UK Terror Bust Caught With Wiretapping 203
1cebird writes "In an AP story entitled Brothers Emerge As Focus of Plot Probe, British sources reveal that the UK -> US plane-bombing plot was uncovered by a UK wiretap. So it looks like they are getting results with their wiretapping program. Will this make governments and citizens more comfortable with the idea?"
Next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Next? (Score:2)
Re:Next? (Score:2)
Re:Next? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not about being uncomfortable with wiretaps. It's about being uncomfortable will illegal, non-FISA approved wire taps. If these guys were in a terror cell (and in the US) and FISA was asked for a warrant, it would be granted.
The general public isn't worried about wiretapping. They're worried about an executive branch that thinks it's a dictatorship, free from the laws that govern this land.
Re:Next? (Score:2)
Don't assume perfection (Score:5, Insightful)
But perfection doesn't come easily. Look at how many CIA, KGB, MI6, DGSE and other intelligence agencies' officers have been caught because of screw-ups. These are people trained for long period of time - often years - to accomplish their jobs, yet even among their ranks screw-ups occur.
Terrorists, such as those caught in the UK, don't have such training. While they use many sophisticated (and many simple) means to avoid detection, they often lack the discipline to use them all the time and, in the case of Al Qaeda, often operate in such large groups as to make security hap hazard at best.
Consider Thursday's group and Al Qaeda's MO. A group that size had probably been in the planning and recruitment phase for several months if not several years. A group of that size needed large amounts (by terrorist standards) of outside funding, training, and support. They needed to move lots of information, stay in contact with each other, all while maintaining an outward appearance of normalcy (which they also apparently failed at, as a human intelligence source played a major part in busting the plot as well). A group of 24 - some say as big as 50 - quickly becomes unwieldy, and establishing perfect discipline amongst its often panicked members can be quite difficult.
Al Qaeda's biggest strength, and its biggest weakness, is the size of its attacks. The 9/11 attack was astounding, winning the group recognition worldwide, but it required a very large group to plan and execute. If the planned airline bombings had taken place, the result would have been perhaps equally astounding, but Al Qaeda's eyes are much bigger than its stomach - if it had targeted only one, perhaps two airliners and kept the groups small, tight, and using foreigners instead of UK citizens, it probably could have pulled it off. Look at the "shoe bomber" - he was stopped only by passengers, and his plot was unknown to counter-terrorist officials beforehand. If he'd had the smarts to try and pull it off in the airplane's bathroom, one would assume he'd have been much more successful.
Even if the group keeps 95% of its communications perfectly secure, that 5% slip can be enough to get them. Using that pre-paid cell too many times, forgetting to encrypt a chat just once, slipping up and paying with a credit card, not properly casing a facility, failing to use proper cut-outs to wire cash, etc. Insecure communications are far more efficient and, when one is panicked or when one becomes too confident, are often opted for, which is the key to getting people. By keeping the pressure up and making these groups feel nervous, most are bound to screw up in one way or another, helping them get caught.
While perfectly secure means of communication may well exist, the human element is what will always screw it up. Think about it this way - how easy is it to commit a "perfect murder", one that that leaves you with practically no chance of getting caught? If properly planned, not too hard, right? Yet most murderers are eventually caught. Why? They get lazy. They screw up. All too often it is the stupidity, poor planning, lack of discipline, panic, or overconfidence that gets them caught. Terrorists - who generally operate in sizable groups - often fall to the same problems.
Re:Don't assume perfection (Score:2)
Yeah. What the fuck? Even a total idiot would have known to go somewhere isolated in order to ignite his shoes. The only thing I figure is that maybe the explosive power of his shoes was too small to do much damage unless it was in the right spot to i
Re:Don't assume perfection (Score:3, Interesting)
you (and others) assume to much (Score:2)
Second, you seem to assume that the gov. can only look at bit at a time.
Finally, if they encrypt everything, that means the feds can simply find out which traffic to examine quickly. IOW, it is now flagged as to where to look. If you are looking f
Too late... (Score:2)
Well, then, either it will be illegal to use any encryption at all (and you'll be locked up forver under suspicion of being a terrorist if you do), or you will be forced to supply your private keys on demand to the authorities (UK RIP act from 2 or 3 years ago).
Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:2, Interesting)
It should be mentioned that the U.S. and British governments have been killing Arabs and interfering with Arab governments for more than 40 years, and that's what started the terrorism. See this very brief summary: History surrounding the U.S. wars with Iraq: Four short stories [futurepower.org]
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:2)
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:5, Informative)
Tripoli is no more the Middle East than is Rome or Berlin. Arab does not equal Middle East. Arab includes much of North Africa, including areas rather west of Portugal, once included most of Iberia and much of west Africa (hence Swahili). Arab does not include Iran.
KFG
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:2, Funny)
However, I'm sure that in a different universe, there are Islamic extremists who are suicide bombing canoes and tipis, and deerskin pouches being checked for explosive glass beads. Also, intercontinental ballistic arrowheads (ICBAs) aimed at Baghdad and a hell of a lot of turban trophies with scalp attached...
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:3, Interesting)
-molo
U.S. gov. interference made the U.S. a target. (Score:2)
I'm NOT saying violence is justified. I'm against violence. But, the U.S. government did, in fact, interfere with the politics of Saudi Arabia, as Osama bin Laden claims. Remember 15 of the 18 attackers of the World Trade
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:2)
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:2)
It's even more amazing to think that just 230 years ago, the United States was actually owned by Britain, but now is getting pwned by Iraq.
I found a link to a video of the show: (Score:3, Informative)
During the show Brian Ross of ABC said both governments break the laws of the other, and share the information.
They've been doing that for years, showing zero respect for the law and for the lawmakers. One of the things they have been doing is killing Arabs to increase oil profits.
Re:I found a link to a video of the show: (Score:2)
Re:I found a link to a video of the show: (Score:2)
You got everything right except for the last part. In plenty of cases they've signed agreements for fixed prices or for fixed percentages based on the cost to extract. So in the later case, they might only get 10% of the market price. Back when oil was $20/barrel that $2 might have been all the profit there was after all costs. But at $60/barr
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:5, Insightful)
And not the French, the Russians, the Chinese? In particular, have a look at France's brutal colonial record in the Arab world.
Nice try though. The world's terrorism problems are not the exclusive fault of the US and the UK.
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:3, Interesting)
To quote syriana: We think a hundred years ago you were living out here in tents in the desert chopping each others head's off, and that's exactly where you're going to be in another hundred.
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:2)
That's the UKUSA programme (which despite the name also includes Australia and New Zealand), and it's been going on for decades. Any intercepts on US citizens that NSA isn't legally allowed to obtain directly, they get from GCHQ in England under the terms of UKUSA's intelligen
Sorry the U.S. wasnt around in 1050 (Score:5, Insightful)
Hope your hairshirt fits well.
Re:Sorry the U.S. wasnt around in 1050 (Score:3, Interesting)
...lines drawn in the dirt by the Leage of Nations in 1920.
I suggest you read
The Middle East and the West: Carving Up the Region [npr.org]
and
The Middle East and the West: WWI and Beyond [npr.org]
Then look at these maps
1914 [npr.org]
1916 [npr.org]
1920 [npr.org]
NPR doesn't come right out and say it, but I will: the borders were arbitrary and cut across ethnic & tribal groupings. Basically, they were drawn up to support British and French colonialism
Re:Sorry the U.S. wasnt around in 1050 (Score:5, Interesting)
You are blaming arab governments on the arabs? My favorite middle eastern country, in terns of messed up history, is Iran. It isn't technically arab, but a lot of westerners don't bother to make any sort of distinction. Especially those making arbitrary blanket statements like yours.
At the start of the 20th century, there was a movement in Iran to move from a monarchy under the Shah to a nation with a constitution. There was some success, but England and Russia very actively impeded this process, and supported rolling back the role of the constitution. Then, there was a bit of a revolution, and a new Shah who had been involved in getting the constition made came to power.
The western powers hated this guy, basically forced him to abdicate, and had his son take power. In the 50's, the prime minister was asked to step down, tried to have another little revolution in order to move the country from a constitutional monarchy to a proper republic. The English and Americans would have none of it. So, we reinstalled the Shah, and installed a new prime minister. We also set up some official agreements and contracts about oil. A set of western oil companies had full control over the oil in Iran, and Iran couldn't audit the accounts to see if they were getting their contracted cut. So, basically Iran got shit from the exploitation of their own natural resources, because the West decided how the government should be run. (On several occasions!)
Interestingly enough, the Islamic revolution happened right about the same time that those oil contracts ran out. The whole history is far more interesting than I can fir into a slashdot post. My research on the subject is also far from complete. And, that's just one country.
For another interesting tidbit -- after the Islamic revolution in Iran, America was scared, a wanted to avoid having radical Islam spread in the middle east. We wanted to support non-religeous leaders in the area. It was less than a year after the Islamic revolution that Saddam came to power in Iraq.
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:2)
Re:Illegal spying: Britain and U.S. governments (Score:2)
False (Score:4, Informative)
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/legal-
Please describe how this would work (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? What would your "1% case" look like? Remember, they can already wiretap for 72 hours before getting the warrant, they can and do get warrants 24/7 (including going
Re:Please describe how this would work (Score:2)
Restating the question isn't the same thing as answering it. If I asked you to "name one thing that you thing would cure baldness" and you replied "a baldness cure," you'd hardly expect me to accept that as a responsive answer, would you?
Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
The government is GOING to do wiretaps, the key is enforcing the law and making them prove they are necessary before they do them, and yes, very often, they ARE necessary. People would do better to focus on the legal/illegal aspects instead of just saying "all wiretaps are bad". Taking that stance makes someone look like a whacko, and no one will pay attention to them.
A world where NO wiretaps are allowed is no better than a world where wiretaps go unchecked. Just a different brand of bad.
Re:Sure (Score:2)
All of which makes you wonder why wiretap evidence is still inadmissible in UK courts, which (if recent reports are anything to go by) is a large part of why we now have all these dubious restraint-without-charge laws. If the authorities know someone's a bad guy, from legitimate intelligence, why the hell can't that person be hauled up before a court, tried on the basis of that evidence, and sentenced like any other bad guy if convicted? Surely this is a better scheme than the current "we don't need no stin
Re:Sure (Score:2)
Re:Sure (Score:2)
Wait... what? (Score:4, Interesting)
The question is not "Is wire tapping effective?" (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think anyone will argue that wiretapping is bad. But many will argue that wiretapping with out oversight will quickly lead to an abuse of power.
-Rick
This won't answer that question. (Score:2)
The question is, "Is unregulated wire tapping of citizens with out oversight more effective than regulated wire tapping with oversight and a 24 hour grace period?"
This bust came from an informant not wire tapping. Someone who knew the suspects did the right thing and turned them in before they could kill innocent people. Wire tapping provided details, but it was not the out of control tap everyone without rule of law tapping big brother types advocate. Sooner or later the wiretap freaks will score a
Re:This won't answer that question. (Score:2)
This system, albeit a bit scarey, at least had oversite from the judicial branch, and a review process from the senate. The Bush administraton decided that ther
Re:The question is not "Is wire tapping effective? (Score:2)
In any case, by "abuse of power" I mean using the powers granted by Bush's term in office for political gain. As in, wire tapping competing political party members, journalist, social acquintances, etc. Sure, we can be told "that will never happen", but when the only people reviewing the system ar
how is it justified? (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/ [crimestatistics.org.uk]
Despite increased surveillance, violent crime is soaring yet our goverments idea of punishment is handing out an ASBO. Most ineffectual government 'evar', only appear to be in power to lay the framework for a totalitarian regime.
Re: (Score:2)
Government is always comfortable with wiretapping (Score:2)
I don't think any reasonable person would object to a panel of judges being presented with serious evidence by a police/security investigation team and issuing a warrant that says it's reasonable to investigate further on that basis. That bar of "reasonable" should be set
Re:Government is always comfortable with wiretappi (Score:2)
Its too soon for that. We are not into the post attack panic yet.
Re:Government is always comfortable with wiretappi (Score:2)
I would put this pretty much at the same level as if you see a gang beating a grandmother that the way to avoid antagonizing the gang is to walk quickly on by.
Yes, Israelis might be offended in being compared to a grandmother.
It is far, far too late to say "get out of their countries" Every government in the Middle East is there because of US or Eur
Re:Government is always comfortable with wiretappi (Score:2)
Re:Government is always comfortable with wiretappi (Score:2)
We've had wiretapping for a long time (Score:4, Insightful)
However, as I understand, wiretapping is *not* what tipped off British officials to the group who were going to carry out this plot. It was a friend/relative of one of the plotters who tipped of the police. Then, I'm guessing, the police went and got a warrant to tap this guy's phone, and worked thier way through the group, getting more warrants and taps, until they understood the group structure and their goals.
However, what I am extremely uncomfortable with is the unaccountable and warrantless comprehensive wiretapping of all phone calls in the US. If it is not illegal in the specific wording of the law, it certainly goes against the spirit of the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence. This is very scary. Totalitarian governments love keeping records and tabs on everyone so they can harrass and dissapear them whenever some person starts speaking up.
I'm not saying that Bush is a facist, but think about it -- would you trust Hillary Clinton
Re:We've had wiretapping for a long time (Score:2)
As for the rest... people in power should not be trusted, no matter what party they claim. Power corrupts. For that matter, being in politics too long simply makes you stupid as to how the world works. Enforce term limits... vote against the incumbent.
Here's the deal (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm more scared of the cops, even though I'm not a criminal.
Re:Here's the deal (Score:2)
Re:Here's the deal (Score:2)
Re:Here's the deal (Score:2)
Cue dodgy analogy: its like making backups - I do it every day and thing 'why bother, my HDD never failed', but the one day my PC suffers catastrophic hardware failure, I
Re:Here's the deal (Score:2)
I'm sure that's the only thing the KGB were listening for when they were tapping phones.
You're far too trusting of your government. Sure, we're all grateful when wiretapping prevents someone from killing a bunch of people, but the possibility of a power-mad government is far more dangerous and far more likely. What keeps Western democracies from becoming fascist states are the limits placed on the government's power and the dil
Re:Here's the deal (Score:2)
"When due process is ignored, we really do live in a world of terror."
Re:Here's the deal (Score:2)
Re:Here's the deal (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in London, have done since i was born 18 years ago. I never really lived through the IRA bombings, but we just stumbled through it. The greatest freedom that i feel i've been robbed of due to terrorism at the current time? There's no bloody bins on the Tube, as they were a favourite IRA target. After the 7th July bombings they removed the bins from overground trains for about 2 weeks too.
Since the 7th July London bombin
I'm comfortable with it.. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's possible to be safe from both terror AND idiot totalitarian governments.
Legal or not? (Score:2)
Re:Legal or not? (Score:2)
There is no mention of any UK wiretapping in the article. Hemos got trolled by the submitter.
still no proof (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, this terrorism crap to get more big brother action in place is looking
Are we watching a sublte PR campaign? (Score:5, Insightful)
Transporter_ii
Re:Are we watching a sublte PR campaign? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Are we watching a sublte PR campaign? (Score:2)
Sublte? (Score:2)
Subtle? [msn.com]
The US forced the UK's hands, making them arrest the suspects weeks or months before the Brits had intended. It will make the case harder to prove (they hadn't purchased any airline tickets, some of them hadn't even gotten their passports yet, they hadn't prepared any explosives and the UK--standing up to the US--in insisting on due process) but it fit right in with the Bush administration's plans to swiftboat Ned Lamont and use the arrests for fund raising [dccc.org], so they went ahead anyway.
--MarkusQ
Yeah, IF (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, I don't necessarily believe them when they say they cracked the case using wiretapping. They may well be preserving operational security by saying they got the plotters by a different method than they really used. Or perhaps they're just lying like they have so many times before.
In short, there is no new information based on this bust.
If instead they said they caught them by sneak-and-peek, would that mean that you would no longer want protection against unreasonable search and seizure?
huh? (Score:2)
Read the article before approving, Hemos (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Read the article before approving, Hemos (Score:2)
The claim may or may not be propaganda, but it's certainly right there in the news. E.g. [guardian.co.uk]:
(TFA has essentially the same quote); and [guardian.co.uk]:
Re:Read the article before approving, Hemos (Score:2)
Re:Read the article before approving, Hemos (Score:2)
Claims by a Pakistani official:
You see, no Bristish source. No UK wiretap. The summary was a fabrication easily refuted by reading the linked artic
Re:Read the article before approving, Hemos (Score:2)
Right. TFA does not say, one way or the other, who wiretapped.
Everyone in this thread agrees with that. (I already said: "My observation does not invalidate the grandparent's".)
So why do you feel compelled to repeat it once more?
You seem to have a hard time with the idea that a post may have other purposes than just "prove the parent wron
What we're afraid of (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no vast international Al Qaeda conspiracy; there are a handful zealots. The zeal
Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nope (Score:2)
How do you feel about the fact that others are making that decision for you?
Re:Nope (Score:2)
By "it", I mean various things. One example would be getting thrown in jail with never being charged.
Re:Nope (Score:2)
It's as silly and ridiculous as the concept of writing anti-discrimination laws when the rights to life and LIBERTY are already a given, with liberty being what should be protecting against undue discrimination.
There are things that shouldn't even need to be written into law to protect our fundamental rights. There are also other things that need to be written into law to protect against other laws trying to redefine t
Misleading (Score:4, Informative)
"The original information about the plan came from the Muslim community in Britain, according to a British intelligence official."
"The tip was from a person who had been concerned about the activities of an acquaintance after the July 7, 2005, terror attacks in London, the official said."
Just ignore them, they'll go away. (Score:4, Insightful)
They SAY it was uncovered with a wiretap (Score:2)
Just because the authorities say they uncovered the plot by a wiretap, doesn't mean it's true.
The most likely way they got the info was by infiltrating the groups likely to organize plots. It sounds too much like James Bond, but it is in fact one of the ways the Brits countered the threat of IRA terrorism in the 1980s and 1990s. When you get information from agents, you always deny the existence of the agents to protect them, and say you got the information from somewhere else. The job agents do is dangero
Re:Civil rights of 400-500 million violated... (Score:2)
I'm trying, in my own way, to do something about this. I talk to friends and family. I talk to people at work. I tell them, as best I can, why we need to hold onto our freedom. I'm passionate about living, and I do everything I can. I write to my MP. I engage people in debates to try and raise awareness of the issues at hand.
And after 4 years, I've come to the same conclusion as you.
Re:Civil rights of 400-500 million violated... (Score:2)
So far, no one's been charged or convicted in this case. Who knows, maybe they were just discussing their trip to Disneyland. They were supposedly going to use a soft drink bottle for explosives, so a couple of plastic bottles and a camera is probably the only evidence there is.
Re:Civil rights of 400-500 million violated... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is an old tactic that is widely accepted as a legit form of investigation.
Re:Civil rights of 400-500 million violated... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the UK has a population of 60 million, so you're going a tad OTT.
and so far one legitimate, serious attack has been prevented.
So is there some sort of quota that you want? We must stop at least one serious terrorist attack every two months before it's justified action?
The same attack could likely have been prevented by forcing everyone to check all luggage and allow no carry-ons.
Ah, so you complain about civil rights being eroded, but you'd have no problem if before 9/11 they'd have said: "Right, you're not allowed hand luggage except the bare minimum, that's passport, tickets and wallet." People would go nuts and ask why it's justified, wonder why they can't take their Gameboy, MP3 player or even a book onboard that really fun 7 hour transatlantic flight. Screw business class and business customers having the ability to work on the move, by-bye laptop, mobile phone, dictaphone and probably even pens or pencils.
As much as i dissapprove of the idea of only reacting to something after it's happened, if you'd even have suggested the security measures now 10 years ago, you'd be laughed out for costing the industry millions.
I'm sorry, but I don't see a difference.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the UK has a population of 60 million, so you're going a tad OTT.
I'm sorry but I don't see a functional difference between violating the rights of 60 million to catch one guilty person vs the rights of 500 million.
The premise of the constitutions of western worlds is supposed to be innocent until provent guilty. This means the government should not be authorized to systematically invade the privacy of the populus at large with no probable cause in the hope o
Re:Civil rights of 400-500 million violated... (Score:2)
I'm flying to Australia in 3 weeks, 10 hours with no books? Allah be praised!
Re:Civil rights of 400-500 million violated... (Score:2)
Actually, there is no evidence that any attacks have been prevented yet.
The police said that the attacks were "imminent", and would have taken place "in the next few days". Yet, there are no reports of explosives being found yet. You would assume that they would already have all the equipment if they were going to go within days.
Addendum. (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, the first reports -- before the higher ups in the real PR department got into full spin -- was that the reason these people were tracked was because after the London bombings a relative contacted the police with suspicions. You will note how that in itelf would TRIVIALLY allow the police the right to do taps under the OLD laws. No massive tapping of everyone, no carte blanche needed. Just the good old normal "We have resonable suspicion, please allow us to tap these people, Judge".
This is just "Lock The Laws In" spinning. 100% full throttle let us build a Big Brother Government so pervasive that there is no doubt that terrorism is in fact working excellently-spinning.
And it'll work. The phantom enemy, the "intelligent network", will win. Wasn't it odd that the first press conference I saw had a talking head explaning how this was ''very similar to an Al-Qaeda plot'', trying directly to instill that link to the ''network of evil'' as it were.
Sickening. Truly.
Re:Addendum. (Score:2)
It's very noticable that the huge amount of press coverage and spin about this latest incident contains no hint that the police might have found any sort of bomb. Plenty of stories about "the terrorists were planning to use a bomb made of liquids", but absolutely nothing whatever along the lines of "the police have found some liquids".
I'm betting that it turns out that these people were talking big to each other, but never had a bomb. Actually, if you know your telephone is being tapped and there is par
Re:Only People I don't want wiretapping (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Only People I don't want wiretapping (Score:2)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Re:*Sigh* wiretapping is not the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
*sigh* Fine, I have karma to burn, and I am feeling in a bad mood today.
Right. And you are full of it. Religion is all about gathering a group of people around a central figure. The easiest way to do this is to create "enemies of the faith". And the easiest way to create enemies is to focus on their (alleged) sexual behaviour. Read this book [amazon.com] and that book [amazon.com] for more information on this. The bottom line is this: group dynamics and religious propaganda will always drag people toward violence , especially if religion -- or some form of religious belief -- is there to de-humanize the so-called "enemies". By the time individuals realize this, it's a full-scale religious war and it's to late to change course.
When you have created nice enemies, violence will always be a consequence. Does not matter which religion you are following, including Buddhism. Jainism or Zoroastrianism may be exceptions, but this is mainly due to the fact they have both been extremely small minorities for centuries now, even millenias in the case of Zoroastrianism.
This is so dumb it's not even funny. First of all, I can probably quote more scriptures from the Bible (that great big piece of religious shit) than you. Second, when will you realize that human beings focus on the violence, and not on peace?
For every "Love thy neighbour" there is a "Kill all your enemies, and do not spare women and children". We could go tit-for-tat like this for centuries, and people have been doing exactly this all over the Internet. Interpretation of absurd commands and nit-picking regulations is what most religions are all about. And interpretation always responds first of all to bloodthirst. And we are bloodthirsty animals, all of us.
There was a time when good Christians launched Crusades against Moslems -- whose civilization was, at the time, the most brilliant on Earth. Now Moslems are using terrorism against "Christians". History repeats itself, nothing new under the sun, yadda yadda yadda. I am sick of people like you who blame one religion for all the problems. Religion, in general, is the problem (and especially retarded religious people).
Re:*Sigh* wiretapping is not the issue (Score:2)
History repeats itself, nothing new under the sun, yadda yadda yadda. I am sick of people like you who blame one religion for all the problems. Religion, in general, is the problem (and especially retarded religious people).
You're jumping to a conclusion that "religion"(*) is the origin of the world's problems when everything you say in your post suggests that people are, in fact, the true source. You say that people are, in general, a "bloodthirsty lot," but then want to make the claim that religion is
It's also to do with (sigh) economics (Score:2)
Re:Wiretaps Are Not New (Score:2)
luckily the last one was 7/7
but some of us remember 11/9 quite vividly