The Blinded Public

[JimC]

I don't agree with your statement "it is incredibly unlikely [that surveillance will have a negative impact] from most democratically elected governments". Define "democratically elected government". What we have now doesn't meet that definition, imo, in the context of trusting governments with surveillance.

In Oz at the moment, unless you are a criminal /terrorist/someone with clear evil intent, whatever government surveillance is directed your way is very unlikely to be even noticed by you, let alone have a negative impact on your life. The fact that we have a current government we both dislike doesn't change that. However, it is very important that checks and balances are not eroded; for example, clear judicial oversight...

[RESiNATE]

The angle I was trying to get across to this bloke was more about the carte blanche authorisation that the general public were seemingly allowing themselves to be subject to. It's not about paranoia or conspiracy, but more their willingness to accept these new powers of surveillance under the guise of anti-terrorism measures without any real proof that they are deterring or preventing major incidents of this nature anyway.

The discussion continued with him saying things like " it's not as if the government allow these attacks to happen!"



I countered with questions like; "why were no fighter jets scrambled after the second plane hit the towers...or the third that hit the Pentagon?", and, "why do we continually hear things like - the terrorists were known to the security services for months, or that surveillance of these terrorists was ceased months ago?"

And why, despite the incessant fear-mongering of imminent attacks, is police funding being reduced year on year?

He told me that I underestimated the importance of the economy... In effect, he was suggesting that it was more important not to inconvenience tourists and motorists than to shut down (or at least tighten) securities at the ports and roads and airports of France immediately after the recent attacks there! Instead of allowing them to escape to Turkey as they did.

I know that I am portraying myself as a hysterical, paranoiac, conspiracy theorist, but all I am trying to do is to encourage them to think on and really think about the level of freedoms that they seem so eager to relinquish. And when I hear the type of arguments that he was using, I feel sadness and frustration.

It seems that Agenda 21 is moving along quite nicely and it won't be long before a global referendum (certainly in the western world) will be upon us, and it will be us free-thinkers versus the general public. If I was a betting man, I'm afraid that my money would be safest if I placed it with the general public getting what they have been told they want.

Oh well, I'll just sit back and watch it happen...

[Seth]

The angle I was trying to get across to this bloke was more about the carte blanche authorisation that the general public were seemingly allowing themselves to be subject to. It's not about paranoia or conspiracy, but more their willingness to accept these new powers of surveillance under the guise of anti-terrorism measures without any real proof that they are deterring or preventing major incidents of this nature anyway.

The discussion continued with him saying things like " it's not as if the government allow these attacks to happen!"



I countered with questions like; "why were no fighter jets scrambled after the second plane hit the towers...or the third that hit the Pentagon?",

They were. But the attacks were over before they could arrive. They were headed for Flight 93 when it crashed. Moreover, every non-military aircraft was ordered out of the sky in an unprecedented move by the FAA.

and, "why do we continually hear things like - the terrorists were known to the security services for months, or that surveillance of these terrorists was ceased months ago?"

Knowing the names and locations of someone suspected to be involved in terrorist activities is completely different from having enough evidence to arrest them.

And why, despite the incessant fear-mongering of imminent attacks, is police funding being reduced year on year?

What makes you think that? And if true, police budgets are like any other budget, and they get cut when the economy is sour. Besides, you ignore the MASSIVE increase in government spending on the military and intelligence communities to fight terrorism. Post-9/11 gave us the largest increase in the federal government in the history of the world with Bush's creation of Homeland Security.

He told me that I underestimated the importance of the economy... In effect, he was suggesting that it was more important not to inconvenience tourists and motorists than to shut down (or at least tighten) securities at the ports and roads and airports of France immediately after the recent attacks there! Instead of allowing them to escape to Turkey as they did.

He's right. It's not "more important" but it is "more politically and economically necessary and desirable" than shutting down commerce, which is a huge and incredibly harmful thing to do. Just look at how the moderate sanctions on Russia have busted the ruble down.

As for port security, you need to get some perspective on how much activity there is at shipping hubs. You could put the entire French police force on duty at one single port and still not be able to screen every container coming in and going out without bringing transportation to a grinding halt.

I know that I am portraying myself as a hysterical, paranoiac, conspiracy theorist, but all I am trying to do is to encourage them to think on and really think about the level of freedoms that they seem so eager to relinquish. And when I hear the type of arguments that he was using, I feel sadness and frustration.

Ideology is nice, and I agree with you in theory, but I've come to understand that keeping the international economy running smoothly is far more important than shutting everything down to catch three or four home-grown terrorists. They can kill people, but not enough of them to justify crashing a national economy. That's just how it is.

It seems that Agenda 21 is moving along quite nicely and it won't be long before a global referendum (certainly in the western world) will be upon us, and it will be us free-thinkers versus the general public. If I was a betting man, I'm afraid that my money would be safest if I placed it with the general public getting what they have been told they want.

Oh well, I'll just sit back and watch it happen...

Yes, I agree that Agenda 21 is a serious danger to our civil liberties, and we should continue to resist it and agendas like it, but in the end the public will get the society it wants, whether we agree with it or not, so I'll be sitting back in the bunker watching as well when they get it, good and hard.

[Hermit]

It seems that Agenda 21 is moving along quite nicely

Agenda 21 is a conspiracy?

I always thought of it as 300 page published document proposing a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. As for it being a Trojan horse the purpose of which is to undermine property rights, please provide evidence. And no, speculation on its own does not qualify as evidence.

Sheesh. May as well call lolbertardianism a conspiracy asserting the supremacy of individual freedom in order to enable the 1% to lord it over everyone else at will.

[pErvinalia]

This "one world government" shit, shits me to tears.

[RESiNATE]

I just find it interesting is all lol

Flight 93 crashed?

Ok

[Seth]

I just find it interesting is all lol

Flight 93 crashed?

Ok

Well, technically yes, although the proximate cause was some grasshopper-eating, camel-fucking cocksucker driving it into the ground.

[RESiNATE]

Oh

[Brian Peacock]

I just find it interesting is all lol

Flight 93 crashed?

Ok

Well, technically yes, although the proximate cause was some grasshopper-eating, camel-fucking cocksucker driving it into the ground.

You forgot 'towel-headed Jihadi' there.

Must be your age.

[RESiNATE]

Its....

I mean....

..nah, fuck it

[hackenslash]

The NSA, GCHQ, MI5, etc are far too busy monitoring domestic threats [...] to worry about what we are talking about on Facebook.

I'd point out that among the means by which those agencies monitor domestic threats is to worry about what we're talking about on Facebook. That is, in fact, the level of naïveté displayed by this poster, i.e. totally fucking clueless.

[pErvinalia]

He's quoting his acquaintance saying that.

I'd imagine pretty much everyone's sms's, emails and probably facebook posts are being run through a keyword filter via an Echelon type service. It would be rare than an actual human would be laying eyes on your facebook posts etc if you are just a regular citizen. But if you are a radical, and particularly an Islamic radical, then I'd imagine you would be in their sights. I'd guess I'd probably have a higher than usual watch level given I'm fairly regularly calling for the overthrow of the entire rotten system, and often wish death (accidental, or course) on our conservative leadership...

[Seth]

I just find it interesting is all lol

Flight 93 crashed?

Ok

Well, technically yes, although the proximate cause was some grasshopper-eating, camel-fucking cocksucker driving it into the ground.

You forgot 'towel-headed Jihadi' there.

Must be your age.

They didn't wear towels.

[pErvinalia]

You forgot 'Obama loving Marxists'

[Seth]

You forgot 'Obama loving Marxists'

They weren't Marxists.