Snowdon is a dummy

@oralloy,

Quote:

Before Snowden they did not know the specific tactics the US government was using to detect them, and were always at risk that they weren't countering something that the government was doing

Name one program that snowden reveal that might had trap terrorists before snowden release information on them.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Before Snowden, the terrorists did not know what precise tactics they needed to avoid.

Where did you come up with such a claim

From the fact that Snowden told them what tactics the NSA was using.

And from the fact that no one before Snowden had told them what tactics the NSA was using.

BillRM wrote:

as it is complete nonsense

It seems pretty clear that Snowden was the one who revealed the NSA's precise tactics.

BillRM wrote:

as there never been a secret on how to keep a low profile on the net dating back to at least to the 1990s.

Was there a list of the NSA's precise tactics on the net before Snowden?

BillRM wrote:

I am fairly sure that I had look at more snowden papers then you had and as I been interest in the subject for many decades with more understanding and had yet to had found any thing in them that would be of great added help to terrorists.

But if you would care to link to such snowden information I will be happy to look at it.

Take for example the now-dead phone metadata program. Snowden told them that the NSA only traced the phone connections for three hops to try to see if they linked together in a web. This knowledge makes it easy to evade the NSA just by making sure that their phone connections involved more than three hops.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Real serous terrorists do not used phones all that must for real time communications and when they do they used cheap burner phones that are only use a few times each.

The now-defunct phone metadata program looked for suspicious patterns in the use of such burner phones.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Name one program that snowden reveal that might had trap terrorists before snowden release information on them.

Every single program in the NSA "might" have been able to trap a terrorist before Snowden compromised it.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I've followed your comments closely over the years, Bill...and in my opinion...you hate this country

An to me you are a clueless idiot that would follow anyone in power blindly over the cliff right to a police state while waving the flag.

Well...I love ya anyway.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I wrote that Benedict Arnold did what he did FOR HIS REASONS.

He did...no matter what the reasons were.

The reasons matter a great deal indeed and Snowden reasons show him to be an honorable man who love his country far more then those who wish to hide their misdeeds from the american people by ways of security stamps.

Oh...so now you want to be brave and patriotic...and honorable!

You really are on a losing streak here, Bill. You ought to quit while you are far behind.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Every single program in the NSA "might" have been able to trap a terrorist before Snowden compromised it.

Nonsense and once more point one program just one program out of the sea of snowden releases that have any chance of trapping aware terrorists.

Those programs was design to do massive spying on the world citizens not find terrorists.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Wonderful you have one burner phone talking to another burner phone that may or may not have anything to do with terrorism once or twice and what the hell would that tell you?

Locations? I assume that someone would take a drive before using them an if I was them I would leave such a burner phone laying and in a public place
so some innocent person would picked it up and used it to further confused the issue.

0 Replies

Is there an echo in here?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Is there an echo in here?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Is there an echo in here?

Yeah. I thought I would beat Bill to the correction...but I missed.

He a fast deleter!

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

To me, anyone who knowingly risks his security and life is brave, whatever the motive. To take an extreme example, to me the terrorists who killed 130 people in Paris last month were despicable but courageous. All the politicians who speak of a "cowardly attack" blah-blah-blah in such cases, they are just pissing in a violin, just like you are now. Guess it makes you and them feel better but it's ridiculous.

Their cowardice comes from attacking civilians. How much strength does it take to go and shoot a bunch of unarmed civilians trying to live their lives? That's cowardice. If you have an issue with a policy or an army, take your fight to them if you are not a piece of **** coward.

Terrorists are the biggest cowards in the world because they choose to fight an unarmed populace. Calling them courageous is an egregious misuse of the word. Maybe you don't really understand what either term means.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

To me, anyone who knowingly risks his security and life is brave

Your definition of brave and mine differ by about 180 degrees.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, this way lies the kind of people who would attack you in their spare time when they werent posting crap on a2k. I have on occasion found myself wishing I knew a poster so I could confront him face to face and than realized that way lies poli e problems and just did as I should and ignored them for the trouble making fools I know they are. Anonymity is best on this kind of forum.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

wishing I knew a poster so I could confront him face to face and than realized that way lies poli e problems

Interesting that there are people who would wish to stop someone from exercising free speech rights to the point it might become a police matter.

In any case, writing on public matters without using a legal name go back to our founding fathers before we even started to become a nation.

If Frank and others have a problem with that they also must have a problem with most of out founding fathers and such writings as the Federal papers.

Footnote writing under the names of famous early Roman Republic figures was a common thing for our founding fathers to do.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
wishing I knew a poster so I could confront him face to face and than realized that way lies poli e problems

Interesting that there are people who would wish to stop someone from exercising free speech rights to the point it might become a police matter.

In any case, writing on public matters without using a legal name go back to our founding fathers before we even started to become a nation.

If Frank and others have a problem with that they also must have a problem with most of out founding fathers and such writings as the Federal papers.

Footnote writing under the names of famous early Roman Republic figures was a common thing for our founding fathers to do.

I don't have a problem with it. Do it if you want.

But I am laughing at the crap about you wanting to be brave as Snowden...when you do not even have the guts to use your real name when posting your thoughts.

You are anything but brave.

That's all.

Oh...well maybe one more thing. Using the Founding Fathers as a comparison for yourself is a bit much even for you.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

Your definition of brave and mine differ by about 180 degrees.

I've been thinking that there is a positive nuance in "brave", especially in English but also in Italian and French, which my posts so far have been ignoring. "Brave" does not just mean "courageous", it means "courageous for a good cause". From that standpoint, i understand why Snowden supporters see him as "brave" while his detractors do not: doing so implies agreeing with him, agreeing that he had good cause to do what he did.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Terrorists are the biggest cowards in the world because they choose to fight an unarmed populace. Calling them courageous is an egregious misuse of the word. Maybe you don't really understand what either term means.

Point well taken.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

But I am laughing at the crap about you wanting to be brave as Snowden...when you do not even have the guts to use your real name when posting your thoughts.

So you are agreeing that Snowden is brave just that I am not for following an example of most of our founding fathers?

Quote:

Using the Founding Fathers as a comparison for yourself is a bit much even for you.

Strange as I still can not see how you can attacked me for not using my full legal name in my writings but not our founding fathers for doing the same thing.

I know there is some level of logic behind your thinking, at least to some degree, and I would love to hear it.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
But I am laughing at the crap about you wanting to be brave as Snowden...when you do not even have the guts to use your real name when posting your thoughts.

So you are agreeing that Snowden is brave just that I am not for following an example of most of our founding fathers?

Not even remotely!

As I have stated clearly...I do not think Snowden showed bravery or patriotism by doing what he did.

As for you...I simply do not see your as an especially brave individual.

The Founding Fathers faced imprisonment for treason for what they wrote. You don't. You are just too chicken to use your real name.

Quote:

Quote:
Using the Founding Fathers as a comparison for yourself is a bit much even for you.

Strange as I still can not see how you can attacked me for not using my full legal name in my writings but not our founding fathers for doing the same thing.

Look at what I said above.

Quote:

I know there is some level of logic behind your thinking, at least to some degree, and I would love to hear it.

You've heard it.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know