n
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."
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