries and Expenses (S&E) and $51,895,000 for Construction.

The S&E covers the following:

-- 12,484 Special Agents (SAs)

-- 2,950 Intelligence Analysts (IAs)

-- 18,099 Professional Staff (PS)

More (pulled from the DOJ FY 2018 Authorization and Budget Request to Congress):

The S&E program increases total $117,583,000, 470 positions (150 SAs, 50 IAs), and 470 FTE, for the following:

-- $41,474,000 for cyber investigative capabilities

-- $19,727,000 to support foreign intelligence and insider threat investigations and continuous evaluation

-- $21,636,000 to counter the threat of Going Dark and for Investigative Technology

-- $6,779,000 to combat transnational organized crime (TOC)

-- $8,242,000 to support physical surveillance capabilities

-- $7,375,000 for the Biometrics Technology Center (BTC) Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

-- $3,450,000 for the Violent and Gun-Related Crime Reduction Task Force

-- $8,900,000 to support the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)

That's quite a lot of resources given over to the FBI, and that's also saying nothing about the "black budget" surreptitious funding the FBI receives (something that in 2013 apparently amounted to $52.6 billion spread across a number of government intelligence agencies and the military, including the FBI, according to the Washington Post). That particular aspect of the government budget -- which isn't normally available for scrutiny by the general public -- has helped build what the Post calls an "intelligence-gathering colossus."

So are we reaping the benefits of that capability, or not? On the face of things, with so many missed operations, attacks and opportunities since 9/11, it appears to me that we aren't. We're not getting the full bang for our bucks, in other words.


Here are just a couple media assessments of the FBI's work since 9/11:

Tsarnaev case raises questions about post 9/11 intelligence reforms (ed. the older Tsarnaev brother was investigated by the FBI in 2011)


The Orlando massacre: Why 15 + years after 9/11 the FBI still fails to connect the dots on terror


It's not that I expect the FBI and the rest of the US Intelligence Community to catch everything. It's true that terrorists and other persons having a desire to commit heinous acts only have to be right once while the FBI has to be right 100-percent of the time. That's a metric that will never be met, speaking honeslty.

But I'd really like them to start catching the things that are thrown right into their lap, such as hopeful future Boston Marathon bombers or Orlando nightclub shooters or maybe even the next school shooter, when family and friends and acquaintances pick up the phone and call the Bureau to warn it that someone they know is likely to shoot up a school. Could they at least trouble themselves to send a near-retirement special agent out to interview that person, maybe?

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [r7950] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
r7950 wrote:
You forgot the one where they spent a year sitting on the Nassar allegations and did nothing.

https://www.nytimes.com/...orts/nassar-fbi.html

"Nearly a year passed before agents interviewed two of the young women."

But maybe they were too busy running child porn servers...

I didn't want to interject him into my rant, mainly because I wanted to focus on the counter-intelligence and counter-terror failures than anything else. But you're right about them taking over and then running (far more effectively than before Bureau folks moved in and took them over) various child porn servers. The Bureau got itself into some hot water over that little stunt a couple years ago, I believe.

As well, several cases against some truly heinous people -- producers of child porn -- have had to be dropped because the FBI and other three-letter intelligence agencies were very reluctant to share with the courts the means by which they were able to find those producers. That's partly because of the possibly illegal nature of their surveillance techniques as well as an understandable reticence to discuss the kinds of cyber tools available to them to sniff those evil creatures out. Those tools were probably developed by the NSA to track down international terrorists and non-state terror groups and were then shared with DHS and the FBI for their own crime-fighting purposes.

I support our law enforcement community to the hilt. As long as they're enforcing the law by obeying the law. But you can't have federal and other-level law enforcement organizations stepping outside the law in order to bring various transgressors to justice. Just as you can't extra-judicially kill American citizens suspected of terrorism while they're overseas residing in some other country.

I get it. I really do. But trampling all over vital civil rights in order to bring US citizens alleged to be criminals to justice will lead us down a path to a benevolent despotism, at minimum (which is still despotic, for all that it's benevolent in most respects) and to something much scarier, if worst comes to worst (or worse comes to worst, or worse comes to worse, depending on your personal preference).

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
i can't hang with you here, bud. i know i'm just an old fogey, but i believe in our institutions: the armed forces, law enforcement, an independent judiciary, our intelligence agencies.

yes, we have our problems, yes, each agency has its problems, but i'm a conservative at heart, which means our govt and its institutions are deserving of our respect and thanks, rather than our selective scorn when that matches our political narratives.
Exactly how I feel. Doesn't mean we can't ask hard questions or be critical when warranted, but throwing shade on a forum doesn't benefit anybody. Let your Representative or Senator know you expect better.

And finally turning over the stone that the NCAA resides under, in my book is of great service to the nation. Corruption exists in so many places and at so many levels it's easy to just say eff it, there's no point in my trying to be an upright citizen. The whole of higher education has a really strong odor about it.

Slowman wrote:
i believe our elected officials, most of them, are well meaning, especially in state and local govts, where the pay is lower.
And here we disagree. See above. We let slide far too much criminal behavior, maybe especially at state & local level; government contracts that go to the highest bidder, endless refinancing that puts millions in the pockets of those who enable it, etc. Needs to be much more seriously addressed.

Brian

Gonna buy a fast car, put on my lead boots, take a long, long drive
I may end up spending all my money, but I'll still be alive
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
How many planned terrorist attacks have been thwarted?


How many haven't been? That's the more important question here.


No, the point is you don't know. You're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

You're sounding more and more like Trump every day, although I know you're not a fan of his, coz you keep saying so.

It doesn't matter how many have been spoiled (and I know what a spoiling raid is, and how it's carried out via intelligence gathering and then direct action, by the way). No doubt, some have. Though when asked about those spoiling ops, the standard response from the government is "If we told you, we'd have to kill you" (which is a running gag in the special operations world).

But is how many have been stopped really and truly the point? In the face of some truly spectacular failures since 9/11? You should take a few moments to read my follow-on responses before hurling an insult or two. The smoke emanating from my nether regions will no doubt still be there when you come back.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You just leveled a highly speculative, fact-free rant against the FBI and then indicted them on it. There are two sides in a battle right now: trump and his fellow alt-republicans; versus our intelligence agencies that are probably discovering some unwholesome behavior of his right now. Don’t use the FBIs failure to stop this mass shooter as a means to boost the side you seem to have championed in this battle.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You capitalized you sentences. I'm trying to figure out the significance.

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
How many planned terrorist attacks have been thwarted?


How many haven't been? That's the more important question here.


No, the point is you don't know. You're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

You're sounding more and more like Trump every day, although I know you're not a fan of his, coz you keep saying so.

It doesn't matter how many have been spoiled (and I know what a spoiling raid is, and how it's carried out via intelligence gathering and then direct action, by the way). No doubt, some have. Though when asked about those spoiling ops, the standard response from the government is "If we told you, we'd have to kill you" (which is a running gag in the special operations world).

But is how many have been stopped really and truly the point? In the face of some truly spectacular failures since 9/11? You should take a few moments to read my follow-on responses before hurling an insult or two. The smoke emanating from my nether regions will no doubt still be there when you come back.

We live in a messy, free society of 300m people. Our security services work extremely hard and for the most part do a fine job. Yes, there will be failures and yes, they must learn from these to try to avoid future failures. And it may be that we want to lose more personal freedoms and pay more taxes to allow our security services to double their efforts, but as a libertarian voter I suspect you wouldn't want that greater security overreach. What personal freedoms are you willing to relinquish to allow our security services to do a more effective job?

Try Googling "thwarted terrorist attacks in the US" and in 10 seconds you can find a fairly long list of cases that are public information.
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
n
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
How many planned terrorist attacks have been thwarted?


How many haven't been? That's the more important question here.


No, the point is you don't know. You're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

You're sounding more and more like Trump every day, although I know you're not a fan of his, coz you keep saying so.


It doesn't matter how many have been spoiled (and I know what a spoiling raid is, and how it's carried out via intelligence gathering and then direct action, by the way). No doubt, some have. Though when asked about those spoiling ops, the standard response from the government is "If we told you, we'd have to kill you" (which is a running gag in the special operations world).

But is how many have been stopped really and truly the point? In the face of some truly spectacular failures since 9/11? You should take a few moments to read my follow-on responses before hurling an insult or two. The smoke emanating from my nether regions will no doubt still be there when you come back.


We live in a messy, free society of 300m people. Our security services work extremely hard and for the most part do a fine job. Yes, there will be failures and yes, they must learn from these to try to avoid future failures. And it may be that we want to lose more personal freedoms and pay more taxes to allow our security services to double their efforts, but as a libertarian voter I suspect you wouldn't want that greater security overreach. What personal freedoms are you willing to relinquish to allow our security services to do a more effective job?

Try Googling "thwarted terrorist attacks in the US" and in 10 seconds you can find a fairly long list of cases that are public information.


I find myself bemused that I, considered to be of "the right" by most here in the LR, seem to be one of the few who want to hold the FBI accountable for what have been some really awful misses -- highlighting a complete and total failure of the state security apparatus (noted to be an "intelligence-gathering colossus" by the Washington Post) at all government levels when it comes to this Florida shooting -- and that those I would consider to be of "the left" here are rushing to the defense of the Bureau. What a cloud cuckoo world in which we lead.

Your sentence alluding to "lose(ing") more personal freedoms" does more than bemuse me, though. It makes me suspect a more ulterior motive in your passionate defense of the FBI and, by extension, "our security services." What motive would that be, when we have citizens convincing themselves that the way to be "safer" is to lose more personal freedoms and pay more taxes to allow our security services to double their efforts?

"The surveillance state." Read up on it, and do more than just google it and look at headlines from the first one or two results pages. And think really hard on whether living within one is really such a good idea or not.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Last edited by: big kahuna: Feb 26, 18 2:54
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
n
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
How many planned terrorist attacks have been thwarted?


How many haven't been? That's the more important question here.


No, the point is you don't know. You're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

You're sounding more and more like Trump every day, although I know you're not a fan of his, coz you keep saying so.


It doesn't matter how many have been spoiled (and I know what a spoiling raid is, and how it's carried out via intelligence gathering and then direct action, by the way). No doubt, some have. Though when asked about those spoiling ops, the standard response from the government is "If we told you, we'd have to kill you" (which is a running gag in the special operations world).

But is how many have been stopped really and truly the point? In the face of some truly spectacular failures since 9/11? You should take a few moments to read my follow-on responses before hurling an insult or two. The smoke emanating from my nether regions will no doubt still be there when you come back.


We live in a messy, free society of 300m people. Our security services work extremely hard and for the most part do a fine job. Yes, there will be failures and yes, they must learn from these to try to avoid future failures. And it may be that we want to lose more personal freedoms and pay more taxes to allow our security services to double their efforts, but as a libertarian voter I suspect you wouldn't want that greater security overreach. What personal freedoms are you willing to relinquish to allow our security services to do a more effective job?

Try Googling "thwarted terrorist attacks in the US" and in 10 seconds you can find a fairly long list of cases that are public information.


I find myself bemused that I, considered to be of "the right" by most here in the LR, seem to be one of the few who want to hold the FBI accountable for what have been some really awful misses -- highlighting a complete and total failure of the state security apparatus (noted to be an "intelligence-gathering colossus" by the Washington Post) at all government levels when it comes to this Florida shooting -- and that those I would consider to be of "the left" here are rushing to the defense of the Bureau. What a cloud cuckoo world in which we lead.

Your sentence alluding to "lose(ing") more personal freedoms" does more than bemuse me, though. It makes me suspect a more ulterior motive in your passionate defense of the FBI and, by extension, "our security services." What motive would that be, when we have citizens convincing themselves that the way to be "safer" is to lose more personal freedoms and pay more taxes to allow our security services to double their efforts?

"The surveillance state." Read up on it, and do more than just google it and look at headlines from the first one or two results pages. And think really hard on whether living within one is really such a good idea or not.

If people have been negligent in their duties absolutely they should be held accountable. But you are throwing the whole of the agency under the bus for some cherry picked failures while willfully ignoring the agencies successes, most of which we never learn about. In doing so you just come across as a Trump shill. Apart from that though, this has little to do with left vs right. Trump made the FBI a political football because they're investigating him and he's trying to discredit the agency for that very reason. And you've been suckered into that narrative.

I don't want a security state. That's my point. But if you want the FBI to step things up and get closer to zero terrorist incidents in the US, then you're going to have to give up some personal freedoms. So which do you want? The personal freedoms you enjoy, or a security state closer to Russia, China or North Korea?
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
You just leveled a highly speculative, fact-free rant against the FBI and then indicted them on it. There are two sides in a battle right now: trump and his fellow alt-republicans; versus our intelligence agencies that are probably discovering some unwholesome behavior of his right now. Don’t use the FBIs failure to stop this mass shooter as a means to boost the side you seem to have championed in this battle.

I think you're speaking more from the subjective rather than the objective in this instance, Dan. But that's just my opinion on the matter. Plenty of facts posted in this thread, with links embedded, on the failings of the FBI and, by extension, the larger US Intelligence Community (the IC), since 9/11 and especially since the Boston Marathon bombing. This Florida school shooting is just the latest and most egregious example of that problem.

I also think you believe that tolerating any criticism of the FBI, at least at the moment, will somehow weaken the argument against that guy in the White House -- and that by criticizing the FBI it will prevent all those White Hat good guys out to bring him to justice, from doing just that. So no ill word can be said of the Bureau, even when it massively fails to execute its mission, until that gentleman is broomed from power. Have I got that right?

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
n
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
How many planned terrorist attacks have been thwarted?


How many haven't been? That's the more important question here.


No, the point is you don't know. You're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

You're sounding more and more like Trump every day, although I know you're not a fan of his, coz you keep saying so.


It doesn't matter how many have been spoiled (and I know what a spoiling raid is, and how it's carried out via intelligence gathering and then direct action, by the way). No doubt, some have. Though when asked about those spoiling ops, the standard response from the government is "If we told you, we'd have to kill you" (which is a running gag in the special operations world).

But is how many have been stopped really and truly the point? In the face of some truly spectacular failures since 9/11? You should take a few moments to read my follow-on responses before hurling an insult or two. The smoke emanating from my nether regions will no doubt still be there when you come back.


We live in a messy, free society of 300m people. Our security services work extremely hard and for the most part do a fine job. Yes, there will be failures and yes, they must learn from these to try to avoid future failures. And it may be that we want to lose more personal freedoms and pay more taxes to allow our security services to double their efforts, but as a libertarian voter I suspect you wouldn't want that greater security overreach. What personal freedoms are you willing to relinquish to allow our security services to do a more effective job?

Try Googling "thwarted terrorist attacks in the US" and in 10 seconds you can find a fairly long list of cases that are public information.


I find myself bemused that I, considered to be of "the right" by most here in the LR, seem to be one of the few who want to hold the FBI accountable for what have been some really awful misses -- highlighting a complete and total failure of the state security apparatus (noted to be an "intelligence-gathering colossus" by the Washington Post) at all government levels when it comes to this Florida shooting -- and that those I would consider to be of "the left" here are rushing to the defense of the Bureau. What a cloud cuckoo world in which we lead.

Your sentence alluding to "lose(ing") more personal freedoms" does more than bemuse me, though. It makes me suspect a more ulterior motive in your passionate defense of the FBI and, by extension, "our security services." What motive would that be, when we have citizens convincing themselves that the way to be "safer" is to lose more personal freedoms and pay more taxes to allow our security services to double their efforts?

"The surveillance state." Read up on it, and do more than just google it and look at headlines from the first one or two results pages. And think really hard on whether living within one is really such a good idea or not.


If people have been negligent in their duties absolutely they should be held accountable. But you are throwing the whole of the agency under the bus for some cherry picked failures while willfully ignoring the agencies successes, most of which we never learn about. In doing so you just come across as a Trump shill. Apart from that though, this has little to do with left vs right. Trump made the FBI a political football because they're investigating him and he's trying to discredit the agency for that very reason. And you've been suckered into that narrative.

I don't want a security state. That's my point. But if you want the FBI to step things up and get closer to zero terrorist incidents in the US, then you're going to have to give up some personal freedoms. So which do you want? The personal freedoms you enjoy, or a security state closer to Russia, China or North Korea?

That's an invalid either/or proposition. You either let the current security apparatus (vastly well-funded and lavishly equipped, to boot) have its way -- for whatever reason -- and give up some more personal freedoms (a quite frankly disturbing viewpoint coming from a fellow American) or we're going to end up with the kind of security apparatus they have in Russia or China or North Korea? Such a suggestion sounds like something a John Bircher would say.

What I want for them is to do their jobs with all the wondrous tools we've already given them. If they'd do that, and follow the procedures they already have in place, they wouldn't have failed as badly as they've done in several instances since 9/11. That's a fact acknowledged even by the FBI when it comes to their complete and utter failure to head off the Florida school shooter.

The point is: the Bureau, in a number of instances, had already interacted with people who went on to commit heinous acts of terror or mass murder. They had credible, solid information beforehand about a mass school shooter, yet couldn't even trouble themselves to forward that information to the local field office in the jurisdiction in which that future school shooter lived. That indicates a disquieting lack of proficiency and or attention to detail, at minimum.

Yet we're now being told that the solution is to hand over even more resources, and to give the security apparatus even more power and to consider giving up more of our basic personal freedoms, to make this problem go away. Sorry, but I'm not convinced of that proposition as yet.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
n
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
How many planned terrorist attacks have been thwarted?


How many haven't been? That's the more important question here.


No, the point is you don't know. You're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

You're sounding more and more like Trump every day, although I know you're not a fan of his, coz you keep saying so.


It doesn't matter how many have been spoiled (and I know what a spoiling raid is, and how it's carried out via intelligence gathering and then direct action, by the way). No doubt, some have. Though when asked about those spoiling ops, the standard response from the government is "If we told you, we'd have to kill you" (which is a running gag in the special operations world).

But is how many have been stopped really and truly the point? In the face of some truly spectacular failures since 9/11? You should take a few moments to read my follow-on responses before hurling an insult or two. The smoke emanating from my nether regions will no doubt still be there when you come back.


We live in a messy, free society of 300m people. Our security services work extremely hard and for the most part do a fine job. Yes, there will be failures and yes, they must learn from these to try to avoid future failures. And it may be that we want to lose more personal freedoms and pay more taxes to allow our security services to double their efforts, but as a libertarian voter I suspect you wouldn't want that greater security overreach. What personal freedoms are you willing to relinquish to allow our security services to do a more effective job?

Try Googling "thwarted terrorist attacks in the US" and in 10 seconds you can find a fairly long list of cases that are public information.


I find myself bemused that I, considered to be of "the right" by most here in the LR, seem to be one of the few who want to hold the FBI accountable for what have been some really awful misses -- highlighting a complete and total failure of the state security apparatus (noted to be an "intelligence-gathering colossus" by the Washington Post) at all government levels when it comes to this Florida shooting -- and that those I would consider to be of "the left" here are rushing to the defense of the Bureau. What a cloud cuckoo world in which we lead.

Your sentence alluding to "lose(ing") more personal freedoms" does more than bemuse me, though. It makes me suspect a more ulterior motive in your passionate defense of the FBI and, by extension, "our security services." What motive would that be, when we have citizens convincing themselves that the way to be "safer" is to lose more personal freedoms and pay more taxes to allow our security services to double their efforts?

"The surveillance state." Read up on it, and do more than just google it and look at headlines from the first one or two results pages. And think really hard on whether living within one is really such a good idea or not.


If people have been negligent in their duties absolutely they should be held accountable. But you are throwing the whole of the agency under the bus for some cherry picked failures while willfully ignoring the agencies successes, most of which we never learn about. In doing so you just come across as a Trump shill. Apart from that though, this has little to do with left vs right. Trump made the FBI a political football because they're investigating him and he's trying to discredit the agency for that very reason. And you've been suckered into that narrative.

I don't want a security state. That's my point. But if you want the FBI to step things up and get closer to zero terrorist incidents in the US, then you're going to have to give up some personal freedoms. So which do you want? The personal freedoms you enjoy, or a security state closer to Russia, China or North Korea?


That's an invalid either/or proposition. You either let the current security apparatus (vastly well-funded and lavishly equipped, to boot) have its way -- for whatever reason -- and give up some more personal freedoms (a quite frankly disturbing viewpoint coming from a fellow American) or we're going to end up with the kind of security apparatus they have in Russia or China or North Korea? Such a suggestion sounds like something a John Bircher would say.

What I want for them is to do their jobs with all the wondrous tools we've already given them. If they'd do that, and follow the procedures they already have in place, they wouldn't have failed as badly as they've done in several instances since 9/11. That's a fact acknowledged even by the FBI when it comes to their complete and utter failure to head off the Florida school shooter.

The point is: the Bureau, in a number of instances, had already interacted with people who went on to commit heinous acts of terror or mass murder. They had credible, solid information beforehand about a mass school shooter, yet couldn't even trouble themselves to forward that information to the local field office in the jurisdiction in which that future school shooter lived. That indicates a disquieting lack of proficiency and or attention to detail, at minimum.

Yet we're now being told that the solution is to hand over even more resources, and to give the security apparatus even more power and to consider giving up more of our basic personal freedoms, to make this problem go away. Sorry, but I'm not convinced of that proposition as yet.

As I said, past failures must be investigated and learned from, including the FL shooting and clearly in that case there were significant misses.

But don't ignore the fact that the FBI probably gets hundreds, even thousands of tips about potentially dangerous kids. Should the FBI interview every single one? Should they confiscate every weapon in every household for which they've had a tip about a troubled teen? Or should the families owning those weapons be allowed some due process? That's an example of my point about personal freedoms. If you want zero tolerance for security failures then you'll have to give up some of your beloved liberty.
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
But don't ignore the fact that the FBI probably gets hundreds, even thousands of tips about potentially dangerous kids. Should the FBI interview every single one? Should they confiscate every weapon in every household for which they've had a tip about a troubled teen? Or should the families owning those weapons be allowed some due process? That's an example of my point about personal freedoms. If you want zero tolerance for security failures then you'll have to give up some of your beloved liberty.

Is it your position that the tips received by the FBI regarding the Florida school shooter did not warrant further investigation by the FBI?

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [last tri in 83] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
last tri in 83 wrote:
You capitalized you sentences. I'm trying to figure out the significance.

when that happens it's because i'm typing it on my cell phone, and my phone forces me to behave.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
I also think you believe that tolerating any criticism of the FBI, at least at the moment, will somehow weaken the argument against that guy in the White House -- and that by criticizing the FBI it will prevent all those White Hat good guys out to bring him to justice, from doing just that. So no ill word can be said of the Bureau, even when it massively fails to execute its mission, until that gentleman is broomed from power. Have I got that right?


i can see where this would be confusing. let me give you some guidance.

let's say someone occasionally criticized donald trump against a landscape of obvious staunch support for him. (does that sound familiar to you?) that person is not afraid of leveling "any" criticism of the president he supports.

now, taking me as an example, i think donald trump is fundamentally flawed in character and behavior. when you write about, "massively fails to execute its mission", that's my view of trump.

i support all kinds of people and institutions while criticizing them (just like that trump supporter occasionally criticizes trump) and i think it's clear when i do so that underpinning my criticism is a foundation for the mission and most of the people.

do you support the FBI, the mission, and most of the people? you will once a democrat is president. but... today? not so much.

and before you start any but... but... but...! JSA and slowguy are witness to the fact that i supported comey's FBI when it failed to prosecute clinton in july, and again when he announced reopening the investigation in september. you either trust and support your institutions always, or you trust them when it's convenient and make them the goat when it suits your narrative. if the latter, then you stand for nothing.

does that help?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: Feb 26, 18 6:57
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
H- wrote:
Quote:
But don't ignore the fact that the FBI probably gets hundreds, even thousands of tips about potentially dangerous kids. Should the FBI interview every single one? Should they confiscate every weapon in every household for which they've had a tip about a troubled teen? Or should the families owning those weapons be allowed some due process? That's an example of my point about personal freedoms. If you want zero tolerance for security failures then you'll have to give up some of your beloved liberty.


Is it your position that the tips received by the FBI regarding the Florida school shooter did not warrant further investigation by the FBI?

From what I have learned via the media, it appears there were sufficient tips on the FL shooter that follow ups were warranted, either by the FBI or local law enforcement, or both. Also, in this specific case, it seems the FL shooter might/should have been arrested for aggravated assault from a prior incident, and that could have prevented him from buying weapons. I trust a thorough investigation will take place and lessons learned will hopefully be used help to prevent future incidents.

I think it's dangerous to use isolated incidents to discredit the whole of the FBI though. It's not being intellectually honest about the difficulty in responding to every tip, nor the wealth of very good work the agency does.
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
H- wrote:
Quote:
But don't ignore the fact that the FBI probably gets hundreds, even thousands of tips about potentially dangerous kids. Should the FBI interview every single one? Should they confiscate every weapon in every household for which they've had a tip about a troubled teen? Or should the families owning those weapons be allowed some due process? That's an example of my point about personal freedoms. If you want zero tolerance for security failures then you'll have to give up some of your beloved liberty.


Is it your position that the tips received by the FBI regarding the Florida school shooter did not warrant further investigation by the FBI?


From what I have learned via the media, it appears there were sufficient tips on the FL shooter that follow ups were warranted, either by the FBI or local law enforcement, or both. Also, in this specific case, it seems the FL shooter might/should have been arrested for aggravated assault from a prior incident, and that could have prevented him from buying weapons. I trust a thorough investigation will take place and lessons learned will hopefully be used help to prevent future incidents.

I think it's dangerous to use isolated incidents to discredit the whole of the FBI though. It's not being intellectually honest about the difficulty in responding to every tip, nor the wealth of very good work the agency does.

And the refusal to consider plots, plans, and attacks prevented is just stupid. If the FBI are made aware of 50 planned attacks, and 25 of them are successful, that tells us one thing. If they are made aware of 1000 planned attacks, and 25 are successful, that tells us something else.

There's no doubt that the FBI has fallen short on some recent events, and the Parkland shooting seems to be a significant failure of local and federal law enforcement leading up to the shooting. But to list 7 incidents over the time period of 17 years as indicative of massive failure of the FBI to do its job, without being even willing to consider those incidents in the context of total planned attacks is disingenuous at a minimum. And then that error is compounded by implying that somehow those failures are related to the FBI expending effort on a college basketball investigation.

Fortunately, it's Kahuna, so we know a thread or post is likely to be disingenuous pretty much before even reading.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
H- wrote:
Quote:
But don't ignore the fact that the FBI probably gets hundreds, even thousands of tips about potentially dangerous kids. Should the FBI interview every single one? Should they confiscate every weapon in every household for which they've had a tip about a troubled teen? Or should the families owning those weapons be allowed some due process? That's an example of my point about personal freedoms. If you want zero tolerance for security failures then you'll have to give up some of your beloved liberty.


Is it your position that the tips received by the FBI regarding the Florida school shooter did not warrant further investigation by the FBI?


From what I have learned via the media, it appears there were sufficient tips on the FL shooter that follow ups were warranted, either by the FBI or local law enforcement, or both. Also, in this specific case, it seems the FL shooter might/should have been arrested for aggravated assault from a prior incident, and that could have prevented him from buying weapons. I trust a thorough investigation will take place and lessons learned will hopefully be used help to prevent future incidents.

I think it's dangerous to use isolated incidents to discredit the whole of the FBI though. It's not being intellectually honest about the difficulty in responding to every tip, nor the wealth of very good work the agency does.

And the refusal to consider plots, plans, and attacks prevented is just stupid. If the FBI are made aware of 50 planned attacks, and 25 of them are successful, that tells us one thing. If they are made aware of 1000 planned attacks, and 25 are successful, that tells us something else.

There's no doubt that the FBI has fallen short on some recent events, and the Parkland shooting seems to be a significant failure of local and federal law enforcement leading up to the shooting. But to list 7 incidents over the time period of 17 years as indicative of massive failure of the FBI to do its job, without being even willing to consider those incidents in the context of total planned attacks is disingenuous at a minimum. And then that error is compounded by implying that somehow those failures are related to the FBI expending effort on a college basketball investigation.

Fortunately, it's Kahuna, so we know a thread or post is likely to be disingenuous pretty much before even reading.

I think I am starting to lean towards BK actually getting paid to post on message boards by some conservative leaning organization. Perhaps the NRA.

There is a trend in his posts, especially noticeable about this shooting, to consistently undermine any gun control argument with subtle (or not so subtle) redirection.

It’s not guns it’s, mental illness (at least until a trial, then the guy isn’t crazy, fry him)
It’s not guns, it’s social decay.
It’s not guns, it’s the cops fault.
It’s not guns, it’s the FBI’s fault.

Virtually anything to redirect away from discussing restricting firearm access or strengthening any sort of gun control. Of significance is the avoidance of directly arguing the point. Mostly just redirection and obfuscation. Straight out of the Russian troll playbook. Interdasting.

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
H- wrote:
Quote:
But don't ignore the fact that the FBI probably gets hundreds, even thousands of tips about potentially dangerous kids. Should the FBI interview every single one? Should they confiscate every weapon in every household for which they've had a tip about a troubled teen? Or should the families owning those weapons be allowed some due process? That's an example of my point about personal freedoms. If you want zero tolerance for security failures then you'll have to give up some of your beloved liberty.


Is it your position that the tips received by the FBI regarding the Florida school shooter did not warrant further investigation by the FBI?


From what I have learned via the media, it appears there were sufficient tips on the FL shooter that follow ups were warranted, either by the FBI or local law enforcement, or both. Also, in this specific case, it seems the FL shooter might/should have been arrested for aggravated assault from a prior incident, and that could have prevented him from buying weapons. I trust a thorough investigation will take place and lessons learned will hopefully be used help to prevent future incidents.

I think it's dangerous to use isolated incidents to discredit the whole of the FBI though. It's not being intellectually honest about the difficulty in responding to every tip, nor the wealth of very good work the agency does.


And the refusal to consider plots, plans, and attacks prevented is just stupid. If the FBI are made aware of 50 planned attacks, and 25 of them are successful, that tells us one thing. If they are made aware of 1000 planned attacks, and 25 are successful, that tells us something else.

There's no doubt that the FBI has fallen short on some recent events, and the Parkland shooting seems to be a significant failure of local and federal law enforcement leading up to the shooting. But to list 7 incidents over the time period of 17 years as indicative of massive failure of the FBI to do its job, without being even willing to consider those incidents in the context of total planned attacks is disingenuous at a minimum. And then that error is compounded by implying that somehow those failures are related to the FBI expending effort on a college basketball investigation.

Fortunately, it's Kahuna, so we know a thread or post is likely to be disingenuous pretty much before even reading.

Agreed. And the problem with BK is that in one breath he'll tell us that he likes posting provocative, inciting posts and give us a winkie, and then he'll argue those points until he's blue in the teeth but at any moment he'll capitulate and say, "hey guys, I was just being provocative."
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks. Good points from you SG and others.

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Agreed. And the problem with BK is that in one breath he'll tell us that he likes posting provocative, inciting posts and give us a winkie, and then he'll argue those points until he's blue in the teeth but at any moment he'll capitulate and say, "hey guys, I was just being provocative."

And you continue to read his posts because, why?

(I've never seen someone blue in the teeth. That must be something!)

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
n
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
How many planned terrorist attacks have been thwarted?


How many haven't been? That's the more important question here.


No, the point is you don't know. You're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

You're sounding more and more like Trump every day, although I know you're not a fan of his, coz you keep saying so.


It doesn't matter how many have been spoiled (and I know what a spoiling raid is, and how it's carried out via intelligence gathering and then direct action, by the way). No doubt, some have. Though when asked about those spoiling ops, the standard response from the government is "If we told you, we'd have to kill you" (which is a running gag in the special operations world).

But is how many have been stopped really and truly the point? In the face of some truly spectacular failures since 9/11? You should take a few moments to read my follow-on responses before hurling an insult or two. The smoke emanating from my nether regions will no doubt still be there when you come back.


We live in a messy, free society of 300m people. Our security services work extremely hard and for the most part do a fine job. Yes, there will be failures and yes, they must learn from these to try to avoid future failures. And it may be that we want to lose more personal freedoms and pay more taxes to allow our security services to double their efforts, but as a libertarian voter I suspect you wouldn't want that greater security overreach. What personal freedoms are you willing to relinquish to allow our security services to do a more effective job?

Try Googling "thwarted terrorist attacks in the US" and in 10 seconds you can find a fairly long list of cases that are public information.


I find myself bemused that I, considered to be of "the right" by most here in the LR, seem to be one of the few who want to hold the FBI accountable for what have been some really awful misses -- highlighting a complete and total failure of the state security apparatus (noted to be an "intelligence-gathering colossus" by the Washington Post) at all government levels when it comes to this Florida shooting -- and that those I would consider to be of "the left" here are rushing to the defense of the Bureau. What a cloud cuckoo world in which we lead.

Your sentence alluding to "lose(ing") more personal freedoms" does more than bemuse me, though. It makes me suspect a more ulterior motive in your passionate defense of the FBI and, by extension, "our security services." What motive would that be, when we have citizens convincing themselves that the way to be "safer" is to lose more personal freedoms and pay more taxes to allow our security services to double their efforts?

"The surveillance state." Read up on it, and do more than just google it and look at headlines from the first one or two results pages. And think really hard on whether living within one is really such a good idea or not.

You have to understand the new ST. Questioning the FBI will bring out those that have staked their very existence on Mueller taking down Trump. You know the crew. They spend their life on ST ranting about Trump/Mueller. Every tid bit of news gets digested to mean one thing. The demise is JUST AROUND THE CORNER!!

If they were to realistically look at your initial post, and read it without the hatred of Trump taking over, they would realize you are correct. Just take a look at one small part of what they missed in the Florida school shooting. The kid posted a comment on a YouTube website saying he intended to be a professional school shooter. The You Tuber contacts the FBI. The FBI says they couldn't trace the post. THE KID POSTED IT UNDER HIS OWN NAME!!!

The leadership at the FBI, and the structure of our intelligence services needs to be changed. It has nothing to do with Mueller or Trump. It has everything to do with the bureaucracy more worried about politics, internal and external then doing the job they were hired to do. Re-organize. Fire everyone at the top. Start over. The FBI are broken. Trump and Mueller are not part of this story. The only reason their names even come up after your post, because Kay, Sanuk and the other rabid crazies filter everything through Trump/Mueller.
Quote Reply
Re: Congrats to the FBI! [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
SH wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Yup. They caught Arizona b-ball coach Sean Miller, who apparently is involved in some sort of scandal involving sports agents loaning money to some players and their families in hopes of signing them to representation contracts down the road when and if they become NBA ballers. Great job! The world is a safer place now. Pat yourselves on the back, fellahs.

In the meantime, however, the Bureau completely whiffed on the Florida school shooter, the Boston Marathon bombers, the 9/11 attackers, the San Bernardino terrorists, the Fort Hood terrorist (the results of his work having initially been classified as "workplace violence" by our government), the Pulse Nightclub killer (who'd come under government scrutiny prior to his infamy), the Underwear Bomber and the Times Square Bomber -- the latter two guys having only failed because they were too incompetent to properly assemble their explosive devices.

The FBI's having a bad year, to tell the truth. But it's completely the FBI's fault. It desperately needs an overhaul of its leadership and intelligence gathering ranks as well as its procedural methods, it appears to this outsider.


The FBI didn't stop the 9/11 attackers so it's having a bad year?

If you want to just irritate people instead of convince them then go ahead and make claims like you're some kind of an expert while you present evidence that shows you're an ignoramous.


I answered Mr. Kevin's post and provided some reasons for why the FBI's falling on its face lately. And they MISSED the Florida school shooter -- after having received TWO tips about him, the second with extremely clear information about the danger he posed. They've also MISSED on several bombers, shooters and terrorists -- many of whom were "hiding in plain sight" all while they were plotting and planning and, then, executing their evil. Omar Mateen, the Pulse Nightclub shooter who killed 50, was scrutinized on TWO separate occasions by the Bureau, was out there for the entire world to see, including our nation's preeminent law enforcement agency. So the FBI's actually missed quite a bit since the 9/11 attackers.

But I've found that it's easier here in the LR to just hurl gratuitous insults at someone you don't know and will likely never meet -- which is the way of chat rooms, historically speaking (and Lord knows I was right there with you back before my hiatus) -- than it is to engage on a reasoned basis. Still, I respect your opinion and will work harder in future to prove that I'm only half the ignoramus I apparently am at this juncture.

I guess I should have used a word besides ignoramous. The insulting connotations of the word got in the way of the larger point I was trying to make.
Here's a more detailed explanation:

1.) You presented your data in a way that showed gross unfamiliarity with the subject matter. Let me give you an analogous example. Let's say someone wanted to claim that Michael Jordan was a terrible basketball player, and, as proof, they listed every memorable last second shot that Jordan had missed during his career. Would you expect us to be convinced by that data? What would you think of a person that used that data as the only basis for their claim? Your list of FBI missed "shots" is highly analogous to a Michael Jordan list of missed shots.
2.) Moving on... All the data you listed is generally available and generally known to just about every reader of this thread. You offered no other information about your knowledge in this area. Yet, you arrogantly and casually claim the expertise to know: the internal climate of the FBI, what does or does not need to be done to fix the organization, and whose fault it all is.
3.) I was pointing out that the combination of #1 and #2 mostly serve to irritate people instead of convincing them.
Quote Reply

Prev Next