[Original Light]

Well... I'm guessing it never happened because YouTube isn't shut down?

[Slamman]

QUOTE (Triple Penetration @ Wednesday, Nov 16 2011, 02:05)

Good riddance, then. Bye, Slamman. It's all because you voted your own president.

I voted my own President? Who?? President Obama? Many people saw him as a likeable guy, fighting for change, when they grew upset with the policies, they voted a round of Republicans into office, who squared off against Democrats, and guess what happens?? Nothing progresses, Nothing gets solved. The Two party system is a FAIL!

But I can see why perhaps the US would be testing Internet "Failsafe" controls, It's been suggested that in order to combat malicious Terroristic Cyber attacks, the Government should have control of the Internet in cases where it can restrict massive system abuses

[Pat]

QUOTE (Slamman @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 14:28)

in order to combat malicious Terroristic Cyber attacks, the Government should have control of the Internet

I hope you're joking but I already know you aren't, you're just actually that stupid.

[Robinski]

QUOTE (Slamman @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 19:28)

It's been suggested that in order to combat malicious Terroristic Cyber attacks, the Government should have control of the Internet in cases where it can restrict massive system abuses

People like you are the reason I can't take a can of coke on an airplane.

[RealityZoneTV]

QUOTE (Robinski @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 21:25)

QUOTE (Slamman @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 19:28) It's been suggested that in order to combat malicious Terroristic Cyber attacks, the Government should have control of the Internet in cases where it can restrict massive system abuses People like you are the reason I can't take a can of coke on an airplane.

terrorism ? you mean government and secret service made terrorism ! come on wake up ! the real terrorists are zionists, secret service, governments etc....

[Robinski]

QUOTE (RealityZoneTV @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 21:37)

QUOTE (Robinski @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 21:25) QUOTE (Slamman @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 19:28) It's been suggested that in order to combat malicious Terroristic Cyber attacks, the Government should have control of the Internet in cases where it can restrict massive system abuses People like you are the reason I can't take a can of coke on an airplane. terrorism ? you mean government and secret service made terrorism ! come on wake up ! the real terrorists are zionists, secret service, governments etc....

...the f*ck? No, what I meant is that the amount of people who'll roll over and take whatever their government wants to shove up there all in the name of security is ridiculous. there are people who'll willingly sacrifice all aspects of privacy and freedom in pursuit of safety from these scary terrorists. What they don't seem to realise is that pretty much all these security measures are implemented retrospectively; they only started searching shoes after the shoe bomber got through.

[Typhus]

And the problem I have is those who complain about the security measures often seem to be the types who want to justify what the terrorists do. They're constantly screaming about how their civil liberties are being infringed just because they get frisked at an airport. I wonder what they really think about terrorism, I wonder what they would do instead. Personally, I am in favour of racial profiling at airports - but I understand that is difficult to swallow.

I got questioned for twenty minutes at San Francisco International Airport because I look like a shifty/crazy individual. All sorts of sh*t, whereas everyone else was just let on through. It didn't bother me, because I see it as a necessary evil.

I think kicking up a fuss about the small things only lessens the possibility of the general public becoming concerned when real threats emerge against their freedom.

[GTA_stu]

@Robisnki That's cos they don't have a time machine mate. I get your point though, but I think the govt. has to take these measures. Terrorism is a real threat, it's not just made up you have to take it seriously. So when you identify the vulnerabilities in the security system, surely it would be careless not to adress the problem? Is it ok if 300 people get blown to bits just as long as most people get to their destination an hour earlier?

You think if 1 terrorist found a flaw in the system, and exploited it by getting explosives on a plane and blowing it up, and then nothing was done to counter it that there wouldn't be further similar attempts made? I think people would be more pissed at a govt. which allowed their relatives to be killed, than they would at having to pass through a body scanner.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 23:10)

@Robisnki That's cos they don't have a time machine mate. I get your point though, but I think the govt. has to take these measures. Terrorism is a real threat, it's not just made up you have to take it seriously. So when you identify the vulnerabilities in the security system, surely it would be careless not to adress the problem? Is it ok if 300 people get blown to bits just as long as most people get to their destination an hour earlier? You think if 1 terrorist found a flaw in the system, and exploited it by getting explosives on a plane and blowing it up, and then nothing was done to counter it that there wouldn't be further similar attempts made? I think people would be more pissed at a govt. which allowed their relatives to be killed, than they would at having to pass through a body scanner.

To quote the IRA in the aftermath of the Brighton Bombing- "you need to be be lucky every time, we only need to be lucky once". The sad fact is terrorism has always been here, to a greater degree of a lesser one, and it's always going to be part of the global community. There's a theory that it's become more prevalent over the last couple of decades because of the militarisation and securitisation of most Western (and for that matter, most other) nations means that people with violent grievances who possess the will, capability and support to conduct aggressive operations do so through terrorism as it mitigates the traditional strengths of a nation's security apparatus. The problem is that, try as they might, members of the security services find it very hard to "red-team" as terrorists- I've done it before as parts of risk assessments, and getting yourself into the mentality and understanding things from their subjective point of view is nearly impossible. Sadly, they're often far more creative than the policy makers who have to tackle them- exploding underwear, booby-trapped corpses, "soft targets" and critical national infrastructure.

@ RealityZoneTV- I'm not even going to begin to tell you all the things that are wrong with that statement. Governments can't be "terrorists", the very definition of terrorism requires them to be non-state actors.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 17:04)

And the problem I have is those who complain about the security measures often seem to be the types who want to justify what the terrorists do. They're constantly screaming about how their civil liberties are being infringed just because they get frisked at an airport. I wonder what they really think about terrorism, I wonder what they would do instead. Personally, I am in favour of racial profiling at airports - but I understand that is difficult to swallow. I got questioned for twenty minutes at San Francisco International Airport because I look like a shifty/crazy individual. All sorts of sh*t, whereas everyone else was just let on through. It didn't bother me, because I see it as a necessary evil. I think kicking up a fuss about the small things only lessens the possibility of the general public becoming concerned when real threats emerge against their freedom.

People like to go around saying how racial profiling is a "necessary means to counter the terrorists", yet unfortunately, it's probably the single thing that would breed more terrorists. Waterboarding and other torture techniques were already a large enough recruitment bonanza for Al-Qaeda (quoted straight from the top anti-terrorism person in the US from 2005-present).

[Typhus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 23:12)

QUOTE (Typhus @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 17:04) And the problem I have is those who complain about the security measures often seem to be the types who want to justify what the terrorists do. They're constantly screaming about how their civil liberties are being infringed just because they get frisked at an airport. I wonder what they really think about terrorism, I wonder what they would do instead. Personally, I am in favour of racial profiling at airports - but I understand that is difficult to swallow. I got questioned for twenty minutes at San Francisco International Airport because I look like a shifty/crazy individual. All sorts of sh*t, whereas everyone else was just let on through. It didn't bother me, because I see it as a necessary evil. I think kicking up a fuss about the small things only lessens the possibility of the general public becoming concerned when real threats emerge against their freedom. People like to go around saying how racial profiling is a "necessary means to counter the terrorists", yet unfortunately, it's probably the single thing that would breed more terrorists. Waterboarding and other torture techniques were already a large enough recruitment bonanza for Al-Qaeda (quoted straight from the top anti-terrorism person in the US from 2005-present).

Indeed. But the Jihadists don't disguise themselves. They still keep their names, they probably still keep their beloved facial hair and they're all from the same ethnic background - apart from a few exceptions.
Searching everyone regardless of race when the problem is really confined to those of Middle Eastern descent seems too messy.

Plus, I hate the whole 'it will breed more terrorists' line. They're grown ups, why do we have to handle them with kid gloves? Society isn't fair, the actions of a few have had a negative impact on their whole community, so why would they side with that unpleasant few who made these security measures necessary? Unless of course, they already agreed with them on principle and were simply looking for a reason to f*ck us over.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 18:18)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 23:12) QUOTE (Typhus @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 17:04) And the problem I have is those who complain about the security measures often seem to be the types who want to justify what the terrorists do. They're constantly screaming about how their civil liberties are being infringed just because they get frisked at an airport. I wonder what they really think about terrorism, I wonder what they would do instead. Personally, I am in favour of racial profiling at airports - but I understand that is difficult to swallow. I got questioned for twenty minutes at San Francisco International Airport because I look like a shifty/crazy individual. All sorts of sh*t, whereas everyone else was just let on through. It didn't bother me, because I see it as a necessary evil. I think kicking up a fuss about the small things only lessens the possibility of the general public becoming concerned when real threats emerge against their freedom. People like to go around saying how racial profiling is a "necessary means to counter the terrorists", yet unfortunately, it's probably the single thing that would breed more terrorists. Waterboarding and other torture techniques were already a large enough recruitment bonanza for Al-Qaeda (quoted straight from the top anti-terrorism person in the US from 2005-present). Indeed. But the Jihadists don't disguise themselves. They still keep their names, they probably still keep their beloved facial hair and they're all from the same ethnic background - apart from a few exceptions. Searching everyone regardless of race when the problem is really confined to those of Middle Eastern descent seems too messy. Plus, I hate the whole 'it will breed more terrorists' line. They're grown ups, why do we have to handle them with kid gloves? Society isn't fair, the actions of a few have had a negative impact on their whole community, so why would they side with that unpleasant few who made these security measures necessary? Unless of course, they already agreed with them on principle and were simply looking for a reason to f*ck us over.

The 9/11 hijackers were almost totally Americanized though. Here's Mohammed Atta in an airport surveillance still:

Does he look like a jihadist to you? The guy is wearing western cloths, a western haircut, and is clean shaven. The other ones were that way too. It's frankly unfair and absolutely ludicrous to racially profile people just because they come from the middle east. If intelligence indicates chatter of an attack out of a certain country, enforcing extra search protocols on people from say, Yemen, from the time of the threat window to the end of the threat window plus a few weeks, is a smart thing to do. Putting all Muslims through an extra check is not only a detriment to our security, but totally against the modern, western freedoms and institutions we are trying to protect.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, Nov 26 2011, 00:18)

Indeed. But the Jihadists don't disguise themselves. They still keep their names, they probably still keep their beloved facial hair and they're all from the same ethnic background - apart from a few exceptions.

That's a common- and untrue- misconception. The vast majority of Takfiri terrorists operating in the West actually do their utmost to appear as if they've integrated into society in order to provide cover for their attacks. Plus, the vast majority of radical Islamists are actually converts, often from the Caribbean and other British overseas territories.

[Typhus]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 23:31)

QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, Nov 26 2011, 00:18) Indeed. But the Jihadists don't disguise themselves. They still keep their names, they probably still keep their beloved facial hair and they're all from the same ethnic background - apart from a few exceptions. That's a common- and untrue- misconception. The vast majority of Takfiri terrorists operating in the West actually do their utmost to appear as if they've integrated into society in order to provide cover for their attacks. Plus, the vast majority of radical Islamists are actually converts, often from the Caribbean and other British overseas territories.

So, they would actually call themselves something like 'John Smith'? I know they try to blend in, but their 'role' still involves them acting like Muslims, doesn't it? They don't act like liberal Atheists, do they?
The notion of racial profiling turns my stomach, perhaps it's the wrong phrase. Maybe religious profiling would fit better? Don't all converts change their name? We could go by that instead of something as unpleasant as their skin colour.

[Jesus'En'Hitler420]

NVM, mods can delete this post.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 18:42)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 23:31) QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, Nov 26 2011, 00:18) Indeed. But the Jihadists don't disguise themselves. They still keep their names, they probably still keep their beloved facial hair and they're all from the same ethnic background - apart from a few exceptions. That's a common- and untrue- misconception. The vast majority of Takfiri terrorists operating in the West actually do their utmost to appear as if they've integrated into society in order to provide cover for their attacks. Plus, the vast majority of radical Islamists are actually converts, often from the Caribbean and other British overseas territories. So, they would actually call themselves something like 'John Smith'? I know they try to blend in, but their 'role' still involves them acting like Muslims, doesn't it? They don't act like liberal Atheists, do they? The notion of racial profiling turns my stomach, perhaps it's the wrong phrase. Maybe religious profiling would fit better? Don't all converts change their name? We could go by that instead of something as unpleasant as their skin colour.

You're missing the point. Racial profiling is as counterproductive as torture. It is ineffective and plain stupid. It further aggravates the terrorists, increasing recruitment, and putting us at more risk. If you profile all people from the Middle East, they'll start recruitment drives elsewhere. So they start sending people from Australia. Pretty soon, we're profiling the Australians. Then they send people out of Germany (Hamburg Cell) and we profile them. It just goes on and on. What we need are effective BDOs such as the ones in Israel who know how to look at people to determine if they are a risk. The TSA agents in America are a bunch of useless f*cking idiots who can't tell a terrorist from their asshole. We need people who can look at someone's actions and see if they are a risk. After that an interview would occur, and usually you'd be able to take them one on one and find out. Saying "let's dump all Muslims into this line and everyone else to the other line" is just plain retarded. It's just like the people who say there aught to be exemptions for old ladies and young kids at airports. Exempt them, and the terrorists start using young kids as bombers, or forcing grandma to bring a bomb on a plane.

How can you profile based on religion? I'm Catholic but no one would bat an eye if I said I were a convert to another religion and had that religion listed in my file...

QUOTE

NVM, mods can delete this post.

That's too bad. I miss reading your neocon garbage everywhere.

Siv, why do you think they come from the British dependencies? I've also heard about terrorists coming from various British controlled areas (or commonwealth realms). Is there something about them that appeals to terrorists? I've not heard of anyone coming from a US territory before.

This post has been edited by Irviding on Saturday, Nov 26 2011, 03:25

[Senex Iunior]

QUOTE (RealityZoneTV @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 16:37)

terrorism ? you mean government and secret service made terrorism ! come on wake up ! the real terrorists are zionists, secret service, governments etc....

i lol'd

QUOTE (Slamman @ Friday, Nov 25 2011, 19:28)

It's been suggested that in order to combat malicious Terroristic Cyber attacks, the Government should have control of the Internet in cases where it can restrict massive system abuses

That's the exact excuse the Bush Administration had for wiping their asses with the Constitution. OH HEY MAYBE IF WE BUILD TEH PRISON ON AMERICAN-OWNED LAND THAT ISN'T TEH MAINLAND WE ARE NOT FOLLOW CONSTITUTION LOL. EIGHTH AMENDMENT? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING AMENDMENTS!

[chaosislife]

I've heard it said by someone here that it required legal action to shut down a website, and that is the only time in hearing about this that I've heard that said. The threat of it isn't that it requires legal action to shut down a website, but that it requires merely writing a letter accusing that website of infringement. The irony of it is that the RIAA,MPAA, and whoever all else is setting themselves up to get blasted by it as well if they have any sites with user generated content. For instance, if someone were to write a song called "SOPA has no hopa" and the lyrics of that song or a link to a download or video of that song were posted on those sites, then the writer could simply send a letter accusing RIAA.com or what have you of piracy. Then assuming such a claim would be taken with exactly the same weight as a similar letter from the RIAA, poof, no more RIAA.com and all of RIAA.com's revenue would be cut off. From that point it becomes RIAA.com's burden to prove firstly that they are innocent, and (if they don't want to get blasted off again tomorrow by the same rights holder) that the rights holder knew for a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt that RIAA.com was innocent in in order for the rights holder to be punished for a false claim. This is what the threat is, firstly that it ignores due process as a targeted website is first sentenced, and then must prove their innocence (if they can afford the lawyers) and secondly that the website must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the claimant knew for a fact that the website was innocent in order for the claimant to be held accountable for a false claim.

PS: I think yall have expanded the size of pages in the forum since the last time I was modding, it seems like I have to scroll forever to get to the bottom of a page now.

@3niX I've got that same problem on my apartments free wifi, at least in that they block any incoming content containing the word torrent. It kinda sucks that I can't even read about the technology or visit a linux page with a torrent link on it but then, it is wifi and I can understand from the bandwidth angle tho I wouldn't be so understanding if I reached the conclusion that they simply block torrents because they think that piracy is the only thing the tech is used for.


This post has been edited by chaosislife on Saturday, Nov 26 2011, 08:06

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Nov 26 2011, 04:00)

Siv, why do you think they come from the British dependencies? I've also heard about terrorists coming from various British controlled areas (or commonwealth realms). Is there something about them that appeals to terrorists? I've not heard of anyone coming from a US territory before.

In the UK (at least, and possibly in the US too due to close geographical ties and a good working relationship), immigration from Caribbean commonwealth and dependency countries is quite common. Radicalisation often happens in the prison and education system in the UK, or in modern Salaffi/Wahhabi groups who are, unlike most Islamic institutions, willing to discuss modern issues such as crime, drug use, sexual acts and other aspects of modern society frankly and honestly. They're more "welcoming", if you want to put it like that, then most Islamic organisations, for more converts- but by the same token, Salafist Islam is also considerably more radical and politicised than Sunni, Shia or more spiritual forms of Islam- that's not to say that Salafism is analogous with terrorism, but violent Islamism is usually perpetrated by individuals who follow the strict Salaffi teachings, which are critical not just of modern, liberal, democratic Western ideals, but also of the more spiritual, more conservative-with-a-small-c and less firebrand forms of Islam. The best example is of Germaine Lindsey, one of the 7/7 bombers who was radicalised in the UK, either in the prison system whilst serving short sentences for drug-related crime or by Salaffi groups once he had left prison (no-one is really sure)

QUOTE (Senex Iunior @ Saturday, Nov 26 2011, 05:01)

Idiotic image

Idiotic images aside, RealityZoneTV is a PBM troll whose probably not long for this world.

[Urban Legend]

I went streaking to celebrate the occasion!

If they take down some user generated content where am I supposed to see chicks swallow 12 loads?
Or steal my favorite music and movies? This is outrageous. I am American for gods sake.
I am entitled to anything and everything at my very will.

One Mocha-Frappa-Venti-Soy-Latte-Double Shot, to go please.