This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Magician22773
If there was something that was a cause for concern, I would expect that procedure would have left the file open. I think that it's fair to warrant that if you can close a file 'due to procedure', then there are no red flags that would cause you to want to investigate further.
There has been enough evidence presented regarding the FBI's involvement, or lack of involvement, that there are now demands from Congress to know what they actually knew about Tamerlan. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that what they are telling the public, and what really happened are two pretty different stories. They are in "Cover Their Ass" mode right now, because it is pretty clear that they had enough information on this guy, that they very well may have been able to have prevented this tragedy.
NEWSFLASH: The government, and government agencies do not always tell the whole truth when their butt is on the line, and when things like terrorist watch lists and investigations are in the mix.
Do you not find it odd that their are verified reports that, not just the FBI, but the FBI in
BOSTON
had interviewed this guy as recently as 2012 (thats just last year), yet the same office, and the same agents, stood on National TV with pictures of him, asking if "anyone knows this guy"? This guy seemingly had multiple reports filed, spanning nearly 3 years, with the same agents that could not identify him from several pictures?
I have ran into street cops that have written me a speeding ticket 3 years ago that recognize me...let alone counter-terrorism FBI agents that have received multiple reports on someone, and interviewed him less than a year ago.
There is more crap being covered up in this story than there is in a litter box in a Crazy Cat Lady's house.
Going back to my original statement though, at what point do you draw the line?
When we are talking about a group of people that have no issue with blowing up 8 year old kids, I am going to draw that line only after I am 100% sure, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this person is nothing less than a model citizen. I would have needed to go no further than his Facebook page or YouTube channel to have more than sufficient "reasonable doubt".
Plain and Simple...if you want to follow
radical
islam, then, if I had any say in the matter, you would be watched every minute of every day. And you so much as buy more than 1 box of matches, and I am going to want to know why.
Post by
Squishalot
When we are talking about a group of people that have no issue with blowing up 8 year old kids, I am going to draw that line only after I am 100% sure, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this person is nothing less than a model citizen. I would have needed to go no further than his Facebook page or YouTube channel to have more than sufficient "reasonable doubt".
Plain and Simple...if you want to follow radical islam, then, if I had any say in the matter, you would be watched every minute of every day. And you so much as buy more than 1 box of matches, and I am going to want to know why.
How would you define 'follow'? For example, should someone educated who is researching into comparative theology be followed regularly?
How would we define 'radical'? I think that you would consider WBC to be a 'radical Christian' group. How about Hillsong? Or any of the other pentecostal / evangelical churches? How about your church? What if someone monitored Wowhead for violent comments about people? As an example, we've written about the awful things we'd do to someone who harmed our daughters. Would that be considered radical?
I appreciate that we might like to talk about people after they've committed terrible acts as 'people that have no issue' with X, but the statistics would suggest that of the tens of thousands of US citizens who would be in a similar place, follow similar videos and post similar remarks to the guy, a remarkably low proportion of them actually represent any sort of risk or take any sort of action.
In analytics, you look at your hit rates per population who meet said criteria. When we're putting definitions together, we want to maximise X%, being the proportion of people that we get in contact with who will actually buy a product, while also maximising Y/Z, being the total number of people who will actually buy a product because we asked them to (Y), out of all the people out there who would be willing to buy our product if we only got in touch with them (Z). X is a key number for us because it determines whether we're being efficient at our targeting procedure.
Now, for the FBI - you want to maximise Y - the people who you catch preparing to carry out evil acts - you want that to be as close to Z as possible. The problem is, increasing Y results in X decreasing - the wider you cast your net, the more likely you're going to get a lot of false positives, thereby wasting your resources investigating people and targeting people who aren't actually going to be trouble at all.
What, in your mind, would constitute 'beyond reasonable doubt'? A 90% chance that they're not going to do anything? 99% chance? How many people are you investigating, watching, following, who will actually end up doing no wrong, in order to get to your 99% chance?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
pikeyboy
An interesting point here is how "radical" a person has to be before the secret services take action. If you are a devout religious believer, and follow/advocate your religion to the letter, as far as practicably possible within legal boundaries, is that a cause for concern? I have looked up many extremist materials on the internet, from various ideological standpoints. It's my duty to know what these people think, and why, and what they are saying. Does that make me a cause for concern? If I were to give money to non-military aid for Gaza, even though I was fully aware that there is a possibility of corruption? What if I supported non-lethal military support for Syrian rebels, like armoured vehicles, though I know they could be adapted to use weapons?
If somebody decides that they are concerned, what should be done with me? I have not committed a crime. Should my communications be interfered with? Should I be kidnapped and mistreated to make sure that I don't know anything about anybody else? If I was, would that make me, or people who know me, in any way friendly towards those that did it?
Post by
Magician22773
<removed>
Post by
rageahol
Well
this
is just stupid.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Well
this
is just stupid.
Is it fairly obvious that they are peanuts? Yes.
Is it stupid for a company to make things as safe as possible and try to keep public relations high? I don't think so.
Post by
pikeyboy
Well
this
is just stupid.
Do not underestimate the ignorance of people. I've met people who don't know what a butternut squash, beansprout, or mussel is. Unfortunately, it's perfectly possible that somebody would think that "monkey nuts" were fine, because they're only allergic to peanuts. Those come in little packets over the bar, right?
Post by
MyTie
Archbishop of Brussels calmly prays while pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, activists from group FEMEN storm stage naked, and
dump water on him
while shouting curses at him.
They certainly taught that man a lesson. Never again will he be so bigoted toward the opinions of others.
Post by
pikeyboy
Well good for him. He is after all, supposed to be an arch bishop, and set an example. He turned the other cheek. Unfortunately, the second image in the article you linked, appears to show someone kicking a half naked protester in the back. It was a harmless protest with a point. Next, you'll be throwing your hands up in horror because someone threw a custard pie. Freedom of speech and expression.
Post by
MyTie
Freedom of speech and expression.
Freedom of expression? What the hell is that?
Post by
Squishalot
Did anyone see what Magician wrote before he removed it?
Well
this
is just stupid.
Is it fairly obvious that they are peanuts? Yes.
Is it stupid for a company to make things as safe as possible and try to keep public relations high? I don't think so.
I'll be honest - I never knew that 'monkey nuts' = 'peanuts with the shell intact' until I read that article, even if I do recognise them as peanuts because that's how I used to eat them. Someone who's only ever eaten shelled peanuts wouldn't know what they look like.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Did anyone see what Magician wrote before he removed it?
A fairly long post making an analogy about an American church killing people in Australia and whether it would be okay to profile them. It was inline with the discussion, though I didn't really agree with it.
Post by
Adamsm
Next, you'll be throwing your hands up in horror because someone threw a custard pie.That happened to John Chrétien and he took it with good faith....course we are talking about the prime minister who attempted to strangle a paparazzi...
Post by
Gone
Freedom of speech and expression.
Freedom of expression? What the hell is that?
A nonverbal expression of thought.
Post by
MyTie
Freedom of speech and expression.
Freedom of expression? What the hell is that?
A nonverbal expression of thought.
So, everything that is done that isn't speech. So, basically, freedom to do anything you are thinking about doing, under a trendy word like "expression". I just needed to "express myself", so I dumped water all over some dude I don't know. So, if I went to a homosexual convention, ran up onstage, and dumped a bunch of water on a homosexual, and screamed profanities at him, that would be cool, because of....
freedom of expression
, and it's just a
harmless protest
, and he should set the example by
just taking it
? I think everyone in this forum would think those actions were worth several years of jail time, restraining orders, etc. But, when done to someone they don't agree with, it's freedom of expression, and I get a reaction of one or two people supporting it, and it is largely ignored. Nice.
Post by
Squishalot
I actually think the water dumping is assault, technically. The invasion of a conference is a separate security issue - possibly tresspass?
There are right ways to express, and that's not one of them. Picketing outside a convention centre is perfectly fine.
Post by
Gone
Freedom of speech and expression.
Freedom of expression? What the hell is that?
A nonverbal expression of thought.
So, everything that is done that isn't speech. So, basically, freedom to do anything you are thinking about doing, under a trendy word like "expression". I just needed to "express myself", so I dumped water all over some dude I don't know. So, if I went to a homosexual convention, ran up onstage, and dumped a bunch of water on a homosexual, and screamed profanities at him, that would be cool, because of....
freedom of expression
, and it's just a
harmless protest
, and he should set the example by
just taking it
? I think everyone in this forum would think those actions were worth several years of jail time, restraining orders, etc. But, when done to someone they don't agree with, it's freedom of expression, and I get a reaction of one or two people supporting it, and it is largely ignored. Nice.
No, dumping water on people isn't freedom of expression, it's assault (dammit, ninjad by Squish). And screaming profanity is verbal, so idk why it was brought up here.
Freedom of expression means you can dress how you want, or decorate your home and yard the way you want, or produce whatever kind of art you want. It covers a lot.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm pretty certain MyTie's original question was intended to be answered in the context of Pikey's comment though, so I can understand why he's frustrated at your (earlier) response.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Gone
I wasn't siding with Pike, just explaining what freedom of expression meant.
Post by
MyTie
I wasn't siding with Pike, just explaining what freedom of expression meant.
And my comment is directed at Pikey's understanding, not you giving the meaning. Applying your definition to pikey's comment makes for some pretty stomach turning conclusions. He doesn't come back to these threads very regularly, and he doesn't read past comments, so I just posted that under the assumption he wasn't going to return.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
