THANK. YOU.

It's the old problem of not being able to arrest someone before they break the law,surveillance allows them to catch the guys quickly because they just go through the list until they figure out which one did it.

And if they've not commited a crime, you can't exactly scare them into NOT blowing themselves up in a crowd of people. There's no consequence.

And if you start arresting them, everyone in r/conspiracy would start bemoaning the fact that law enforcement are rounding up people for their thoughts.

There's no winning. The answer is the education of common sense. Or giving more powers to the government to deport natural born citizens, which will go down great with everyone.

If they are going to spy on people and are aware they are dangerous they should be taking better preventative measures. How do they know they are threat but they don't notice when something is out of place or they are planning an attack? It's hard to suspend disbelief on that.

Either way if they can't prevent things then it is pointless. It's a waste of money and gives a dangerous amount of power to accomplish nothing.

It's not that hard to suspend disbelief if you realise that surveillance probably doesn't mean his whole house is bugged with audio and cameras and you bring it down to something a little more realistic (like tracking purchases and flights, coupled with reports from family members).

And frankly, you don't hear about foiled terrorist plots, probably because advertising those arrests just gives terrorists martyrs to look at, and makes them more privy to how they were tracked and arrested in the first place. And places like this subreddit would be constantly bemoaning the fact that the police are arresting people for potentially commiting crimes.

They have access to every connected device a person uses. If this person texts, uses email, talks into their phone, buys anything (location and online habits can be tracked) they have access to that, no warrant needed. From there it is easy to shut down an attack.

If you want to argue that this person doesn't do or say anything that will be suspicious enough to look into, why are they aware of this person in the first place? Not that you were arguing that, but just in case.

In the end it doesn't matter. There is no excuse for not having better intel on most of these attacks. Like for example that airport shooter, how the fuck does that even happen? He goes on very peculiar flights and somehow ends up with a bag of rifles in the airport shooting people.

This is why people don't believe this is a matter of the surveillance being a failure but rather that they are allowing these attacks or false flags to happen intentionally. The level of incompetence required for them to fail in these situations we know of is just too much to accept without more answers.

Thank you.

Wasn't there a big to do about being able to carry guns in the airports though? I mean everybody was crying about their second amendment rights to carry guns into the airport because … So we go with terrorist able to carry their guns into the airport! , Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't it? They act like there's gonna be some kind of big shootout in the airport

If i search for questions about my pet dog and I get ads for dog food, you're telling me that 21 year old's Internet history isn't being tracked and tabulated somewhere?

I didn't say internet searches weren't tracked.

And anyway, the FBI isn't keeping track of dog food for you, that's Facebook and Google.

Ah but if he's put on a 'list' the FBI can access that information and know he's searching the net for dog food.

My belief is that the raids should have happened long ago. Not after the fact. One theory is that the attacker went to Libya as a distraction, MI5 didn't know they were back in town, hence how they were able to slip through the nets. Still, if they knew of the travelling ahead of time, they could have raided the houses while in Libya. This whole story is fucked. The parents need to be investigated as well, get all the info they can from the brother, and find all of these losers

Yes remember that Germany, Sweden, UK all have cases of treating muslim immigrants differently than the rest of population. Plus "refugees" often enter EU illegally, no passport control or fake passports, refugees even talked about it on camera, look it up! It is a win win situation. Elites flood europe with refugees, with them come high risk individuals, who have big hate for western countries, they commit terror attacks (no need to orchestrate false flags, just let everything happen on it self) create hateful and divided masses, send troops to the middle east to help israel expand, bomb the shit out of targeted countries, since "all civilians"are fleeing to europe.

How are those countries treating Muslim immigrants differently?

Most western terrorist attacks are home grown though. 2nd generation. Most 1st gen reffo's are taxi drivers and 7/11 attendants.. it's their disgruntled kids with no dads because they're working 18 hrs a day and uneducated baby-factory mums that dont raise them at all.. of course they're going to grow up angry, they're second class citizens with no future. Same thing that happened with black Americans in the 80's and 90's with the crack epidemic. Don't think for a second it isn't engineered that way, it gives the middle class something to be genuinely angry about. Don't hate the players, hate the game.

[removed]

I never said theyre angry at their parents, i was saying they come from broken upbringings... which leads them to being more susceptible to grooming/brainwashing.

All of us do weird shit in person and online, do you want spooks following your mum around for months because she buys a shitload of fertiliser for the vegetable patch etc?

No, but that's why I think the whole surveillance thing is wrong in the first place. This conversation is about how it fails its pros that are already outweighed by the cons (imo) because it isn't reliable enough for even stopping the crimes it was created for though.

Exept that in Italy that's what the police and secret services do. Granted, we have experience with this bullshit, with the Mafia.

Are you implying that you would want a system where you could be imprisoned/deported because some authoritarian asshole who works for a 'department' perceives you to have illegal intent?

Common sense seems to be the only worthwhile choice.

A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, with intent to commit a specific crime, he or she does any act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.

Which means someone planning to bomb a place can be arrested.

Cognitive dissonance.

It's a big scam. The gov authorizes false flags.

who is conducting the false flags? Why? and how do you know this?

Israel and the U.K. Are using Isis to do it. They just declared Marshall law so I guess that was the reason.

C'mon…do try to keep up

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html

*THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.

But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I.*

Sketchy yes, but they stopped these attacks before they happened

they stopped these attacks before they happened

Because they set them up. That's hardly something praise worthy. Rather it is pretty disturbing.

Still not evidence of false flag operations though.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/nyregion/tapes-depict-proposal-to-thwart-bomb-used-in-trade-center-blast.html

The first WTC bombing was facilitated by the FBI.

Interesting stuff, thanks for this.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-soldier-syria-refugee-false-flag-terror-attack-posing-arrested-frankfurt-france-bavaria-a7705231.html

3 weeks ago.

I like how r/conspiracy is slowly redpilling the "redpilled". Some of us are only half woke

This should be it's own post. I'd like to see discussion on it.

FBI: The Guys of Terror

Isnt this massively different than the government hiring crisis actors and staging fake events?

The article you linked is about the FBI trying to persuade would be radicals to act on their ideas in the presence of an informant. Its entrapment, but it isnt "False Flag George Bush did 9/11"

Isnt this massively different than the government hiring crisis actors and staging fake events?

Yep. Doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing both. Anything to justify their existence.

But how is your link proof of false flags?

The FBI, NOT Islamic crazies, are solely behind the terrorism we see in those articles. Let that sink in for a second. The FBI is behind the spoiled terrorism plots. Once you realize that the FBI is using patsies for fake terrorism entrapment events, then you will realize that given the highly bizarre and outright fake nature of most "terrorist" acts, it's not unusual to conclude that the FBI is behind almost all of them.

I mean Im capable of killing OJ Simpson's wife. Doesnt mean I ever did it.
Interesting how you are using yourself as the FBI in this analogy. Yes, you are capable of killing OJ's wife and it doesn't mean you did it. But, if you were found to have repeatedly have attempted to kill OJ's wife with spoiled plots where you were the mastermind behind it and then one day she ends up dying, you would be the prime suspect. Similarly, if the FBI are continuously trying to entrap low IQ Muslims, then when a real terrorist act happens, the FBI are on the top of the suspect list.

But that doesn't explain the terrorist attacks in Europe or the middle-east, because FBI doesn't operate there.

I'd be very surprised if the swedish police was behind the recent truck attack.

In any case Europe has let a lot of radical preachers in, and they're constantly inciting violence. Surely there are a few nutjob muslims who have acted on it.

For Europe, allow me to introduce Operation Gladio B

Still, hard to believe since European media and governments are actually preaching tolerance and downplaying the muslim connection.

Why create false flags of muslim terror and them preach the opposite message? The end effect here is that for the most part the pro-tolerance side is winning in Europe.

This is one thing I agree with the previous version of Trump - islamic terror is the problem, and islam is not a religion of peace. They are creating the problem.

This is one thing I agree with the previous version of Trump - islamic terror is the problem, and islam is not a religion of peace. They are creating the problem.

Muslims do come with their fair share of troubles, sure but need I remind you that Muslims themselves are the largest victims of these terror groups. Here, have a read:-

https://warontherocks.com/2016/08/washingtons-sunni-myth-and-the-civil-wars-in-syria-and-iraq/

https://warontherocks.com/2016/08/washingtons-sunni-myth-and-the-middle-east-undone/

You didnt read the articles

Too much heat on Hilary

So let's distract them with fear tactics

Well, funny you should ask...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-soldiers-false-flag-arrests-refugees-assassinate-plot-far-right-left-wing-politicians-terror-a7726676.html?amp

Operation Gladio B, good eye, most people ignored that headline and it got buried under the normal Trump news avalanche.

If they could legitimately be proven the world would be in an uproar. If you see the pattern and understand the motivation, it seems very clear. The mentality is even discussed in the book 1984... it's like the world is using it for their blueprint.

Not sure why you are being downvoted; part of this community should be being suspicious of everything you are told, always asking for proof.

One of the earliest false flags I remember was the British government planting a bomb and blaming it on the IRA.

Do you have statistics on how many possible terror attacks have been stopped? Because without hard evidence im afraid you have nothing. I once heard, "if the FBI is doing its job, you wont know that they stopped an attack." People in this sub need to stop jumping on the false flag train and look at all sides of an argument. Im not saying how i feel one way or the other, im simply playing the devils advocate. Something this sub desperately needs.

we heard about the case in Germany where they prevented an attack

this one?

German soldier posing as a Syrian refugee arrested for planning 'false flag' terror attack at Vienna Airport. If his plan had succeeded, fingerprints on the gun would have registered on the refugee records system and led investigators to his false Syrian identity.

Nothing to add. That was perfect.

Whoa! Whoa! Looks like you've had a little too much to think today.

With logic and reasoning like that you're gonna find yourself up for re-education.

Citizen u/okokok7654 , please report to the medbay for mood-enhancement capsules.

mood-enhancement capsules

Ooh that sounds much nicer than a rat cage on your head

It goes like this, orchestrate a terrorist attack, blame isalm or right -wing to justify stripping away more freedoms.

I'm banking it's because most people are blissfully unaware of this fact

How do you know the fbi or other agencies don't stop the majority of attacks? I'm not saying they do, since there's no evidence to support that claim, but you can't assume that they don't stop any attacks.

I assume because every major known terror attack we've experienced in the last 15+ years was known to authorities (FBI, CIA, etc) prior to the attack, as per their own investigative statements. But they do absolutely nothing to stop the attacks, and instead usually just do a bunch of drills for weeks prior. So hundreds or thousands of people end up dying over something that could have - and should have - been prevented.

But your viewpoint is dependent upon whether you believe these attacks were organic events (which I'm personally very doubtful of the vast majority being such).

How do you know the fbi or other agencies don't stop the majority of attacks?

Considering they instigate or abet many of them that would be a fair argument.

You got a valid point in there.

Here is my take on this:

It is rather simple. Law Enforcement knows about many people and their ties, past, etc. That doesn't mean you can just arrest them for the hell of it.

It also doesn't mean you can do surveillance on them each all the time: not talking automated data collection - remember, you need humans to analyze that information and make decisions. That costs money and it takes each one time to analyze the immense trove of data.

How many people 24x7 do you think the government employs to just read and analyze, translate, track, etc? Now think of how many people they are 'aware' of. Going by the alt-right version of things, any muslim in the UK was a suspect and had to be watched. How many of them are there VS human analysts?

You starting to see the issue here?

It is rather simple. Law Enforcement knows about many people and their ties, past, etc. That doesn't mean you can just arrest them for the hell of it.

Yeah, they can't arrest people for not yet committing a crime. That's just begging to turn into Minority Report.

Imagine the conspiracy posts if the surveillance state started arresting people because they might commit a crime.

Exactly, I understand not wanting the surveillance state to exist or thinking it's ineffective, but complaining that they didn't arrest the guy that didn't do anything is the wrong move, in my opinion.

It is rather simple. Law Enforcement knows about many people and their ties, past, etc. That doesn't mean you can just arrest them for the hell of it.

And you wouldn't want law enforcement being able to arrest people wothout a crime. OPs type of outrage leads directly towards reduced rights.

Indeed, which makes me wonder why they are pushing it.

I knew someone who worked in CT and basically yeah, you're right.

You have any idea how many people are on a list? The police don't have the resource to follow every single one on a day to day basis. There are hierarchies of the most dangerous down to 'radical ideas, no action' etc. The police foil alot more terror attacks than you think, but never tell the press.

Supposedly over 3,000 names in the UK alone.

I don't support the surveillance state but your logic is pretty poor. Of course all successful terrorists attacks were successful.

The surveillance state has nothing to do with stopping false flags, and everything to do with control.

The government has stopped thousands of terrorists since 9/11. Most of them were White Supremacist Nazis.

Same source for all these dudes: youtube

The government has created thousands of terrorists since 9/11

FTFY

9/11 was allows to happen.

You know it's coming. Remember when all the flags went up on everyone's car. Remember when the news was filled with mom's crying and burning buildings. It will happen again. They will try to take our rights. We must stand firm. Remind our friends, family, and fellow redditors, that freedom has a price.

Many Americans have died to give us and to proctor our freedoms. Let's not give them away for a false sense of security.

Who's defending the surveillance state as necessary? Nobody who doesn't make money off it, that's who, and there is your answer. The only people defending it are the ones who get something out of it.

No, really. Tons of average citizens defend the shit out of it.

Those average citizens get something out of it, believe it or not Pay closer attention to the types who say they are for it. They have ideas that lead them to feel authoritarianism is good, so there is no conflict for them of having a strong government.

You kinda moved the goalposts. First it was make money or gain power, and then confronted with everyday citizens who are willing to sacrifice some privacy for security, it's "it makes them feel good".

I wouldn't say it's necessary, but law enforcement having some means to actually gain information doesn't really impact my personal life at all.

literally person on a watch list goes to libya, comes back and WHOOPS

I think the CIA is probably involved in it, too. They have been pulling this shit in other countries for decades. It would not surprise me if they developed the hubris to finally do it here.

While I agree that our surveillance state is far overreaching and unwarranted. Are you suggesting that those that are known be detained before an act in order to prevent this? That is too minority report for me and leads down a whole other road I don't want to take.

Becuz she's a member of CFR /s

Too many easily influenced sheep...until those people can break out of their trance they will continue to do what their told.

they stopped a lot, they say. but even when they prevent 200+ attacks and one slips through, you would write stuff like this ... right?

the ones that are legit they don't stop so they can have a reason for escalating their agenda.

the ones where they have undercover agents supplying fake bombs/chemicals are the ones they tell you about for reasons for escalating their agenda.

... .

Fucking amen

It was never about stopping terrorist attacks.

It was about stopping the people.

Tulsi Gabbard is not our savior from the surveillance state. I have a VERY hard time trusting any politicians regarding 4th amendment rights, but if I had to pick someone to endorse in congress, it would be Rand Paul.

His voting record proves his loyalty to the liberty movement. Did you see how he was shit in by the media last election ? Even trump (who was clearly their puppet choice) shit on him and called him out during a debate! Fuck....

Trump actually devotes time to scorn Liberty candidate Rand Paul.

https://youtu.be/0V1LcpsNDfg

Look how the media treated Ron and Rand Paul. Their campaigns were financed by grassroots gatherings and donations from real folk.

Gabbard is a CFR shill through and through. Some Of you need to be more wary of who you can trust politically. The list is VERY small... and I can guarantee that there are no members of the CFR on it .

Because she was brigaded to the front page yesterday for supporting transparency regarding our emails.

That post may still be on the front page...

if I had to pick someone to endorse in congress, it would be Rand Paul

Rand Paul is CNP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_National_Policy

The argument against that is that many attacks ARE stopped - at least 12 last year.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-westminster-attack-michael-fallon-terror-threat-islamist-lone-wolf-low-tech-car-truck-vehicle-a7645221.html

How do you stop a suicide bomber unknown to the police? They walk along a highstreet with a regular knapsack. You'd have to ban bags, clothing that can conceal something - heck, ban being in a "public" space (ha, public space).

What are they talking about at Bilderberg etc.

1) flood europe with massive amounts of muslim migrants, which will cause conflict.

2) when there is chaos insert military in the streets

3) divide and control the population

4) the elite wins again

But the reality is that European governments, for the most part, are preaching tolerance and unity. Main stream media constantly downplays the immigrant and islam angles of the attacks.

If they were about divide and conquer, the message would be different. It actually the european trump types that incite division - division from EU, anti-immigrant rhetoric, etc..

But this is part of step 1 - flood europe with migrants. The less they talk about it in the media, the more intake there is.

thinking the surveillance state exists because of terrorists

Welcome to /r/conspiracy , rookie.

Because the attacks 'planned' or 'stopped' were swept under the rug.

Either because it used with methods classified and can't be allowed to see the light of day, methods that were illegal and proof we used them can't be allowed to see the light of day, or we straight up killed the people that were planning the attacks with a drone strike and those are only tangentially reported.

I suppose for the same reason people can defend that same surveillance state, (although not as powerful) and our massive military industrial complex for not preventing or limiting the damage of 9/11, even if one is to believe the official version?

What better way to control people

Hold your horses there bud, I highly doubt that every single terror arrest made is a lie. They stop a hell of a lot of terrorist acts every year through preventative action, more than we'd like to imagine.

Sometimes one fits through the cracks and it sucks, but don't for one moment imagine that without intelligence activities there wouldn't be a shit load more attacks.

Because terrorism is a boogie man invented to control the populace

So what is your solution? I´m not trying to defend the state but it is easy to say such a statement without having a proper solution...

If someone is willing to take his own life and literally using anything as a weapon (for example a car) how the hell do you want to prevent that? It is impossible. The answer can´t be: lets give everybody a weapon for self defense.

On the flipside however, we only hear about the ones that get through, when they do their job there is no attack and we carry on unaware. It's a catch 22 almost.

Wait a minute! Would this mean that even with all these cameras and all these extra "security" measures, people are still able to roam free and bomb/kill people and the government let's them do it? This is unthinkable. Haha only joking these guy are brainwashed and used as puppets to create Orwellian states. Thanks for the rant OP

Its not for protecting you. Its to protect the people in power, from you

Do you want the government to round up everyone who might commit a crime in the future?

I'm not saying the surveillance state is effective, but this is incorrect logic. It does not account for any attacks that have been stopped or prevented.

Because the surveillance state was always there for control and blackmail, it was never intended to fight terrorism... why do you think billions keep getting poared into the program despite it stopping a total of ZERO terror attacks? Because it is a raging success for what it actually was intended for.

But lots of all attempts have been stopped because of communication interception.

Like the other guy said, you can't just found people up and arrest or shoot them before they commit a crime.

There are thousands of people with known terror links. Internal agencies can't have teams following every single one of them all day.

The actual problem is that going after obvious targets isn't PC.

To say no attacks are stopped would be unreasonable. IF they tell truth, they do stop some attacks. However, I fully agree that they use terrorism to justify keeping tabs on everyone.

I am starting to wonder if the powers that be are in on the terror.

I am starting to wonder who the real terrorists are.

See, we are like 90% there. If we just gave LEO's a little more power they would have been able to stop these atrocities.

I think the problem is all the read tape. If the cops could just detain bad guys without a warrant when we knew we had them it would be so much easier.

This is a joke right??

I seriously can't tell anymore.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/24/beyond-neoliberal-identity-politics/

Fairly decent explanation without resorting to conventional conspiracy theory explanations.

The FBI has "caught" a lot of "terrorists". It is a cottage industry of theirs to find mentally ill people and tell them they can give them a bomb to kill people then arrest them when they say okay!

I think you are forgetting all the attacks that never make the news because they were stopped. Im not saying the surveillance state is a good thing, but to say it doesnt stop terrorism isnt really true.

They're probably like "see? This is why we need even more severe reactions!"

Because those same myopic, authoritarian people feel like the measures we already take don't go far enough. However, as was said, those who trade freedom for security deserve to have neither.

And that is why this debate is not happening in Italy. With our experience with the Mafia, the police knows that even if they have any inkling that something might happen, they immediately intervene and detain the suspects.

I agree with you, yet I doubt very much the official narrative.

The government has created thousands of terrorists since 9/11

FTFY

9/11 was allows to happen.

But how is your link proof of false flags?