The output of the intelligence community is surprisingly low. One director of the NSA said, pre-9/11, that the whole organization generated about one important result every two days, one that was acted upon. The output of the US's domestic anti-terrorism effort is low for the resources invested. Most of the FBI's terrorism arrests are wannabes. They get a report of somebody mouthing off in a bar or mosque, crank up a…
So, after several wars, a couple of occupations, and tons of drone killings, and several trillions spent, all the stronger country in the world has managed was to "reduce the life expectancy" of major leaders in an third world backwater organisation? And help foster another similar enemy (ISIS) in the process? Hurray for effectiveness...
Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
91–100 of 147 posts
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#92The output of the intelligence community is surprisingly low. One director of the NSA said, pre-9/11, that the whole organization generated about one important result every two days, one that was acted upon. The output of the US's domestic anti-terrorism effort is low for the resources invested. Most of the FBI's terrorism arrests are wannabes. They get a report of somebody mouthing off in a bar or mosque, crank up a…
I find it amusing to consider the NSA/FBI thinks various terrorist groups have masterminded a plan and are closing in, while terrorist groups think similarly about the NSA/FBI's SIGINT infrastructure and capability; when in fact they're both hilariously unorganised and just trying really, really hard, like a real-life parallel to Spy Vs Spy
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". There is a point of view from which this makes sense: Since there is no standard code, eve…
> I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". Which is not far from true. Morals one makes for themselves ("personal moral code") are not morals proper. They could just as well include that's its ok to kill kittens for fun (to give a silly example) -- that t…
So what _are_ "morals proper"?
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pick the team that finishes last in any sporting tournament and you hear more about their failures than their successes. The usual response is "Well what successes?" So it would seem to be with the CIA. The USA is hugely and massively successful and the CIA hides its disaster laden, failure after failure after horrendous outcome in secrecy. What success did the CIA have, ever? List their failures is so easy, I'll sta…
The story of the CIA's ongoing attempts to assassinate Castro reads like a slapstick comedy. Exploding cigars weren't even the silliest.
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pick the team that finishes last in any sporting tournament and you hear more about their failures than their successes. The usual response is "Well what successes?" So it would seem to be with the CIA. The USA is hugely and massively successful and the CIA hides its disaster laden, failure after failure after horrendous outcome in secrecy. What success did the CIA have, ever? List their failures is so easy, I'll sta…
The story of the CIA's ongoing attempts to assassinate Castro reads like a slapstick comedy. Exploding cigars weren't even the silliest.
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it amusing to consider the NSA/FBI thinks various terrorist groups have masterminded a plan and are closing in, while terrorist groups think similarly about the NSA/FBI's SIGINT infrastructure and capability; when in fact they're both hilariously unorganised and just trying really, really hard, like a real-life parallel to Spy Vs Spy
And so it seems that the currently effective terrorists attacks are the simplest ones, where you don't have to communicate or coordinate too much, or acquire some very unusual hardware (like explosives).
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
And so it seems that the currently effective terrorists attacks are the simplest ones, where you don't have to communicate or coordinate too much, or acquire some very unusual hardware (like explosives).
I wonder why a more common tactic isn't to simply ride a lot of busses until one of them is packed full while driving on the highway at full speed, then launching at the steering wheel to turn it basically any direction...Sounds like a pretty good chance of a pile up and lots of casualties, with no evidence the perpetrator is anything other than a normal passenger until it's too late.
they want to get caught. the casualties are a means to an end. if you just kill a bunch of people without anyone noticing it, nothings been gained in terms of effective terrorizing.
terrorists want to be freddy krueger, not the rollercoaster from final destination.
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". There is a point of view from which this makes sense: Since there is no standard code, eve…
> I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". Which is not far from true. Morals one makes for themselves ("personal moral code") are not morals proper. They could just as well include that's its ok to kill kittens for fun (to give a silly example) -- that t…
Externally enforced behavior is not "morals".
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why a more common tactic isn't to simply ride a lot of busses until one of them is packed full while driving on the highway at full speed, then launching at the steering wheel to turn it basically any direction...Sounds like a pretty good chance of a pile up and lots of casualties, with no evidence the perpetrator is anything other than a normal passenger until it's too late.
because the goal of terrorism is awareness that there are evil assholes out there. they want to get caught. the casualties are a means to an end. if you just kill a bunch of people without anyone noticing it, nothings been gained in terms of effective terrorizing. terrorists want to be freddy krueger, not the rollercoaster from final destination.
Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
because the goal of terrorism is awareness that there are evil assholes out there. they want to get caught. the casualties are a means to an end. if you just kill a bunch of people without anyone noticing it, nothings been gained in terms of effective terrorizing. terrorists want to be freddy krueger, not the rollercoaster from final destination.
How is it any different from suicide bombing tho? The terrorist organizations can still take credit for the bus-on-highway-terror just like they take credit posthumously for the suicide bombings.