Joke on Twitter gone bad...

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[smurfORnot]

As if I am the guy in charge of TSA... Lol

so how can you defend some methods,if you dont even know how successful they are?
cant you google it or something?

It's quite easy to come on information how successful agency's and police are,why are they even putting in news when they capture some criminals or make successful drug raid and so on?
On other hand,people have right to know if they are doing their job,because in the end,they are being paid with your tax money.

[DarkSoldierX]

well,I would like to know some numbers,because it's not that I am hearing that they are capturing terrorists in the rest of the world where they dont have these methods in place and that they are hijacking planes etc etc. So I just wanna know how improved these methods are compared to 'normal' methods other country's have.

If you can rate any other agency,police based on how many criminals are caught,why not this. I mean,if police didnt caught single guy whole year,would you say that they are doing a poor job or that they actually didnt had to capture anyone,because their presence is already enough and that 'crime rate' is falling,so they should continue good job at harassing everyone,stopping every guy on streat,doing full body searches,because you never know who might be a dealer,killer...

No because criminals caught is not a good indication of a police forces skill.

And other countries 'normal' methods are doing very "offensive" means. Something we do except we tend to do it on a much larger scale and use up alot more cash doing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War ( im talking about afterwar)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite-Maoist_insurgency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Insurgency_in_Yemen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Northeast_India

I can pretty much assure you so many more people have been strip searched(then likely beaten) by the gov in those wars then in the American airport security and its counter insurgencies.

And alot of the time police are inefficient. But that doesn't mean they aren't necessary.

[Sachaztan]

Smurf are you being retarded on purpose?

If the police somehow manages to prevent all crime before it happens, they wouldn't catch anyone for committing a crime.

Same story here, if they manage to make it so hard for terrorists to perform any acts of terror that they won't even try then ofc they wont catch anyone for it.

Besides, this "war on terror" takes place mostly outside the eyes of the public.

[smurfORnot]

Besides, this "war on terror" takes place mostly outside the eyes of the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

war on terror was actually quite a lot in center of attention. And from what I saw in news,when they made some success,they didnt kept it secret,it was all over the news!

Same story here, if they manage to make it so hard for terrorists to perform any acts of terror that they won't even try then ofc they wont catch anyone for it.

so why are we not starting to strip search random people on street? I can guarantee you,that people would be far less likely to carry pistol,knife,drug etc with them if you had police 24,7 raiding and searching people randomly.
Why dont we randomly invade peoples homes? people would be far less likely to have meth lab,mamrijuana plantation and so on if they knew that police are randomly going from door to door. Right now is,okay,if I am doing a good job at hiding it,there is a good chance that I wont get caught.

No because criminals caught is not a good indication of a police forces skill.

so if police didnt caught single guy or solved <10% of cases in USA would you say that they are doing good job? I mean,if they cant capture anyone or protect me on time,why do I even need them then?

[DarkSoldierX]

so if police didnt caught single guy in USA would you say that they are doing good job? I mean,if they cant capture anyone or protect me on time,why do I even need them then?

You still dont understand lol.

Le derp, if the USA caught 500 criminals in a month nationwide, and germany caught 200 criminals, does that mean USA has a better system?

No for 1. Who says all the criminals wern't just bribed 2. Who says the german population just didn't report it because the civilian population took care of it 3.USA has way more people in it 4. Germany is more educated but bigdick is a contractiction to that statement.

Do I need to state another 20 factors of why criminals caught isn't a good representation of the skill of a police force?

[smurfORnot]

okay,so how do you rate success of TSA? when it's not obviously on terrorists they stopped. How do you know that terrorists arent crossing over? So if they are not caught,does that mean,no terrorist did come to US soil?

Le derp, if the USA caught 500 criminals in a month nationwide, and germany caught 200 criminals, does that mean USA has a better system?

if USA caught 500 criminals and with that solved 95% of their cases,I would say they are doing fine job,if germany caught 200,but with this only solved 20% of cases,I would say they are doing poor job compared to america.

[Sachaztan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

war on terror was actually quite a lot in center of attention. And from what I saw in news,when they made some success,they didnt kept it secret,it was all over the news!
so why are we not starting to strip search random people on street? I can guarantee you,that people would be far less likely to carry pistol,knife,drug etc with them if you had police 24,7 raiding and searching people randomly.
Why dont we randomly invade peoples homes? people would be far less likely to have meth lab,mamrijuana plantation and so on if they knew that police are randomly going from door to door. Right now is,okay,if I am doing a good job at hiding it,there is a good chance that I wont get caught.

What you don't understand is just because I criticize you for the stupid shit you say doesn't mean I'm "on the other side of the argument".

Also about the war on terror, you really think you even see 1% of all the intelligence gathering, apprehensions, espionage, surveillence, military operations, interrogations, torture etc etc that is part of this? Do you honestly believe most of what happens in the name of WoT exists on the internet?

[AmPM]

Sach: I don't think he understands that no matter what gets leaked or told, much much more never sees the light of day.

[tank130]

okay,so how do you rate success of TSA?

Well, I am going to start with this simple fact. Since the increase in security in the united states, there have not been any big nasty airplanes suiciding themselves into big tall buildings.......

Now this could just be a coincidence, but I am going to hazard a guess that terrorists would consider the last airplane event somewhat of a success. Based on that success, one could safely assume that said terrorist would really like to fly some more airplanes into tall buildings.

sooooooo, just throwing out the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the stricter security measures are actually working.

But I guess the big bad terrorists might also feel real guilty for that last nasty deed they did and have zero intentions of doing it again.

If I was a betting man (I am very much a bettingman) I am going to put my money on increased security is working.

[Tymathee]

agreed, haven't really been any terrorists attacks either. attempted yet, foiled yes, plotted yes, stopped, definitely.

so basically since the whole anthrax thing, which btw was a domestic terrorists, it's been good

oh and btw, i love how we've had no large plane accidents either, before 9/11 used to be 1 or 2 every year, and none since. So the increased security also has increased scrutiny for the planes making flying safer over all.

[Smokaz]

Well, I am going to start with this simple fact. Since the increase in security in the united states, there have not been any big nasty airplanes suiciding themselves into big tall buildings.......

Now this could just be a coincidence, but I am going to hazard a guess that terrorists would consider the last airplane event somewhat of a success. Based on that success, one could safely assume that said terrorist would really like to fly some more airplanes into tall buildings.

sooooooo, just throwing out the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the stricter security measures are actually working.

But I guess the big bad terrorists might also feel real guilty for that last nasty deed they did and have zero intentions of doing it again.

If I was a betting man (I am very much a bettingman) I am going to put my money on increased security is working.

I find it hard to believe you are being serious. Or success really is quite random

[tank130]

Well how about this then: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror

So forty is not too bad. There is absolutely no way to know how many people would have died if those attacks had succeeded, so I guess we really have no idea how valuable it is.

For me personally, if they saved one life, it has been worth it.

What this does not count, because it is impossible to do so, it the attempts that were not made or scrapped because the security was just too tight.

[PonySlaystation]

4.) What kind of gun is that anyway....

Heckler & Koch MP5 Submachine Gun, sir.

[Groundfire]

I don't think it would be intellectually justifiable to judge the effects of tightened airport security by the amount of terrorists that were dumb enough to get caught by it. The largest effect it has is obviously 'preventive', i.e they KNOW there's heightened security so they're not going to risk some half-assed attempt at hijacking or bombing an airliner any more. (They'll only risk it when they have a sound new method, in which case existing security will obviously be insufficient)

I really don't think we should question heightened airport security, at most it's a 'nuisance' when travelling, one most people can live with. The REAL issue here, and what we SHOULD be discussing in this thread is REAL loss of personal freedoms, such as the loss of the right to a fair trial under the recent US legislation enacted by Congress in the 'war against terrorism'.

+10

[Smokaz]

Ah, the good old "wont sacrifice 1 life for 100 others"

As a man who looks after a dollar value assigned to 1 human life, this one should be easy

[tank130]

Ah, the good old "wont sacrifice 1 life for 100 others"

As a man who looks after a dollar value assigned to 1 human life, this one should be easy

Huh? Not sure what you mean by this comment?

[smurfORnot]

you should lock innocent people in prisons and let criminals outside,this way you will increase their safety quite a bit. If it saves one woman from being rapped late at night when she is coming home,or 1 guy killed during the market robbery,since you wont have market in prison. It will be well worth it,and you will save more than 1 life this way 

Well, I am going to start with this simple fact. Since the increase in security in the united states, there have not been any big nasty airplanes suiciding themselves into big tall buildings.......

Guess what,there were also none in the rest of the world,and I doubt that rest of the world has same measures as USA. Or is it only America that is on terrorists 'crash planes' list.

If I wanted to kill any politician in Croatia,I could kill them quite easily,they dont have or have poor protection, fact that I am not killing them doenst mean that we have best police and security in the world.


From what I can see you,they can take away all your freedoms tell you exactly what to do,as long as you have your little home,your argument will be,if it helps save 1 life it will be worth it. Well I rly hope you stay happy and safe.
Government is slowly taking more and more from you,putting in place laws that allow them. By the time most of you realize anything,it will be unfortunately to late. But if it helps save one life,it will be worth it. Big old government wouldnt do anything thats is not in public interest,God forbid that they would do something that favors big corporations before little man. No government would never do that to us.

[smurfORnot]

[Mysthalin]

As an economist I can tell you the government does actually have a very precise value on each statistical life, and can even tell you how much, statistically - one statistical quality life-year is worth.

Assuming you live in the UK, anyway.

[smurfORnot]

but you cant put price on life Myst,cant you? Life is priceless,and goverment will do everything it can to save and improve our lives. Politicians,who are the government,will never put their own desires,profit etc. etc. above little man's needs. God forbid that they make profits out of you,you can even see them cutting their salary so that little man can live better.