FBI has a success rate of 50% when it comes to stopping domestic terrorism.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Quote from: zolace on July 29, 2014, 11:57:35 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 11:08:01 AM

I'm (roughly) throwing around two numbers.

"All of the high-profile domestic terrorism plots of the last decade, with four exceptions"

And

"four exceptions"

The 50% stems from the fact that of those four exceptions, two were successfully carried out.

ie. you cherry picked 4 cases that result in an impressive statistic for you to throw around (the 50%), then in the title of your thread imply that this statistic also applies for all domestic terrorism.

in the segment of my post you quote here, i analyzed exactly how you cherry picked this and why it is misleading.

I don't think he is cherry picking at all: he is separating the data based on specific and important qualifiers / details. That's done all of the time in statistics and is a perfectly acceptable analytical tool. Those four cases are important because they represent the FBI dealing with a terrorist threat that rests outside of the ones that they construct from the ground up in order to ensnare potential terrorists.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 11:08:01 AM

I'm (roughly) throwing around two numbers.

"All of the high-profile domestic terrorism plots of the last decade, with four exceptions"

And

"four exceptions"

The 50% stems from the fact that of those four exceptions, two were successfully carried out.

ie. you cherry picked 4 cases that result in an impressive statistic for you to throw around (the 50%), then in the title of your thread imply that this statistic also applies for all domestic terrorism.

in the segment of my post you quote here, i analyzed exactly how you cherry picked this and why it is misleading.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 29, 2014, 11:46:55 AM

Really?

"Time for the FBI to go back to law enforcement imo."

Were you not actually trying to say something there? Or were you just in need of a cocky one liner for purely stylistic purposes?

Yes, really. Your hypocritically cocky riposte here fails miserably. I was not suggesting that the FBI's focus on national security has been to the detriment of national crime rates. I'm not even sure how anyone would interpret it that way. It's very clear that I'm saying that it's "time for the FBI to go back to law enforcement" because it is not very good at national security. Its idea of national security is fabricating terrorist plots and preying on mentally ill people. The many paragraphs that precede my "cocky one-liner" serve as clear evidence that this is what I meant. Only an intellectually dishonest shitbag (read: "a liar") would fail to read it in this context.

So to reiterate: Yes, really. And you are a liar. Deal with it.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Really?

"Time for the FBI to go back to law enforcement imo."

Were you not actually trying to say something there? Or were you just in need of a cocky one liner for purely stylistic purposes?

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 29, 2014, 11:38:49 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 09:42:22 AM

Quote

"FBI IS 50% of TERRORIS TATTAKS11"

thats an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than excerpts from some (unsourced) article you found on the internet

It's sourced. If you can make it ~5 words into the first sentence of the first post, you'll find the report. Good luck!

Quote

"fbi is focusing on terrorism to the detriment of national lawfulness"

has interstate criminal enterprise grown since the fbi has reprioritized? where are the stats?

This is irrelevant to the discussion. I made no claims about whether their focus on terrorism was "to the detriment of national lawfulness." You're a liar.

sorry, missed that. like i said, your presentation begs for disregard.

but lol @ lending authority to a 200 page document of liberal law student propaganda. on the first page of a document ostensibly about the treatment of terrorism, there's a picture of an ashamed black guy being led into a cop car.

this shit is amateur, and if you bothered to actually skim the literature you cite instead of re-pasting the juicy paragraphs you find on libertarian support forums, you'd see that the entire document is basically a whinefest about torture and abusive judicial practices, not evidence on the efficacy of fbi procedures. that part was tacked on so faggots like you could make headlines out of it.

I did read it. My first post takes a one-sentence jab at the 50% success rate "of actual domestic terrorism plots." The rest of it highlights prosecutorial misconduct, mistreatment of prisoners, and other abuses. I even put the parts I found interesting in bold.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 09:42:22 AM

Quote

"FBI IS 50% of TERRORIS TATTAKS11"

thats an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than excerpts from some (unsourced) article you found on the internet

It's sourced. If you can make it ~5 words into the first sentence of the first post, you'll find the report. Good luck!

Quote

"fbi is focusing on terrorism to the detriment of national lawfulness"

has interstate criminal enterprise grown since the fbi has reprioritized? where are the stats?

This is irrelevant to the discussion. I made no claims about whether their focus on terrorism was "to the detriment of national lawfulness." You're a liar.

sorry, missed that. like i said, your presentation begs for disregard.

but lol @ lending authority to a 200 page document of liberal law student propaganda. on the first page of a document ostensibly about the treatment of terrorism, there's a picture of an ashamed black guy being led into a cop car.

this shit is amateur, and if you bothered to actually skim the literature you cite instead of re-pasting the juicy paragraphs you find on libertarian support forums, you'd see that the entire document is basically a whinefest about torture and abusive judicial practices, not evidence on the efficacy of fbi procedures. that part was tacked on so faggots like you could make headlines out of it.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

I'm glad that you find the qualifier to be interesting. I thought it was interesting too. So did one of the largest human rights watchdog groups in the world. In fact, they thought it was so interesting that they wrote about it in a 200+ page report on human rights abuses in US terrorism prosecutions. As usual, you're wrong. The report closely examines 27 cases with 77 total defendants.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 09:34:35 AM

Quote from: zolace on July 29, 2014, 09:27:38 AM

to more precisely address your other points:

"boohoo the fbi only stops 50% of terrorist attacks"

the data used to make this conclusion is completely fabricated bc you wouldnt know about any terrorist attacks the fbi has successfully helped prevent

"FBI IS 50% of TERRORIS TATTAKS11"

thats an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than excerpts from some (unsourced) article you found on the internet

"fbi is focusing on terrorism to the detriment of national lawfulness"

has interstate criminal enterprise grown since the fbi has reprioritized? where are the stats?

we still have the cia whose overt mission has always been what you're complaining the fbi is doing. for your own emotional wellbeing, just pretend theyve merged together.

unless your problem is not that the fbi is inefficient, but that you inherently dislike terrorism prevention

are you muslim and why do you hate freedom?

As usual, you're wrong here too.

The FBI is not shy when it comes to bragging about stopping terrorist plots. The report I cited shows that every single high profile terrorist plot in which the FBI has been involved was a plot that was fabricated by the FBI themselves -- with the exception of four incidents, and of those 4, the FBI only stopped 2.

how do you figure? every loser municipal cop has had this attitude since the inception of cops, and you think fbi faggots dont think the same way unless theyre told to go after terrorists? a certain type of person is attracted to law enforcement and 'intelligence'.
that's an interesting qualifier, 'high profile.'

realize how nothing is said of 'all terrorist plots.'

again, you're using a shit metric for rhetorical effect.

think about what makes a terrorist plot 'high profile.' the media covers the plot because it either directly affects or has the capacity to frighten a lot of people. by nature of being foiled, foiled terrorist plots have neither of these qualities, and so naturally most of the 'high profile' plots are going to be ones that succeeded, regardless of how well terrorism of comparable severity is prevented.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 29, 2014, 11:14:07 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 09:42:22 AM

Quote

"FBI IS 50% of TERRORIS TATTAKS11"

thats an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than excerpts from some (unsourced) article you found on the internet

It's sourced. If you can make it ~5 words into the first sentence of the first post, you'll find the report. Good luck!

Quote

"fbi is focusing on terrorism to the detriment of national lawfulness"

has interstate criminal enterprise grown since the fbi has reprioritized? where are the stats?

This is irrelevant to the discussion. I made no claims about whether their focus on terrorism was "to the detriment of national lawfulness." You're a liar.

you brought up an additional point about white collar crimes being investigated less (the horror!!!), and i responded to that.

the main point you were trying to make ("FBI is investigating fewer overall criminal cases") is misguided for the same reason i explained above.

it doesn't matter how they file their paperwork. a hundred or a million cases closed, who gives a fuck. the proper metric to be concerned with is 'number of people killed' or 'damages incurred by criminal activity.' again, where are these stats?

to illustrate why your metric doesn't work, consider that a shitfuck of people in california are trading/ingesting a schedule i substance (the marijuanas). the fbi can send swat teams to bash down their doors and shoot their dogs; open and close a fuck ton of cases, but the country won't be better off, and only an idiot would be impressed by that 'law enforcement'

The "main point" I was making was that you were wrong: the FBI has in fact changed its primary function from law enforcement to national security.

Look, the FBI themselves are saying that they shifted their focus from law enforcement to national security. You are saying that they didn't. The onus is on you to prove your point. Don't go shitting your pants and crying about how I'm providing you with insufficient data or whateverthefuck. I showed where the FBI has said in no uncertain terms that their primary function is now national security whereas it used to be law enforcement. If you think they're lying, prove it.

I've given you 3 metrics so far that show that the FBI has shifted its focus. Here is another one: more than 40% of the FBI's operating budget of $3.3 billion is now devoted to counterterrorism.

- http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...11com_0404.pdf
- http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0537/final.pdf
- http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2013summa...ud-summary.pdf

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 09:42:22 AM

Quote

"FBI IS 50% of TERRORIS TATTAKS11"

thats an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than excerpts from some (unsourced) article you found on the internet

It's sourced. If you can make it ~5 words into the first sentence of the first post, you'll find the report. Good luck!

Quote

"fbi is focusing on terrorism to the detriment of national lawfulness"

has interstate criminal enterprise grown since the fbi has reprioritized? where are the stats?

This is irrelevant to the discussion. I made no claims about whether their focus on terrorism was "to the detriment of national lawfulness." You're a liar.

you brought up an additional point about white collar crimes being investigated less (the horror!!!), and i responded to that.

the main point you were trying to make ("FBI is investigating fewer overall criminal cases") is misguided for the same reason i explained above.

it doesn't matter how they file their paperwork. a hundred or a million cases closed, who gives a fuck. the proper metric to be concerned with is 'number of people killed' or 'damages incurred by criminal activity.' again, where are these stats?

to illustrate why your metric doesn't work, consider that a shitfuck of people in california are trading/ingesting a schedule i substance (the marijuanas). the fbi can send swat teams to bash down their doors and shoot their dogs; open and close a fuck ton of cases, but the country won't be better off, and only an idiot would be impressed by that 'law enforcement'

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

I'm (roughly) throwing around two numbers.

"All of the high-profile domestic terrorism plots of the last decade, with four exceptions"

And

"four exceptions"

The 50% stems from the fact that of those four exceptions, two were successfully carried out.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 09:22:29 AM

Quote from: zolace on July 29, 2014, 09:18:19 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 09:11:32 AM

Quote from: zolace on July 29, 2014, 08:55:52 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 08:40:08 AM

my guess is that their function hasnt rlly changed, just how they present themselves superficially

a cop is a cop, and calling yourself 'special agent' doesn't get you blown or respected any more often (as many special agents only realize after becoming one.)

by appealing to a greater cause like 'national security' ppl in the fbi can pretend theyre more than toe-the-line drones, all while actually being toe-the-line drones.

its actually quite brilliant imo. getting people to deal with societies degenerates for 30k/yr is a skillful art

you need to work on your presentation. i feel like i just read an article on why bigfoot is real and why he was chosen as the main actor in the fabricated moon landing.

re: the actual argument, my local police department can be described in a similar manner. the police have always been fascist corrupt kunts with special authorities over citizens

I don't know what "the actual argument" is supposed to be at this point because you're kinda all over the place.

So let's just focus on the FBI calling its primary function national security instead of law enforcement.

Your argument is that this is just a superficial change.

You are wrong because...
- FBI has doubled the amount of agents it has dedicated to counterterrorism.
- FBI is investigating fewer overall criminal cases, primarily fewer white collar crimes.
- FBI was (erroneously) training its agents that FBI "has the ability to bend or suspend the law and impinge on the rights of others."

These are just a few very significant material differences that have been observed to coincide with the FBI's change to its primary function.

over what time frame? the north american population has doubled within some living people's lifetimes, and us military spending nearly doubled the 10 years after 9/11.

everything is getting bigger.
who decided that violent criminals raping/killing/robbing/deton8ing ppl are less of a threat than rich white collared pricks skimming cash from other rich fucks? you should find this fact comforting.

and for someone who so vocally opposes redundancy between goverment agencies, you should look into what the Secret Service does (hint: it investigates white collar crimes)
this mentality is exactly what you'd expect from a regular old 'law enforcement' officer. please see: burning reds and shooting niggers without penalty (getting reassigned to a desk job doesnt count as a penalty), stop & frisk and wiretapping (unconstitutional ieo), slamming ppl with frivolous charges so they plea bargain down to the original charge, etc etc

You can put forth some effort in reading my posts if you want to know the time frame. I already said what it was. This is irrelevant. You claimed that the FBI's focus on counterterrorism was nothing more than superficial. I showed that you were wrong. This mentality is something that the FBI wasn't taught prior to its primary function being national security. So again, you were wrong.

fantastic. from 2001 to 2009. almost exactly the time frame i referenced in my post. ("the 10 years after 9/11")

so, my point you just quoted stands. you are incapable of elementary statistical analysis. i suppose if i told you more people die every day today than in 2001, you'd work up something about how the FDA is poisoning our water to get those water-drinking terrorists. if you use a sane metric, like average life expectancy, you'd see that there's actually not a problem.

the sane metric you should be looking at here is 'incidence of domestic terrorism', not the fear-mongering bullshit 50% number you're throwing around.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote

"FBI IS 50% of TERRORIS TATTAKS11"

thats an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than excerpts from some (unsourced) article you found on the internet

It's sourced. If you can make it ~5 words into the first sentence of the first post, you'll find the report. Good luck!

Quote

"fbi is focusing on terrorism to the detriment of national lawfulness"

has interstate criminal enterprise grown since the fbi has reprioritized? where are the stats?

This is irrelevant to the discussion. I made no claims about whether their focus on terrorism was "to the detriment of national lawfulness." You're a liar.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 29, 2014, 09:27:38 AM

to more precisely address your other points:

"boohoo the fbi only stops 50% of terrorist attacks"

the data used to make this conclusion is completely fabricated bc you wouldnt know about any terrorist attacks the fbi has successfully helped prevent

"FBI IS 50% of TERRORIS TATTAKS11"

thats an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than excerpts from some (unsourced) article you found on the internet

"fbi is focusing on terrorism to the detriment of national lawfulness"

has interstate criminal enterprise grown since the fbi has reprioritized? where are the stats?

we still have the cia whose overt mission has always been what you're complaining the fbi is doing. for your own emotional wellbeing, just pretend theyve merged together.

unless your problem is not that the fbi is inefficient, but that you inherently dislike terrorism prevention

are you muslim and why do you hate freedom?

As usual, you're wrong here too.

The FBI is not shy when it comes to bragging about stopping terrorist plots. The report I cited shows that every single high profile terrorist plot in which the FBI has been involved was a plot that was fabricated by the FBI themselves -- with the exception of four incidents, and of those 4, the FBI only stopped 2.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

to more precisely address your other points:

"boohoo the fbi only stops 50% of terrorist attacks"

the data used to make this conclusion is completely fabricated bc you wouldnt know about any terrorist attacks the fbi has successfully helped prevent

"FBI IS 50% of TERRORIS TATTAKS11"

thats an extraordinary claim, requiring more evidence than excerpts from some (unsourced) article you found on the internet

"fbi is focusing on terrorism to the detriment of national lawfulness"

has interstate criminal enterprise grown since the fbi has reprioritized? where are the stats?

we still have the cia whose overt mission has always been what you're complaining the fbi is doing. for your own emotional wellbeing, just pretend theyve merged together.

unless your problem is not that the fbi is inefficient, but that you inherently dislike terrorism prevention

are you muslim and why do you hate freedom?

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 29, 2014, 09:18:19 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 09:11:32 AM

Quote from: zolace on July 29, 2014, 08:55:52 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 08:40:08 AM

my guess is that their function hasnt rlly changed, just how they present themselves superficially

a cop is a cop, and calling yourself 'special agent' doesn't get you blown or respected any more often (as many special agents only realize after becoming one.)

by appealing to a greater cause like 'national security' ppl in the fbi can pretend theyre more than toe-the-line drones, all while actually being toe-the-line drones.

its actually quite brilliant imo. getting people to deal with societies degenerates for 30k/yr is a skillful art

you need to work on your presentation. i feel like i just read an article on why bigfoot is real and why he was chosen as the main actor in the fabricated moon landing.

re: the actual argument, my local police department can be described in a similar manner. the police have always been fascist corrupt kunts with special authorities over citizens

I don't know what "the actual argument" is supposed to be at this point because you're kinda all over the place.

So let's just focus on the FBI calling its primary function national security instead of law enforcement.

Your argument is that this is just a superficial change.

You are wrong because...
- FBI has doubled the amount of agents it has dedicated to counterterrorism.
- FBI is investigating fewer overall criminal cases, primarily fewer white collar crimes.
- FBI was (erroneously) training its agents that FBI "has the ability to bend or suspend the law and impinge on the rights of others."

These are just a few very significant material differences that have been observed to coincide with the FBI's change to its primary function.

over what time frame? the north american population has doubled within some living people's lifetimes, and us military spending nearly doubled the 10 years after 9/11.

everything is getting bigger.
who decided that violent criminals raping/killing/robbing/deton8ing ppl are less of a threat than rich white collared pricks skimming cash from other rich fucks? you should find this fact comforting.

and for someone who so vocally opposes redundancy between goverment agencies, you should look into what the Secret Service does (hint: it investigates white collar crimes)
this mentality is exactly what you'd expect from a regular old 'law enforcement' officer. please see: burning reds and shooting niggers without penalty (getting reassigned to a desk job doesnt count as a penalty), stop & frisk and wiretapping (unconstitutional ieo), slamming ppl with frivolous charges so they plea bargain down to the original charge, etc etc

You can put forth some effort in reading my posts if you want to know the time frame. I already said what it was. This is irrelevant. You claimed that the FBI's focus on counterterrorism was nothing more than superficial. I showed that you were wrong. This mentality is something that the FBI wasn't taught prior to its primary function being national security. So again, you were wrong.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 09:11:32 AM

Quote from: zolace on July 29, 2014, 08:55:52 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 08:40:08 AM

my guess is that their function hasnt rlly changed, just how they present themselves superficially

a cop is a cop, and calling yourself 'special agent' doesn't get you blown or respected any more often (as many special agents only realize after becoming one.)

by appealing to a greater cause like 'national security' ppl in the fbi can pretend theyre more than toe-the-line drones, all while actually being toe-the-line drones.

its actually quite brilliant imo. getting people to deal with societies degenerates for 30k/yr is a skillful art

you need to work on your presentation. i feel like i just read an article on why bigfoot is real and why he was chosen as the main actor in the fabricated moon landing.

re: the actual argument, my local police department can be described in a similar manner. the police have always been fascist corrupt kunts with special authorities over citizens

I don't know what "the actual argument" is supposed to be at this point because you're kinda all over the place.

So let's just focus on the FBI calling its primary function national security instead of law enforcement.

Your argument is that this is just a superficial change.

You are wrong because...
- FBI has doubled the amount of agents it has dedicated to counterterrorism.
- FBI is investigating fewer overall criminal cases, primarily fewer white collar crimes.
- FBI was (erroneously) training its agents that FBI "has the ability to bend or suspend the law and impinge on the rights of others."

These are just a few very significant material differences that have been observed to coincide with the FBI's change to its primary function.

over what time frame? the north american population has doubled within some living people's lifetimes, and us military spending nearly doubled the 10 years after 9/11.

everything is getting bigger.
who decided that violent criminals raping/killing/robbing/deton8ing ppl are less of a threat than rich white collared pricks skimming cash from other rich fucks? you should find this fact comforting.

and for someone who so vocally opposes redundancy between goverment agencies, you should look into what the Secret Service does (hint: it investigates white collar crimes)
this mentality is exactly what you'd expect from a regular old 'law enforcement' officer. please see: burning reds and shooting niggers without penalty (getting reassigned to a desk job doesnt count as a penalty), stop & frisk and wiretapping (unconstitutional ieo), slamming ppl with frivolous charges so they plea bargain down to the original charge, etc etc

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 29, 2014, 08:55:52 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 08:40:08 AM

my guess is that their function hasnt rlly changed, just how they present themselves superficially

a cop is a cop, and calling yourself 'special agent' doesn't get you blown or respected any more often (as many special agents only realize after becoming one.)

by appealing to a greater cause like 'national security' ppl in the fbi can pretend theyre more than toe-the-line drones, all while actually being toe-the-line drones.

its actually quite brilliant imo. getting people to deal with societies degenerates for 30k/yr is a skillful art

you need to work on your presentation. i feel like i just read an article on why bigfoot is real and why he was chosen as the main actor in the fabricated moon landing.

re: the actual argument, my local police department can be described in a similar manner. the police have always been fascist corrupt kunts with special authorities over citizens

I don't know what "the actual argument" is supposed to be at this point because you're kinda all over the place.

So let's just focus on the FBI calling its primary function national security instead of law enforcement.

Your argument is that this is just a superficial change.

You are wrong because...
- FBI has doubled the amount of agents it has dedicated to counterterrorism.
- FBI is investigating fewer overall criminal cases, primarily fewer white collar crimes.
- FBI was (erroneously) training its agents that FBI "has the ability to bend or suspend the law and impinge on the rights of others."

These are just a few very significant material differences that have been observed to coincide with the FBI's change to its primary function.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 29, 2014, 08:40:08 AM

my guess is that their function hasnt rlly changed, just how they present themselves superficially

a cop is a cop, and calling yourself 'special agent' doesn't get you blown or respected any more often (as many special agents only realize after becoming one.)

by appealing to a greater cause like 'national security' ppl in the fbi can pretend theyre more than toe-the-line drones, all while actually being toe-the-line drones.

its actually quite brilliant imo. getting people to deal with societies degenerates for 30k/yr is a skillful art

you need to work on your presentation. i feel like i just read an article on why bigfoot is real and why he was chosen as the main actor in the fabricated moon landing.

re: the actual argument, my local police department can be described in a similar manner. the police have always been fascist corrupt kunts with special authorities over citizens

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

my guess is that their function hasnt rlly changed, just how they present themselves superficially

a cop is a cop, and calling yourself 'special agent' doesn't get you blown or respected any more often (as many special agents only realize after becoming one.)

by appealing to a greater cause like 'national security' ppl in the fbi can pretend theyre more than toe-the-line drones, all while actually being toe-the-line drones.

its actually quite brilliant imo. getting people to deal with societies degenerates for 30k/yr is a skillful art

Topic: FBI has a success rate of 50% when it comes to stopping domestic terrorism. (Read 1267 times)