Are your kids confrontational? They might be terrorists

[seanD]

loyalists in Syria are living large off the teat of your tax dollar funded anti-tank (and undoubtedly anti-aircrafthttp://live.wsj.com/video/syrian-reb...C-19F1876C8479


Come on everybody, can I get an "allahu akbar!" in support of our al-qaeda loyalist buddies in Aleppo.

[Carrikature]

Her statements correlate with the sensationalism of terrorism portrayed in the MSM (and the continuity of that I believe is the intent)

Right, so you didn't bother to read her speech. I had suspected as much. Had you done so, perhaps you'd have noticed this bit:



This was mentioned well before the discussion of potential indicators.

Of course the speech touched on terrorism and the Boston bombings, but that was neither the focus nor the limit of her speech. It's ironic, though, that you would accuse me of projecting a context that she didn't intend while simultaneously claiming another intent of your own projection (as evidenced by the bolded line).

[seanD]

Right, so you didn't bother to read her speech. I had suspected as much. Had you done so, perhaps you'd have noticed this bit:



This was mentioned well before the discussion of potential indicators.

Of course the speech touched on terrorism and the Boston bombings, but that was neither the focus nor the limit of her speech. It's ironic, though, that you would accuse me of projecting a context that she didn't intend while simultaneously claiming another intent of your own projection (as evidenced by the bolded line).

I did read her speech and was aware that she mentioned the Kansas shooting. When it's racially motivated, it's at least unofficially categorized as a terrorist act, and this recent shooting was definitely no exception, hence the reason for the inclusion of this incident during the MSM's latest feeding frenzy about "rightwing terrorism." I'm sure Lisa is aware of this, thus the reason she specifically mentioned this "rightwing terrorist" shooting and not the other shootings. The other shootings clearly had warning signs that people apparently ignored, so they would have been prime examples of signs that people missed or ignored if this was her intent behind the speech. Once again, it's erroneous (and weird as I've stated) to claim the speech wasn't about what we understand as national terrorism when this was clearly the catalyst behind the speech from the very beginning to the very last sentence in her speech.

[myth]

I don't care to argue about the details of her speech, since Carrikature has already gone down that path. But I do want to briefly comment on what indicators are, and how they are used. While I understand the negative reaction here, I think it reflects a misunderstanding in how indicators are meant to be used and I'd like to contribute by clearing things up a little.

Indicators are meant to be stacked together and correlated with other data to determine if an investigation needs to take place (or continue). A single indicator, with no other supportive information, doesn't necessarily mean anything. Nor does even several indicators grouped together. If there's a list of 30 common indicators for, say, drug trafficking (in a vehicle), and a subject is displaying 2 indicators, it's not a big deal. If they're displaying 28 out of 30, then the situation probably warrants closer scrutiny. Each indicator, taken by itself, could be entirely innocuous (ATM receipts from a large geographic area, piles of drive-thru trash, absence of luggage when travelling a great distance, few occupants in the vehicle). Even with a huge stack of indicators, none of it may rise to the level of probable cause.

The reason for identifying indicators, and then teaching them to law enforcement (or national intelligence) officials is to help them understand where to look. If they don't know the indicators, then they'll likely never notice the crime that's right in front of them.