Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 31st Jul 2013 14:12 UTC
Internet & Networking From The Guardian:

A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The NSA boasts in training materials that the program, called XKeyscore, is its "widest reaching" system for developing intelligence from the internet.

This is not PRISM - but a different system. The slides are damning, as always.

It validates claims made by Edward Snowden, and makes it clear that US government officials have been lying all along. There's no court order required for any of this - in a supposedly modern democracy. Crazy.

Thread beginning with comment 568504
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by kwan_e
by sdeber on Wed 31st Jul 2013 16:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by kwan_e"
sdeber
Member since:
2005-07-06

You should realise that in 21st century, guns are only effective to civilians. They are quite primitive compared to those modern weapons that governments hold.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by aliquis on Wed 31st Jul 2013 21:36 in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

You should realise that in 21st century, guns are only effective to civilians. They are quite primitive compared to those modern weapons that governments hold.
They still are efficient at killing people. So unless your government is ran by machines ..

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Thu 1st Aug 2013 00:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"You should realise that in 21st century, guns are only effective to civilians. They are quite primitive compared to those modern weapons that governments hold.
They still are efficient at killing people. So unless your government is ran by machines .. "

They are effective at killing people. In theatres and at dark skinned people.

However, the gubmint can snoop at their emails and phone calls. If they really try to start that revolution they so promised us many times, guess who has the intelligence advantage?

Intelligence, in all senses of the word, is a better defence than cowardly gun bravado.

Edited 2013-08-01 00:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by fossil on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
fossil Member since:
2009-05-29

Look for "helicopter gunship" videos on YouTube or other video source. Your house/apartment would be reduced to splinters in a few minutes, at most.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by glarepate on Sun 4th Aug 2013 00:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Ok, we know the government isn't run by machines. Other than political or economic machines anyway.

But what if the all too human government just uses machines? Would the gun nuts just wipe out any forces that they encounter because they have the 'advantage' of owning some guns? And maybe a few boxes of shells too?

Could body armor be considered a machine?

What about a helmet?

How about a machine gun?

Night vision goggles, drones, armored personnel carriers, satellites and cluster bombs can just be ignored by the gun nuts but that might not keep them out of harm's way.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Thu 1st Aug 2013 00:38 in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

You should realise that in 21st century, guns are only effective to civilians. They are quite primitive compared to those modern weapons that governments hold.


Which is my point. They like to talk big about how they're the ones to save us from the gubmint, but time and time again show themselves to be cowardly, unless shooting at black teenagers.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by NicePics13 on Thu 1st Aug 2013 08:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
NicePics13 Member since:
2009-06-08

They like to talk big about how they're the ones to save us from the gubmint, but time and time again show themselves to be cowardly, unless shooting at black hoodlums.

Fixed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by Ravyne on Thu 1st Aug 2013 19:44 in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
Ravyne Member since:
2006-01-08

Primitive by comparison, yes. Ineffective, I doubt.

If we're talking machine-gun vs. semi-auto, then machine-guns are really only more-effective at two things: keeping heads down, and chewing through ammunition.

As for jeeps, tanks, helicopters and the like. All could be stolen if you've got firearms.

Missiles and bombs? If you think the government is unpopular now, wait until they start dropping munitions on the homeland. That assumes enough of the military sides with the government to actually man those jets and bombers, and that those left will actually comply with orders to bomb their countrymen.


This is somewhat hypothetical, but every time someone says "Herp. Derp. Don't bring a gun to a tank fight!" -- well, I'd like to remind then that a loose collective guys in caves with AKs and cold-war-era RPGs have been resisting the entire, unbridled might of the American military for... 12 years now.

Now add to that the fact that if even 10 percent of American gun owners actually felt strongly enough to start shooting over it, that's still an army of over 3 million -- literally larger than any standing army in the world today.

Given that the government's response would be with tied hands, defection of military and civilian security forces, and facing an overwhelming, distributed force, I bet Washington would fall faster than Baghdad did.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Fri 2nd Aug 2013 00:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Primitive by comparison, yes. Ineffective, I doubt.

If we're talking machine-gun vs. semi-auto, then machine-guns are really only more-effective at two things: keeping heads down, and chewing through ammunition.

As for jeeps, tanks, helicopters and the like. All could be stolen if you've got firearms.

Missiles and bombs? If you think the government is unpopular now, wait until they start dropping munitions on the homeland. That assumes enough of the military sides with the government to actually man those jets and bombers, and that those left will actually comply with orders to bomb their countrymen.


This is somewhat hypothetical, but every time someone says "Herp. Derp. Don't bring a gun to a tank fight!" -- well, I'd like to remind then that a loose collective guys in caves with AKs and cold-war-era RPGs have been resisting the entire, unbridled might of the American military for... 12 years now.

Now add to that the fact that if even 10 percent of American gun owners actually felt strongly enough to start shooting over it, that's still an army of over 3 million -- literally larger than any standing army in the world today.

Given that the government's response would be with tied hands, defection of military and civilian security forces, and facing an overwhelming, distributed force, I bet Washington would fall faster than Baghdad did.


Scenario: They disable your electricity supply. They blockade all interstate highways to your state. They instigate a no fly zone above your state.

Your army of 3 million. Untrained. Overweight. Believes in Biblical miracles to do some of its fighting. Accustomed to creature comforts.

Can you stop your army of 3 million from looting and raping? Can you stop your army of 3 million from turning on each other due to ideological differences?

These are the things that are going to turn the American people against you. Because it's a civil war situation, former anti-gun people would see no problem taking up arms to defend themselves against your undisciplined vigilante mercenary army.

Given that the government's response would be with tied hands


And this is the reason why you retards will never win. No successful military general assumes their enemy will behave exactly as they IMAGINE. Nothing is a GIVEN.

Have you even read anything about world history and military operations?

Reply Parent Score: 4