Many dead in coordinated Paris shootings and explosions

[NoXion]

Maybe I'm missing something, but Hamface did propose more legal powers for breaking into encrypted communications in the wake of previous attacks in Paris. That the perpetrators of the most recent attacks did not even bother encrypting their communications puts the lie to such justifications, does it not?

 

[alfajobrob]

A Jewish teacher was stabbed on Wed night by three men, one of whom was wearing an ISIS t shirt.

Was he wearing a t-shirt or did he have that weird beard/hair do?

Article pls.

 

[alfajobrob]

DP and not in the sexy way.

 

[butchersapron]

Maybe I'm missing something, but Hamface did propose more legal powers for breaking into encrypted communications in the wake of previous attacks in Paris. That the perpetrators of the most recent attacks did not even bother encrypting their communications puts the lie to such justifications, does it not?

What we know about Paris terrorists
-Not Syrian
-Not refugees
-No encryption

What the West is focusing on
-Syrians
-Refugees
-Encryption

The original said US not west.

No how the fuck did he know or even bring encryption into what the attackers did?

 

[frogwoman]

Jewish teacher stabbed in Marseille street by trio praising Islamic State

Half of all hate crimes in France (before the recent attacks this year) carried out against Jews according to one statistic I read. Both islamophobia and anti semitism are on the rise in France and elsewhere in Europe

 

[butchersapron]

Was he wearing a t-shirt or did he have that weird beard/hair do?

Article pls.

Only if you put some weight on your pathetic lol earlier.

 

[NoXion]

The original said US not west.

No how the fuck did he know or even bring encryption into what the attackers did?

Seems like hair-splitting to me, since there's a significant overlap of intelligence interests - I assume you know of the Five Eyes?

As for the rest, the slime would love to have backdoors into everything and any excuse that they think could possibly legitimise that desire on some level would be useful to them.

 

[elbows]

Strong doubts that the woman blew herself up:

French media have cast doubt on the possibility that the female cousin of the presumed ringleader of the Paris attacks blew herself up in Wednesday's police raid in the Saint-Denis suburb.

Police sources now say that the suicide bomber was in fact a man, not 26-year-old Hasna Ait Boulahcen.

Paris attacks: Woman 'was not suicide bomber' in raid - BBC News

Let me guess, the earlier assumption was based on little more than the woman being the one who had some communication with the police shortly before the explosion.

 

[bimble]

Jewish teacher stabbed in Marseille street by trio praising Islamic State

Half of all hate crimes in France (before the recent attacks this year) carried out against Jews according to one statistic I read. Both islamophobia and anti semitism are on the rise in France and elsewhere in Europe

"Wearing an ISIS Tshirt"? Is this official merchandise ?

 

[butchersapron]

Seems like hair-splitting to me, since there's a significant overlap of intelligence interests - I assume you know of the Five Eyes?

As for the rest, the slime would love to have backdoors into everything and any excuse that they think could possibly legitimise that desire on some level would be useful to them.

Doesn't to me. Seems line a strong imposition. And don't patronise me about something that is unrelated to that imposition.

Yes, states will use this to further their surveillance agendas - no this doesn't mean you can drop in the last point of these three as fact

What we know about Paris terrorists
-Not Syrian
-Not refugees
-No encryption

what does it even mean anyway? That they should have used encryption? That not being encrypted (again, what's his source for this?) He has made something up to push his own interest. You like it, he likes it - you're both hobby horsing.

 

[frogwoman]

FFS more 'jews did it!' shit on fb

 

[DaveCinzano]

"Wearing an ISIS Tshirt"? Is this official merchandise ?

And if not, how about does Daesh, Inc. go about protecting its IP rights? Can this bootlegging scourge be stopped?

 

[NoXion]

Doesn't to me. Seems line a strong imposition. And don't patronise me about something that is unrelated to that imposition.

Yes, states will use this to further their surveillance agendas - no this doesn't mean you can drop in the last point of these three as fact

What we know about Paris terrorists
-Not Syrian
-Not refugees
-No encryption

what does it even mean anyway? That they should have used encryption? That not being encrypted (again, what's his source for this?) He has made something up to push his own interest. You like it, he likes it - you're both hobby horsing.

I don't think the author of that snippet, nor the ones who subsequently modified it, are interested in giving advice to terrorists, so why even say that?

The meaning should be obvious to someone as well-read as yourself, namely three examples of how the state's actions fail to line up with its stated goal of "fighting terrorism".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

-No encryption

what does it even mean anyway? That they should have used encryption?

Isn't the point that measures to curtail encryption would have made no difference? That's the meaning I take from it - that measures to invade privacy are being justified in the name of counter-terrorism, but would have made no difference to this attack.

 

[bimble]

FFS more 'jews did it!' shit on fb

As in Jews actually did it false flag 911 stuff or as in Jews brought this upon themselves / us ?

 

[butchersapron]

I don't think the author of that snippet, nor the ones who subsequently modified it, are interested in giving advice to terrorists, so why even say that?

The meaning should be obvious to someone as well-read as yourself, namely three examples of how the state's actions fail to line up with its stated goal of "fighting terrorism".

I didn't say that? Why on earth have you suggested that i have?

The meaning is lost if you invent a situation and call it factual. What not just make the fucking point without making something up? The state pretends to be interested in blah blah, here's why it's lying - not the terrorists didn't use encryption blah blah

 

[butchersapron]

Isn't the point that measures to curtail encryption would have made no difference? That's the meaning I take from it - that measures to invade privacy are being justified in the name of counter-terrorism, but would have made no difference to this attack.

That's the point that it's dishonestly working towards - one that didn't need to be made by bluffing like this.

 

[butchersapron]

To repeat:

What we know about Paris terrorists
-Not Syrian
-Not refugees
-No encryption

 

[frogwoman]

They need some good copyright lawyers on their case, in case some of their trademarks like that black flag with the white circle in it gets used on film sets etc (for example in gung-ho war films in about three years time) and they don't get any of the royalties

And if not, how about does Daesh, Inc. go about protecting its IP rights? Can this bootlegging scourge be stopped?

 

[frogwoman]

As in Jews actually did it false flag 911 stuff or as in Jews brought this upon themselves / us ?

Jews did it, false flag shit

 

[bimble]

Jews did it, false flag shit

Don't even know which emoticon to pick.

 

[NoXion]

I didn't say that? Why on earth have you suggested that i have?

The meaning is lost if you invent a situation and call it factual. What not just make the fucking point without making something up? The state pretends to be interested in blah blah, here's why it's lying - not the terrorists didn't use encryption blah blah

"what does it even mean anyway? That they should have used encryption?" - Maybe because you said that? I don't think anybody is saying that the terrorists "should" have used encryption, so why say the above?

Unless evidence turns up that the terrorists did in fact use encryption, then the point - that terrorists are capable of committing atrocities without having to resort to encryption - stands. Same goes for the other points about refugees and Syrians.

 

[butchersapron]

"what does it even mean anyway? That they should have used encryption?" - Maybe because you said that? I don't think anybody is saying that the terrorists "should" have used encryption, so why say the above?

Unless evidence turns up that the terrorists did in fact use encryption, then the point - that terrorists are capable of committing atrocities without having to resort to encryption - stands. Same goes for the other points about refugees and Syrians.

You don't think that i was suggesting that they were seeking to advise terrorists rather than pointing out the flabby nature of just making up a lie. Which leaves the question of why someone lied and why defend the lie rather than just say oh yeah that was a bit daft.

 

[NoXion]

You don't think that i was suggesting that they were seeking to advise terrorists rather than pointing out the flabby nature of just making up a lie. Which leaves the question of why someone lied and why defend the lie rather than just say oh yeah that was a bit daft.

I think "lie" is too strong a term. Is there any good reason to believe that any of the terrorists were:

A) Syrian - I don't think so. If one of them had been it would have been trumpeted all over the news.

B) Refugees - Again, not from what I've heard.

C) Using encryption in the planning and execution of their atrocity - this I will admit is the trickiest one, but from what I've heard they were exchanging messages over unencrypted SMS, and no evidence has come to light demonstrating their usage of encryption. So in the absence of evidence otherwise, I'm going to say no. A statement I am more than willing to retract should that evidence come forward. Same goes for the rest.

I think the worst you could say is that the author(s) were claiming an unwarranted level of certainty in their suppositions. This kind of knowledge is provisional and is thus subject to change. It would have been better if they had acknowledged that a bit more, but unlike you I'm going to put down any inaccuracies down to ignorance rather than an intent to deceive.

 

[butchersapron]

i.e he made it up on fucking twitter to get his hobby horse riding.

No evidence has come to light of them using amazon reviews to communicate either.

 

[frogwoman]

ISIS do use encryption though.

 

[butchersapron]

C) Using encryption in the planning and execution of their atrocity - this I will admit is the trickiest one, but from what I've heard they were exchanging messages over unencrypted SMS, and no evidence has come to light demonstrating their usage of encryption. So in the absence of evidence otherwise, I'm going to say no. A statement I am more than willing to retract should that evidence come forward. Same goes for the rest.

Fantastic.

 

[frogwoman]

They tell people to use tor, VPNs etc and use encrypted messenger apps. Even WhatsApp uses encryption. Of course they are going to use it

 

[frogwoman]

They would be fucking stupid if they didn't tbh.

 

[NoXion]

Fantastic.

Informative.

They would be fucking stupid if they didn't tbh.

Yeah, I'm not saying that nobody in Daesh ever uses encryption, ever. But if the recent attacks in Paris were all locally arranged on a face-to-face basis, then I can certainly understand why they wouldn't have even needed to encrypt communications.