The use of 9/11 to further surveillance policies is really unfortunate because the existing intelligence agencies mostly got it right before hand. The administration was briefed that a threat was imminent. I am curious if anyone could build a legitimate argument that internet surveillance would have made the intelligence accurate enough to stop the attack.
Beyond a certain breadth, an overload of specificity becomes too vague to engage with. Claims that cover such wide ground are impossible to refute or dissect.
The people who do it think they're well-informed and providing a service, but it's poor form. It forces readers into a poison choice: abandon nuance to pile on in blanket agreement, or bash their heads against each other bickering in 50 threads about 50 tiny points for eternity.
When I was beginning my journey and came across a wall of text like this, I didn't engage it with comments...that'd be absurd.
I'd review its bullets, deeply, because a comment of that depth, in forums such as these, is usually either misdirection because of a personal or paid agenda,
or it was somebody that was passionate about knowledge, & had decided this was the best way to spread less than obvious conclusions they'd spent time compiling, in hopes to spur someone else into learning more.
Skipping those, even if in bad form, because of the former, was a disservice to myself and my goals. So I learned to discern.
