The Day We Fight Back

[GunWrath]

I've had some time experience within communications and surveillance operations and I can most certainly say.. no matter how much you fight.. there is and will always be a way to keep an eye and ear on human life. There may be a right to support it.. but I find no motivation to try and support it or fight it.. as it's going to be there. If the government, US Govt. at that wants to listen in on you, they will. They don't need legal support. Hell, look at the war, the past wars. Senators, etc don't have the nutsack to step foot on the battlefield nor the grounds of civilians, so they'll send in who they know best, their own that are able.

 

Hell, if you want to witness corruption in the US, just look to your left or right. If regular civilians are capable of acts, don't you think your own government are capable? Word of advice, they're watching.. mind what you say.

 

I also believe whistleblowing can do some good.. how much or how far, who knows? But keep it going.

[X-Seti]

This is nothing new and at the end of the day if you have nothing to hide and you haven't committed any crime you have nothing to worry about.

[WBaker]

Yeah good thing that the porn you like and the video games you play aren't illegal. I'm sure there will never be a time when they will be, right?

 

....Right?

Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR PORN!

[GrandMaster Smith]

It's kind of scary how generally content the masses are with having practically zero privacy.. I understand many of the posters on this site aren't yet adults but people need to understand you as a human being have rights.. this has absof*ckinglutely nothing to do with terrorism and all to do with control.

 

You really think the NSA wants to go through your personal letters and browsing history or eavesdrop on kids playing Xbox because some cave dwellers hijacked a plane over an entire decade ago? This is all and purely about control and obtaining the power to monitor every person to the fullest extent. This type of world we're diving into was unthinkable a mere 150 years ago.. To be able to track one's movement and record all personal conversations is ridiculous, whether you have something to hide or not.

 

Government sees somebody speaking out against what they're doing? They can easily request an internet giant to remove the content, arrest the person under names of terrorism or a threat to national security then get them locked up in indefinite detention without trial to rot away. No doubt the Boston events were very tragic, but noone seemed to realize we had fbi agents and military roaming our streets in armored trucks strapped with fully automatic weapons out to murder two American citizens without a trial. All the while knocking door to door pointed with machine guns forcibly entering houses without any sort of warrant. I feel so many have been mentally conditioned by what's shown in movies to think this sort of stuff is normal, or just have little knowledge of the rights they were born into.

 

I truly don't know what to think the future may bring, it's sad to see the generations who were born into this post 9/11 world who feel all of this is normal.. A generation devoid of true social interaction, constantly glued to their phones seeing the world through a 5 megapixel camera.. it's hard to see the jail cell you live in when you were already born behind bars..

[Mr. House]

No doubt the Boston events were very tragic, but noone seemed to realize we had fbi agents and military roaming our streets in armored trucks strapped with fully automatic weapons out to murder two American citizens without a trial.

Okay, those two American Citizens had just attempted to blow a few hundred people up. What the f*ck are you supposed to do? Chase after them with water pistols? You're being ridiculous.

[Tacymist]

 

No doubt the Boston events were very tragic, but noone seemed to realize we had fbi agents and military roaming our streets in armored trucks strapped with fully automatic weapons out to murder two American citizens without a trial.

Okay, those two American Citizens had just attempted to blow a few hundred people up. What the f*ck are you supposed to do? Chase after them with water pistols? You're being ridiculous.

 

 

I think his tinfoil hat's on just a little too tight.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

No doubt the Boston events were very tragic, but noone seemed to realize we had fbi agents and military roaming our streets in armored trucks strapped with fully automatic weapons out to murder two American citizens without a trial.

Okay, those two American Citizens had just attempted to blow a few hundred people up. What the f*ck are you supposed to do? Chase after them with water pistols? You're being ridiculous.

 

 

 

They had no proof the two had committed the crime.. You can't just call up the army and go out killing whoever you please just because you have an itch someone may have committed a crime. Tsarvev(sp?) was without any weapons when they found him (opposed to what the police wrongfully claimed), his accomplice was beaten to a pulp then shot in the head.

 

They could've easily handcuffed and arrested the men instead of being barbaric and beating the living life out of them and attempting to murder them both before they had a chance to talk and give their side of the story.. You've shown to be a smart man before, I'm sure you know about rights to a fair trial.. or is my tinfoil hat just on too tight?... :rolleyes:

[Mr. House]

 

 

No doubt the Boston events were very tragic, but noone seemed to realize we had fbi agents and military roaming our streets in armored trucks strapped with fully automatic weapons out to murder two American citizens without a trial.

Okay, those two American Citizens had just attempted to blow a few hundred people up. What the f*ck are you supposed to do? Chase after them with water pistols? You're being ridiculous.

 

 

 

They had no proof the two had committed the crime.. You can't just call up the army and go out killing whoever you please just because you have an itch someone may have committed a crime. Tsarvev(sp?) was without any weapons when they found him (opposed to what the police wrongfully claimed), his accomplice was beaten to a pulp then shot in the head.

 

They could've easily handcuffed and arrested the men instead of being barbaric and beating the living life out of them and attempting to murder them both before they had a chance to talk and give their side of the story.. You've shown to be a smart man before, I'm sure you know about rights to a fair trial.. or is my tinfoil hat just on too tight?... :rolleyes:

 

I don't see how else this situation could have been handled, generally people willing to blow up scores of people aren't going to just accept handcuffs. You can only use what you think is acceptable to the situation and I think people who have actively used weapons of mass destruction require a little bit more than billy clubs and a whistle. They didn't bring in the army to deal with these two, they used Federal law enforcement, just like you'd expect with a high level federal crime.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

I'm a supporter of whistleblowing, it's done a huge amount of good in the NHS. My issue with the Snowdon case was more that he's directly given secrets to a, let's face it, hostile nation to save his own skin.

Interesting. Do you have any proof Snowden gave any information to Russia or China?

[Vanzant]

"Fight back?"

 

Videos and petitions aren't fighting back. Military boot stomps and the cracking of rifles are.

[Raavi]

@GrandMaster Smith You make it sound like he was a petty thief. What do you suppose? We put a couple of officers, armed with batons and plush cuffs on him? The f*cker had just committed a horrific terrorist attack (worst on US soil since 9/11) and was involved in a massive shootout with law enforcement. He was well and truly the most wanted man in the country at that point. Of course everything is going to be put into action to try and take him down. You can't have a terrorist whom was believed to be intent on committing even more attacks roaming the streets. Be glad he wasn't turned into a human piñata.

[GrandMaster Smith]

I don't see how else this situation could have been handled, generally people willing to blow up scores of people aren't going to just accept handcuffs. You can only use what you think is acceptable to the situation and I think people who have actively used weapons of mass destruction require a little bit more than billy clubs and a whistle. They didn't bring in the army to deal with these two, they used Federal law enforcement, just like you'd expect with a high level federal crime.

 

 

Oh I don't know, maybe cease fire when they're both yelling "We give up"..?

 

 

 

iL6wI7T8MPo

 

 

..Not to even mention the fact that there wasn't even any proof that they had committed the crime and instead could've been running simply out of fear for their own lives.. With all that on top of the fact that the police lied in the reports and shot and beat an unarmed person who's hiding in fear of death.

 

I can guarantee many others would go to extreme measures to protect their own lives when they're being chased and shot at even after openly surrendering. Doesn't matter whether it's a street gang or gang of police chasing you, life is precious and people will do wild things to preserve it.

[gtamann123]

 

 

I dont give a sh*t if the NSA spies on me. All theor going to see me doing is viewing pornography and visiting video game related websites and f*cking around on facebook and thats pretty much it. I couldn't care less if the government knows what kind of porn I like or what video games I consider particularly entertaining.

Yeah good thing that the porn you like and the video games you play aren't illegal. I'm sure there will never be a time when they will be, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....Right?

Well the day it does happen and the government finds a way to prevent me from accessing it through the black market is the day I kill myself.

[sivispacem]

GMS- you're talking the same Boston bomber who had already shot two law enforcement officials, killing one, before the manhunt began in earnest? The same one who threw improvised explosive devices at pursuing police cars?

 

Riiight, that's "just running for feat of his life" and not a conscientious effort to kill or seriously injure law enforcement officers, isn't it?

 

 

 

As for the question of whether Snowdon provided classified information to Russia, there's little empirical evidence of it but plenty of circumstantial. He underwent a debrief by Russian intelligence, after which the Kremlin mysteriously decided to grant him immunity and asylum. There have been a few recent incidents, most notably the interception of communications between the US Embassy in Kiev and Ukrainian politicians that could have only come from an understanding of how to intercept these encrypted communications. I think it's reasonable to assume Russia, whilst of course keen to embarrass the US, wouldn't risk a serious diplomatic incident by granting Snowdon asylum without getting something tangible in return.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

You can't assume Snowden gave Russia classified information. I'm not denying the possibility, but you can't assume guilt based on a possibility.

[sivispacem]

No, your right, you can't simply absolute unequivocal guilt based on circumstantial evidence and speculation. You can, however, employ Occam's razor and ask the question "what happened between Snowdon's effective disappearance for several days in Moscow airport and the reversing of the initial decision in respect of his asylum status?" The only conclusion I can think of is that he provided important information to the Russian security services, and given that this is the only fundamental change in the last few months and now Russia seen to all of a sudden possess the capability to intercept diplomatic communications made by the US, I struggle to believe these are in no way linked.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

I'm unaware of Russia's capability to intercept US diplomatic talks. Are you talking about the recent incident with the US diplomat to Ukraine? Because if that is so, I don't see how to is an issue relating to Snowden. It's not like Russia's interest in Ukraine is anything new. Russia could have been spying on the US in Ukraine for years. I'm sure they have more friends in Ukraine than the US.

[sivispacem]

It's not an issue of intent but capability. The incident involving the US diplomat involved the leaking of information that was supposed to have been transmitted across a secure diplomatic network. There's been no evidence up until this point that Russia had the capability to intercept and decrypt such communications but here we have what on the face of it appears to be just that. The technical detail in some of the public disclosures so far is deep enough to effectively subvert the tools in question and it stands to reason that part of what Snowdon was capable of acquiring would permit the owner of that information to compromise secure diplomatic communications.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

But how can we effectively assume that it was information Snowden leaked to the Russians that led to them having the capability of intercepting diplomatic discourse? Russia has denied responsibility for the leak, (not that we can take that at face value) and it's not like Russia has a passing interest in Ukraine. You can't ignore the possibility that Russia was spying on the US embassy for quite some time.

[lil weasel]

You can't ignore the possibility that Russia was spying on the US embassy for quite some time.

Your joking of course.

 

May 04, 1997|By NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

MOSCOW -- Seven years of construction came to a halt in 1985. The chancery, or embassy office building, was never occupied. U.S. officials discovered tens of thousands of microscopic listening devices embedded in its concrete walls

President Ronald Reagan wanted the building to be razed and a new one erected.

President Clinton persuaded Congress to allocate $240 million to refurbish it.

 

In 1946, Soviet school children presented a two foot wooden replica of the Great Seal of the United States to Ambassador Averell Harriman.

The Ambassador hung the seal in his office in Spaso House (Ambassador's residence). During George F. Kennan's ambassadorship in 1952, a secret technical surveillance countermeasures (TSCM) inspection discovered that the seal contained a microphone and a resonant cavity which could be stimulated from an outside radio signal.

Edited February 13, 2014 by lil weasel

[sivispacem]

But how can we effectively assume that it was information Snowden leaked to the Russians that led to them having the capability of intercepting diplomatic discourse? Russia has denied responsibility for the leak, (not that we can take that at face value) and it's not like Russia has a passing interest in Ukraine. You can't ignore the possibility that Russia was spying on the US embassy for quite some time.

You can't ignore the possibility but there's no evidence supporting the assertion that such a capability was pre-existing. I'm aware that correlation doesn't equal causality but personally I think it's a fair assumption. It's an assumption I'm more than welcome to see people challenge or question that assumption but given the Russian propensity for exploiting any and every opportunity to gain operational capability against diplomatic and economic adversaries I find it difficult to believe his asylum came without caveats.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

The US government has a long history of harboring former Soviet and Russian nationals. Given the lack of evidence I think it's far more likely that the Russians are keeping Snowden for leverage when the day comes the US decides to give asylum to the next Russian dissident.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Nipperkins

[sivispacem]

Then why the disappearance and consequential U-turn? You really think Russia will sell him down the river the next time someone defects? Not really the Russian style IMO, they'll just put radioactive isotopes in the dissident's tea. Again.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

I don't know. I can't claim to understand the Kremlin's motivations, but I also can't rush to assume Snowden's guilt based on a little circumstantial evidence.

[Clem Fandango]

As for the militarised response to the Boston Marathon bombing, I'd say it was more law enforcement seizing an opportunity for a show of force than a proportional response.

[Dingdongs]

No, your right, you can't simply absolute unequivocal guilt based on circumstantial evidence and speculation. You can, however, employ Occam's razor and ask the question "what happened between Snowdon's effective disappearance for several days in Moscow airport and the reversing of the initial decision in respect of his asylum status?" The only conclusion I can think of is that he provided important information to the Russian security services, and given that this is the only fundamental change in the last few months and now Russia seen to all of a sudden possess the capability to intercept diplomatic communications made by the US, I struggle to believe these are in no way linked.

I agree.

 

Nipperkins, it seems to me that you're just trying to poke holes in the story, and that you wouldn't believe that Russian intelligence received information from Snowden unless Russia came out and said "We received information from Snowden".

 

Sometimes you need to take a step back and think about what exactly happened here. Apply logic to the situation - how else would Snowden have gotten asylum from Russia? Because Russia is keen on accepting global political prisoners and is a bastion of peace and liberty? Nope, they've never done that. Has Russia been a state that has a massive intelligence apparatus engaged in an intelligence war with the United States since WWII (yes, even when we were "allies) - yes. There is absolutely no plausible reason Russia would grant Snowden asylum other than if he provided them with something tangible.

 

As for the Boston marathon attacks, GMS - you're just totally blowing smoke out of your ass right now. Usually you at least take facts and skew them... this time you're completely brushing off the part about how these guys killed a cop while fleeing... then engaged in a firefight with police and exchanged hundreds of rounds and tossed improvised grenades at them... these guys were not innocently "fleeing for their lives from the army".. which by the way is grossly incorrect as the Army cannot be deployed on US soil per posse comitatus. These were FBI HRT operators, I believe ATF/HSI, and boston police along with probably Massachusetts state police and perhaps US Marshals... that's probably the extent of who was involved. The "army" was not deployed to chase after these guys.

 

Melchior, that may be accurate, but it was a show of force to assist in bringing these guys in. By having hundreds of officers/agents on the ground and in the air, their ability to move around the city/suburbs was severely limited.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Irviding

[Clem Fandango]

I have no objection to the number of police deployed. I have a problem with the militaristic nature of the response. The police were almost indistinguishable from the military (some of them were even wearing camouflage for some reason) and they fired into that boat he was hiding in with automatic weapons for like a minute straight.

 

I have a hard time believing this wasn't more about discouraging civil unrest than it was about finding two admittedly dangerous men.