ilovefuzz.com

RR Bigman wrote:

snipelfritz wrote:The problem is that its hard to argue for your "private" conversations that are happening over "public" government regulated phone lines, air waves, etc.

It's kind of like the TSA, don't like it, take a train. Amtrak will let you get away with anything.

Don't like wiretapping? Send a letter. In fact, this may all just a conspiracy to force people into using the USPS again. (not that ILF doesn't)

send a letter through the public government regulated postal service? Nuget please. I mean no offense or animosity towards you personally but this "if you dont like it you can hit the showers" mentality that certain people take with things like this really rustles my jimmies.

Oh I'm just playing the devil's advocate and noting how legally, you could very easily justify this in regards the the fourth amendment. The fact is the Internet didn't come from the sky, it was created by the government. Because what private sector business is going to allow for that level of research and funding when the potential gains seemed so questionable (that ended up wrong).

Of course if you really wanted to do something about it all you'd have to do is flood phone/internet messages with key words the NSA scans for. So if everybody made their Facebook status "Bomb, Obama, Jihad, IED" it would be problem solved.

fiddelerselbow wrote:Exactly. Chances are the US will throw their lot in with the most unpopular but most outwardly seeming democratic faction in the region. Most likely the FSA, who've been less than squeaky clean in their methods. Al Qaeda isn't who the quantitative support is aimed at, more likely people like the FSA, with a view to squeezing out any Islamist groups if al-Assad is overthrown.

Right. (And sorry for the thread hijack...shit, using that word in this sort of thread HAS to get the NSA's attention!) Our goal is to arm the most moderate rebels...but come on. We've got truckloads of weapons and we're going to quiz people, and go on good faith, that they'll only use their weapons on the guys we want them to kill (official Syrian soldiers / Assad, I assume?). I know I'm simplifying, I know we can meet up and identify FSA, but what a gamble, what a dirty deal.

I think it's just as likely that al Qaeda or other extremist groups--who we know are there to seed chaos, and who hope it spills into nearby Israel--have been using the chemical weapons to frame the Syrian government...the US said in April that extremist rebels groups had been seeking chemical weapons for use in Syria... (So funny how they're also fighting against Assad, just for other purposes--with Israel in their sights...they're helping extend this rebellion, and we might be playing right into what they want, if Assad is overthrown and we don't succeed getting a non-radical government in place).

It just seems like such an unnecessary game we're playing there, and it makes me really sad. I voted for this administration (I'll only vote for viable candidates who can actually win) partly because I believed that Obama wouldn't back preemptive or elective gambits in affairs that don't need to involve us. But also, I know that the military and CIA machine rumbles on regardless of administrations. The US has gone down a path with its conquests and global involvement that it can't back out of...so much money to be made on conflict. It's depressing.

I would be surprised if the rebels were using chemical weapons. That shit ain't cheap. Any asshat can call himself and his Mystery Machine detective agency Al Qaeda, that's why you get the "Al Qaeda of South Western Bumfuck" groups, but it doesn't mean they're part of the Al Qaeda proper, in the Bin Laden/hanging with the Taliban/access to shittons of money and support sense of the phrase. That group is relatively powerless compared to where they were ten years ago. Lots of strength in the name, though.

Also, while I agree that there is often a commerce/World Police element to the USA's involvement in foreign affairs, it seems to me that Syria is a (relatively) happy exception to this rule. It would be ethically unsound to do nothing.

Tom Dalton wrote:

fiddelerselbow wrote:Exactly. Chances are the US will throw their lot in with the most unpopular but most outwardly seeming democratic faction in the region. Most likely the FSA, who've been less than squeaky clean in their methods. Al Qaeda isn't who the quantitative support is aimed at, more likely people like the FSA, with a view to squeezing out any Islamist groups if al-Assad is overthrown.

Right. (And sorry for the thread hijack...shit, using that word in this sort of thread HAS to get the NSA's attention!) Our goal is to arm the most moderate rebels...but come on. We've got truckloads of weapons and we're going to quiz people, and go on good faith, that they'll only use their weapons on the guys we want them to kill (official Syrian soldiers / Assad, I assume?). I know I'm simplifying, I know we can meet up and identify FSA, but what a gamble, what a dirty deal.

I think it's just as likely that al Qaeda or other extremist groups--who we know are there to seed chaos, and who hope it spills into nearby Israel--have been using the chemical weapons to frame the Syrian government...the US said in April that extremist rebels groups had been seeking chemical weapons for use in Syria... (So funny how they're also fighting against Assad, just for other purposes--with Israel in their sights...they're helping extend this rebellion, and we might be playing right into what they want, if Assad is overthrown and we don't succeed getting a non-radical government in place).

It just seems like such an unnecessary game we're playing there, and it makes me really sad. I voted for this administration (I'll only vote for viable candidates who can actually win) partly because I believed that Obama wouldn't back preemptive or elective gambits in affairs that don't need to involve us. But also, I know that the military and CIA machine rumbles on regardless of administrations. The US has gone down a path with its conquests and global involvement that it can't back out of...so much money to be made on conflict. It's depressing.

I disagree with that. It's been common knowledge that Syria has had an active chemical weapons program since 2001. It's spelt out here pretty clearly: http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/syria/chemical/, specifically in citation 41. I think it's a little reductive to label large swathes of opposition groups in the country as "extremist". No doubt there is foreign actors involved in the armed conflict, but not all Islamist groups in the region fit the "extremist" type-cast.

I agree with you that U.S involvement is unnecessary though. The quantitative support is another foray into nation building out of the fear of another Islamic state in the region. It won't end well.

The NSA delivers!!!

http://gizmodo.com/microsoft-just-gave- ... -514393553

Thanks NSA

in a HUGE surprise, the head of the FBI told Congress that they're using unmanned drones for surveilance.

i'm really afraid of, and am grateful i'll likely be dead before, the point where nanotechnology merges with the surveillance state. within probably ten years, or twenty at most, they'll be able to have bots so small they're impossible to spot flying to and setting up ANYWHERE. at that point, 1984 swallows a deadly cocktail of mescaline and bath salts and freedom in the industrialized world will be done.

As long as I can play used video games; I'm cool with it.

fiddelerselbow wrote:

Tom Dalton wrote:
I think it's just as likely that al Qaeda or other extremist groups--who we know are there to seed chaos, and who hope it spills into nearby Israel--have been using the chemical weapons to frame the Syrian government...the US said in April that extremist rebels groups had been seeking chemical weapons for use in Syria...

I don't doubt they have them. (As the US does, and we've used them, so I assume they would...even recently with our use of White Phosphorous, which the is used for more than just lighting up the battlefield) But I admittedly don't know enough about Assad's history in Syria to judge how likely it is that he'd use them, whether his military would use them without direct orders from him, etc.

I was wondering aloud if Syria could be framed for chemical weapons by a radical group hoping to seed chaos / draw in the US (especially given the US called chemical weapons a red line...then later, we issued a report that al Qaeda was seeking them for use in Syria).

I didn't mean to inflate the amount of radicals...you have to be radical, in a sense, to take up arms against a government, but I didn't mean that every group opposed to the Syrian government is Radical Islamist or bad.

There's a lot I don't know about this conflict and its nuances, but at some point, nuances are lost in conflict...and the details, intelligence, and possible outcomes already seem so muddled to me.

is it cruel to feel that radical Islamists and totalitarian dirtbags killing each other is kind of a self-solving problem, and a bit of an optimal situation as well? of course, i'm opposed to slaughter of civilians, but it's kind of like the Iran/Iraq War, in which the opponents really deserved each other.

dubkitty wrote:in a HUGE surprise, the head of the FBI told Congress that they're using unmanned drones for surveilance.

Funny that the FBI admitting that to Congress was far more shocking than anything Snowden revealed.
But yeah, still not that surprising.

They're doling 'em out to local law enforcement, who's surprised??? APD want's one to look for "suspects"...

Girls like to feel safe...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DDT7gLHobM[/youtube]

warwick.hoy wrote:As long as I can play used video games; I'm cool with it.

TBH, I feel like this is a better attitude than the "OMG errrybuddy watching meeeeee." attitude.

I mean, as soon as we find out for certain that Paypal has been declassifying all their shit to the government, this site (besides general) will be dead). It's called a chilling effect, yo.

Tom Dalton wrote:

fiddelerselbow wrote:

Tom Dalton wrote:
I think it's just as likely that al Qaeda or other extremist groups--who we know are there to seed chaos, and who hope it spills into nearby Israel--have been using the chemical weapons to frame the Syrian government...the US said in April that extremist rebels groups had been seeking chemical weapons for use in Syria...

I don't doubt they have them. (As the US does, and we've used them, so I assume they would...even recently with our use of White Phosphorous, which the is used for more than just lighting up the battlefield) But I admittedly don't know enough about Assad's history in Syria to judge how likely it is that he'd use them, whether his military would use them without direct orders from him, etc.

I was wondering aloud if Syria could be framed for chemical weapons by a radical group hoping to seed chaos / draw in the US (especially given the US called chemical weapons a red line...then later, we issued a report that al Qaeda was seeking them for use in Syria).

I didn't mean to inflate the amount of radicals...you have to be radical, in a sense, to take up arms against a government, but I didn't mean that every group opposed to the Syrian government is Radical Islamist or bad.

There's a lot I don't know about this conflict and its nuances, but at some point, nuances are lost in conflict...and the details, intelligence, and possible outcomes already seem so muddled to me.

Probably not, no.

theavondon wrote:I basically combat the fact that I know I'm being watched by leading a completely pointless and innocuous life. SUCK IT AMERICA, I'M WORTHLESS