undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbogomipz8y ago0 comments

No they haven' made it pretty clear that "jihadist groups had made progress." Please provide a citation for that. The official TSA website states:

"Evaluated intelligence indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation and are aggressively pursuing innovative methods to undertake their attacks"[1]

It says nothing about them making progress. Also that's a pretty nebulous statement. "Evaluated intelligence indicates"? Why not share the details with the public in the form of a redacted report?

Could you imagine the Surgeon General in the US issuing a statement that some food causes cancer and then not releasing any of the details? Of course not.

Withholding details that allow your citizens to make their own informed decisions regarding their safety and welfare is unacceptable.

Also did anyone ever assume that terrorists had stopped being interested in damaging aircraft? We are reminded of that every time we fly in the US and are berated and abused by TSA personal. So this isn't really a new development is it?

[1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/21/fact-sheet-aviation-secu...

0 comments

jeremymcanally8y ago

I don't get the aggressive tone here?

I think the ban is stupid, but they actually have had significant intelligence that (a) they have stolen scanning equipment they are using in the development of explosives so they can avoid detection and (b) they have developed newer laptop bombs that are more dangerous and harder to detect. It took me literally 30 seconds on Google to find an article detailing it with links: http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/isis-laptop-bomb-threat-planes...

bogomipzOP8y ago

I didn't think my tonality was in any way aggressive. It certainly wasn't meant to be.

Yes I read that story on heavy.com back in May. And heavy.com is not part of the DHS, the TSA or any other US government agency.

Also the story on heavy.com is reporting about an unnamed source who reported it to another publication(the Washington Post.)

So in effect you have - someone saying that someone told someone else this. That's hardly counts as a credible intelligence. That's what I would third-hand news. It's like the children's game of "Telephone."

wildmusings8y ago

>Also the story on heavy.com is reporting about an unnamed source who reported it to another publication(the Washington Post.) So in effect you have - someone saying that someone told someone else this. That's hardly counts as a credible intelligence. That's what I would third-hand news. It's like the children's game of "Telephone."

This is a rather disingenuous argument. You're making a big fuss about heavy.com linking to WaPo, but why not just disregard the heavy.com article and look at the WaPo article? Further, it's pretty standard for news reports concerning intelligence matters to originate from anonymous sources.

1 more reply

wildmusings8y ago

The whole controversy about Trump telling the Russians too much concerned the intelligence I am referring to. This, and the general existence of intelligence about progress by jihadis towards a laptop bomb attack, has been widely covered by just about every news outlet. It appears that an Israeli intelligence agent or asset was involved in uncovering the threat. The lack of public details is presumably to protect the cover of this agent or asset. I realize that government secrecy isn't popular around here, but the hostility to even this very obviously justified use of it is surprising.

cft8y ago

The analogy with food is flawed: the food does not deliberately cause cancer, and the would be announcement by the Surgeon General would not help the food to evade anti cancer treatments.

Having said that, i am glad thst the ban is lifted.

bogomipzOP8y ago

Food was not the point. The point is government agencies withholding information that helps their people:

1) think critically

2 allows them to make informed and rational choices

3) quantify risk

wildmusings8y ago

Why do I as a private citizen need to know more detailed information about this? What can I possibly do as a private citizen with intelligence about terrorists planning to use laptop bombs on planes? My government has taken the action it deems appropriate to defend the country and its citizens, while still protecting the cover of the agent or asset that gave us the intelligence.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsbogomipz8y ago0 comments

No they haven' made it pretty clear that "jihadist groups had made progress." Please provide a citation for that. The official TSA website states:

"Evaluated intelligence indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation and are aggressively pursuing innovative methods to undertake their attacks"[1]

It says nothing about them making progress. Also that's a pretty nebulous statement. "Evaluated intelligence indicates"? Why not share the details with the public in the form of a redacted report?

Could you imagine the Surgeon General in the US issuing a statement that some food causes cancer and then not releasing any of the details? Of course not.

Withholding details that allow your citizens to make their own informed decisions regarding their safety and welfare is unacceptable.

[1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/21/fact-sheet-aviation-secu...

0 comments

jeremymcanally8y ago

I don't get the aggressive tone here?

bogomipzOP8y ago

I didn't think my tonality was in any way aggressive. It certainly wasn't meant to be.

Yes I read that story on heavy.com back in May. And heavy.com is not part of the DHS, the TSA or any other US government agency.

Also the story on heavy.com is reporting about an unnamed source who reported it to another publication(the Washington Post.)

wildmusings8y ago

1 more reply

wildmusings8y ago

cft8y ago

The analogy with food is flawed: the food does not deliberately cause cancer, and the would be announcement by the Surgeon General would not help the food to evade anti cancer treatments.

Having said that, i am glad thst the ban is lifted.

bogomipzOP8y ago

Food was not the point. The point is government agencies withholding information that helps their people:

1) think critically

2 allows them to make informed and rational choices

3) quantify risk

wildmusings8y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse