<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_19_1321249</id>
	<title>US Military Shuts Down CIA's Terrorist Honey Pot</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1269010980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> sends in a Washington Post story about how US military cyber-warriors <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031805464\_pf.html">attacked and shut down a CIA-backed intelligence gathering site</a>. <i>"US military computer specialists, over the objections of the CIA, mounted a cyberattack that dismantled an online 'honey pot' monitored by US and Saudi intelligence agencies to identify extremists before they could strike, after military commanders said that the site was putting Americans at risk. The CIA argued that dismantling the site would lead to a significant loss of intelligence, while the military (in the form of the NSA) countered that taking it down was a legitimate operation in defense of US troops. 'The CIA didn't endorse the idea of crippling Web sites,' said one US counterterrorism official. The agency 'understood that intelligence would be lost, and it was; that relationships with cooperating intelligence services would be damaged, and they were; and that the terrorists would migrate to other sites, and they did.' Four former senior US officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the creation and shutting down of the site <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8511711.stm">illustrates the need for clearer policies governing cyberwar</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens sends in a Washington Post story about how US military cyber-warriors attacked and shut down a CIA-backed intelligence gathering site .
" US military computer specialists , over the objections of the CIA , mounted a cyberattack that dismantled an online 'honey pot ' monitored by US and Saudi intelligence agencies to identify extremists before they could strike , after military commanders said that the site was putting Americans at risk .
The CIA argued that dismantling the site would lead to a significant loss of intelligence , while the military ( in the form of the NSA ) countered that taking it down was a legitimate operation in defense of US troops .
'The CIA did n't endorse the idea of crippling Web sites, ' said one US counterterrorism official .
The agency 'understood that intelligence would be lost , and it was ; that relationships with cooperating intelligence services would be damaged , and they were ; and that the terrorists would migrate to other sites , and they did .
' Four former senior US officials , speaking on the condition of anonymity , said the creation and shutting down of the site illustrates the need for clearer policies governing cyberwar .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens sends in a Washington Post story about how US military cyber-warriors attacked and shut down a CIA-backed intelligence gathering site.
"US military computer specialists, over the objections of the CIA, mounted a cyberattack that dismantled an online 'honey pot' monitored by US and Saudi intelligence agencies to identify extremists before they could strike, after military commanders said that the site was putting Americans at risk.
The CIA argued that dismantling the site would lead to a significant loss of intelligence, while the military (in the form of the NSA) countered that taking it down was a legitimate operation in defense of US troops.
'The CIA didn't endorse the idea of crippling Web sites,' said one US counterterrorism official.
The agency 'understood that intelligence would be lost, and it was; that relationships with cooperating intelligence services would be damaged, and they were; and that the terrorists would migrate to other sites, and they did.
' Four former senior US officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the creation and shutting down of the site illustrates the need for clearer policies governing cyberwar.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538398</id>
	<title>Here's all you need to know</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1269015900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> "Once DoD went to the extent of saying, 'Soldiers are dying,' because that's ultimately what the command in Iraq, what Centcom did, it's hard for anyone to push back," one former official said.</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>But some experts counter that dismantling Web sites is ineffective -- no sooner does a site come down than a mirror site pops up somewhere else. Because extremist groups store backup copies of forum information in servers around the world, "you can't really shut down this process for more than 24 or 48 hours," said Evan F. Kohlmann, a terrorism researcher and a consultant to the Nine/Eleven Finding Answers Foundation.</p></div><p>Those quotes summarize why they did it and why it was ineffective.<br>Welcome to the internet, where information never dies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Once DoD went to the extent of saying , 'Soldiers are dying, ' because that 's ultimately what the command in Iraq , what Centcom did , it 's hard for anyone to push back , " one former official said .
But some experts counter that dismantling Web sites is ineffective -- no sooner does a site come down than a mirror site pops up somewhere else .
Because extremist groups store backup copies of forum information in servers around the world , " you ca n't really shut down this process for more than 24 or 48 hours , " said Evan F. Kohlmann , a terrorism researcher and a consultant to the Nine/Eleven Finding Answers Foundation.Those quotes summarize why they did it and why it was ineffective.Welcome to the internet , where information never dies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Once DoD went to the extent of saying, 'Soldiers are dying,' because that's ultimately what the command in Iraq, what Centcom did, it's hard for anyone to push back," one former official said.
But some experts counter that dismantling Web sites is ineffective -- no sooner does a site come down than a mirror site pops up somewhere else.
Because extremist groups store backup copies of forum information in servers around the world, "you can't really shut down this process for more than 24 or 48 hours," said Evan F. Kohlmann, a terrorism researcher and a consultant to the Nine/Eleven Finding Answers Foundation.Those quotes summarize why they did it and why it was ineffective.Welcome to the internet, where information never dies.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543166</id>
	<title>Cookies.</title>
	<author>elucido</author>
	<datestamp>1268990700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fortunately the terrorists aren't that smart. Just inject a stealth cookie or even a trojan into their computer and track every site they visit and everything they do online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately the terrorists are n't that smart .
Just inject a stealth cookie or even a trojan into their computer and track every site they visit and everything they do online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately the terrorists aren't that smart.
Just inject a stealth cookie or even a trojan into their computer and track every site they visit and everything they do online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539194</id>
	<title>Domestic equivalent</title>
	<author>Nidi62</author>
	<datestamp>1269018120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the domestic equivalent of what Pakistan just did recently when they arrested the 2nd highest man in the Taliban, who had not only been talking with the UN, but was scheduled to meet with Karzai in the next few months.  Short term thinking and infighting hurting long term strategic goals.  So what if some of the extremists left the website that had been set up?  If we know all their information, can we just follow them to their new site?  I'm sure the CIA had operatives planted in the website who befriended some of the regular visitors.  Just like with any other forum/website, when someone leaves, they generally try to get their friends from the site to move with them to the new site, or at the very least let them know where they are going.  Taking down this website only made us lose the potential capability to identify and infiltrate other extremist websites that are growing in popularity and membership.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the domestic equivalent of what Pakistan just did recently when they arrested the 2nd highest man in the Taliban , who had not only been talking with the UN , but was scheduled to meet with Karzai in the next few months .
Short term thinking and infighting hurting long term strategic goals .
So what if some of the extremists left the website that had been set up ?
If we know all their information , can we just follow them to their new site ?
I 'm sure the CIA had operatives planted in the website who befriended some of the regular visitors .
Just like with any other forum/website , when someone leaves , they generally try to get their friends from the site to move with them to the new site , or at the very least let them know where they are going .
Taking down this website only made us lose the potential capability to identify and infiltrate other extremist websites that are growing in popularity and membership .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the domestic equivalent of what Pakistan just did recently when they arrested the 2nd highest man in the Taliban, who had not only been talking with the UN, but was scheduled to meet with Karzai in the next few months.
Short term thinking and infighting hurting long term strategic goals.
So what if some of the extremists left the website that had been set up?
If we know all their information, can we just follow them to their new site?
I'm sure the CIA had operatives planted in the website who befriended some of the regular visitors.
Just like with any other forum/website, when someone leaves, they generally try to get their friends from the site to move with them to the new site, or at the very least let them know where they are going.
Taking down this website only made us lose the potential capability to identify and infiltrate other extremist websites that are growing in popularity and membership.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31552462</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>cusco</author>
	<datestamp>1269082320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"a sizeable number of Muslims who are not extremists hit the site and become radicalised by it."<br> <br>

Perhaps the dumbest statement in this thread so far.  Has anyone in the history of the Internet become "radicalized" by something they read on a web page?  Yeesh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" a sizeable number of Muslims who are not extremists hit the site and become radicalised by it .
" Perhaps the dumbest statement in this thread so far .
Has anyone in the history of the Internet become " radicalized " by something they read on a web page ?
Yeesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a sizeable number of Muslims who are not extremists hit the site and become radicalised by it.
" 

Perhaps the dumbest statement in this thread so far.
Has anyone in the history of the Internet become "radicalized" by something they read on a web page?
Yeesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540390</id>
	<title>Re:Here's all you need to know</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1269022140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The question should always be are those soldiers' deaths being "spent" on achieving the current military goal.</p></div><p>+5 Rationally Callous, you heartless, dispassionate, reasonable bastard!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question should always be are those soldiers ' deaths being " spent " on achieving the current military goal. + 5 Rationally Callous , you heartless , dispassionate , reasonable bastard !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question should always be are those soldiers' deaths being "spent" on achieving the current military goal.+5 Rationally Callous, you heartless, dispassionate, reasonable bastard!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538108</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269015180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>More like the left hand and the right hand can't agree on what they need to do (or should be doing). <br> <br>I'm sure both sides have legitimate reasons for their positions, but it would seem like this type of thing could (and <b>should</b>) be avoided<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and kept quiet too. I'm going to go check out their Facebook pages and see who's got the most Fans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More like the left hand and the right hand ca n't agree on what they need to do ( or should be doing ) .
I 'm sure both sides have legitimate reasons for their positions , but it would seem like this type of thing could ( and should ) be avoided ... and kept quiet too .
I 'm going to go check out their Facebook pages and see who 's got the most Fans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like the left hand and the right hand can't agree on what they need to do (or should be doing).
I'm sure both sides have legitimate reasons for their positions, but it would seem like this type of thing could (and should) be avoided ... and kept quiet too.
I'm going to go check out their Facebook pages and see who's got the most Fans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538154</id>
	<title>Re:DHS</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1269015240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DHS has nothing to do with DOD and CIA.  You may be thinking of Director of National Intelligence, who is meant to head up the cooperative efforts of NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI counter intelligence, etc.  However, the current DNI is a former Naval officer and is, of course, going to be more sympathetic to the arguments of the NSA (formerly known as Army Signals Intelligence) and DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) than the CIA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DHS has nothing to do with DOD and CIA .
You may be thinking of Director of National Intelligence , who is meant to head up the cooperative efforts of NSA , CIA , DIA , FBI counter intelligence , etc .
However , the current DNI is a former Naval officer and is , of course , going to be more sympathetic to the arguments of the NSA ( formerly known as Army Signals Intelligence ) and DIA ( Defense Intelligence Agency ) than the CIA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DHS has nothing to do with DOD and CIA.
You may be thinking of Director of National Intelligence, who is meant to head up the cooperative efforts of NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI counter intelligence, etc.
However, the current DNI is a former Naval officer and is, of course, going to be more sympathetic to the arguments of the NSA (formerly known as Army Signals Intelligence) and DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) than the CIA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541666</id>
	<title>Re:Mission Accomplished?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269027180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up. Besides the naughty words, he's right on the money. Truth hurts.</p><p>I kinda like the idea somebody else said above in another post too about this being a false flag operation.</p><p>So, either the US intelligence community is stupid or incompetent. Doesn't sound too great. Can be both too.</p><p>ps. the captcha was 'comical' I swear</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
Besides the naughty words , he 's right on the money .
Truth hurts.I kinda like the idea somebody else said above in another post too about this being a false flag operation.So , either the US intelligence community is stupid or incompetent .
Does n't sound too great .
Can be both too.ps .
the captcha was 'comical ' I swear</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
Besides the naughty words, he's right on the money.
Truth hurts.I kinda like the idea somebody else said above in another post too about this being a false flag operation.So, either the US intelligence community is stupid or incompetent.
Doesn't sound too great.
Can be both too.ps.
the captcha was 'comical' I swear</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540710</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>rajanala83</author>
	<datestamp>1269023280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rindfleischetikettierungs&#252;berwachungsaufgaben&#252;bertragungsgesetz is the name of a rather recently created german law. I wonder if the english parliament or the senat in washington can top this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rindfleischetikettierungs   berwachungsaufgaben   bertragungsgesetz is the name of a rather recently created german law .
I wonder if the english parliament or the senat in washington can top this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz is the name of a rather recently created german law.
I wonder if the english parliament or the senat in washington can top this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538330</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1269015720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the sudden rise in the number of times I've seen that stupid phrase in the news I'm thinking soon we're going to see a "war online" moddled after the war on drugs and the war on terrorism any time soon with all the associated losses of freedom and shitting on civil rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the sudden rise in the number of times I 've seen that stupid phrase in the news I 'm thinking soon we 're going to see a " war online " moddled after the war on drugs and the war on terrorism any time soon with all the associated losses of freedom and shitting on civil rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the sudden rise in the number of times I've seen that stupid phrase in the news I'm thinking soon we're going to see a "war online" moddled after the war on drugs and the war on terrorism any time soon with all the associated losses of freedom and shitting on civil rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538952</id>
	<title>Re:DHS</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269017400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a procedure.  When something gets in the way of DoD, they destroy it.  I believe procedure was followed here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a procedure .
When something gets in the way of DoD , they destroy it .
I believe procedure was followed here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a procedure.
When something gets in the way of DoD, they destroy it.
I believe procedure was followed here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31546344</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1269007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In German I am told, there is a word for making up a word where a perfectly good combination of words<br>already exist! (:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In German I am told , there is a word for making up a word where a perfectly good combination of wordsalready exist !
( :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In German I am told, there is a word for making up a word where a perfectly good combination of wordsalready exist!
(:</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541478</id>
	<title>DAMN FUNNY!</title>
	<author>OldHawk777</author>
	<datestamp>1269026340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh..., The dark malevolent cracker-humor of it all \%~?<br>Folks, this had me chuckling a few minutes, at work, but paranoia set-in (I stopped laughing).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh... , The dark malevolent cracker-humor of it all \ % ~ ? Folks , this had me chuckling a few minutes , at work , but paranoia set-in ( I stopped laughing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh..., The dark malevolent cracker-humor of it all \%~?Folks, this had me chuckling a few minutes, at work, but paranoia set-in (I stopped laughing).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070</id>
	<title>Enough already</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1269015120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a shame that words like "CyberWar" appear meaningful to the Slashdot community.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a shame that words like " CyberWar " appear meaningful to the Slashdot community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a shame that words like "CyberWar" appear meaningful to the Slashdot community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538514</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1269016140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some reason the first thing that came to mind was <a href="http://www.wd8das.net/feedme.JPG" title="wd8das.net">this</a> [wd8das.net] famous battle scene.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason the first thing that came to mind was this [ wd8das.net ] famous battle scene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason the first thing that came to mind was this [wd8das.net] famous battle scene.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542154</id>
	<title>Re:FBI, CIA, NSA, Intelligence Agencies...</title>
	<author>Kasar</author>
	<datestamp>1269029220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The CIA runs on it's own.  In Iraq they have their own camps, their own security ground forces, and their own aerial drones with attack capabilities.  They strike targets that could be hit by the military, but spooks prefer not to tell anyone what they've found, know, or suspect.
<br>
<br>
Who needs the military?  They're rarely on the same page anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The CIA runs on it 's own .
In Iraq they have their own camps , their own security ground forces , and their own aerial drones with attack capabilities .
They strike targets that could be hit by the military , but spooks prefer not to tell anyone what they 've found , know , or suspect .
Who needs the military ?
They 're rarely on the same page anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CIA runs on it's own.
In Iraq they have their own camps, their own security ground forces, and their own aerial drones with attack capabilities.
They strike targets that could be hit by the military, but spooks prefer not to tell anyone what they've found, know, or suspect.
Who needs the military?
They're rarely on the same page anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543184</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>solweil</author>
	<datestamp>1268990760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't the idea to identify and track them? It doesn't matter that they visit other jihadi sites as long as they also visit the honeypot site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the idea to identify and track them ?
It does n't matter that they visit other jihadi sites as long as they also visit the honeypot site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the idea to identify and track them?
It doesn't matter that they visit other jihadi sites as long as they also visit the honeypot site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31578716</id>
	<title>Fishy</title>
	<author>danwesnor</author>
	<datestamp>1269271140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NSA is not DoD.  Sounds more like a turf battle to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NSA is not DoD .
Sounds more like a turf battle to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NSA is not DoD.
Sounds more like a turf battle to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538678</id>
	<title>Re:DHS</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1269016620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep. NSA is more oriented towards military operations, think John Casey in Chuck, that character is NSA, along with DIA and national Geospatial Mapping Agency (part of DoD  and National Reconnaissance Office.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.\_intelligence\_community#Organization" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.\_intelligence\_community#Organization</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The CIA has been doing its own thing for decades and is very much an outsider when it comes to dealing with NSA, FBI, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
NSA is more oriented towards military operations , think John Casey in Chuck , that character is NSA , along with DIA and national Geospatial Mapping Agency ( part of DoD and National Reconnaissance Office.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S. \ _intelligence \ _community # Organization [ wikipedia.org ] The CIA has been doing its own thing for decades and is very much an outsider when it comes to dealing with NSA , FBI , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
NSA is more oriented towards military operations, think John Casey in Chuck, that character is NSA, along with DIA and national Geospatial Mapping Agency (part of DoD  and National Reconnaissance Office.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.\_intelligence\_community#Organization [wikipedia.org]The CIA has been doing its own thing for decades and is very much an outsider when it comes to dealing with NSA, FBI, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932</id>
	<title>Bah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mommy and Daddy are fighting</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mommy and Daddy are fighting</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mommy and Daddy are fighting</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538284</id>
	<title>Scorched-earth security defeats itself again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't exactly recall, but wasn't there an article or two on Slashdot a while back about how perhaps it was better to allow known terrorist network sites to continue to operate, rather than to shut them down and have us not know where the terrorists communicate anymore?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't exactly recall , but was n't there an article or two on Slashdot a while back about how perhaps it was better to allow known terrorist network sites to continue to operate , rather than to shut them down and have us not know where the terrorists communicate anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't exactly recall, but wasn't there an article or two on Slashdot a while back about how perhaps it was better to allow known terrorist network sites to continue to operate, rather than to shut them down and have us not know where the terrorists communicate anymore?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539222</id>
	<title>Re:Scorched-earth security defeats itself again.</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1269018240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only case I see where this would be a good strategy is just before a physical military operation. If you shut down one website, they'll manage to resume communication somehow, but it will take a few days. If you shut down the website jointly with other actions, it has the benefit of disorganizing the enemy.<br> <br>
If you don't have an operation planned, it sounds more clever to keep it online and keep the hand on the plug.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only case I see where this would be a good strategy is just before a physical military operation .
If you shut down one website , they 'll manage to resume communication somehow , but it will take a few days .
If you shut down the website jointly with other actions , it has the benefit of disorganizing the enemy .
If you do n't have an operation planned , it sounds more clever to keep it online and keep the hand on the plug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only case I see where this would be a good strategy is just before a physical military operation.
If you shut down one website, they'll manage to resume communication somehow, but it will take a few days.
If you shut down the website jointly with other actions, it has the benefit of disorganizing the enemy.
If you don't have an operation planned, it sounds more clever to keep it online and keep the hand on the plug.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539236</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269018300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like rounding up a gang of criminals and discovering that half of them are undercover cops.</p><p>Come to think of it, how do we know there ARE any real al Qaeda out there? Maybe they're the CIA and the NSA just jerking each other off...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like rounding up a gang of criminals and discovering that half of them are undercover cops.Come to think of it , how do we know there ARE any real al Qaeda out there ?
Maybe they 're the CIA and the NSA just jerking each other off.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like rounding up a gang of criminals and discovering that half of them are undercover cops.Come to think of it, how do we know there ARE any real al Qaeda out there?
Maybe they're the CIA and the NSA just jerking each other off...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540812</id>
	<title>Re:Jeeze, use your common sense</title>
	<author>pla</author>
	<datestamp>1269023700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Huh? I doubt in the extreme that the DOD has gone to war with the CIA, or that they are this blatantly making
like the Keystone Kops.</i> <br>
<br>
I know, right?  Because, y'know, not like we had enough information to absolutely stop 9/11 from happening if only
TweedleDee had shared his pie with TweedleDum...<br>
<br>
I have a reasonably high level of confidence that <i>either</i> agency has their shit reasonably together.  I have
<b>zero</b> confidence that two organizations, both of whom encourage extreme distrust of everyone outside their
own hierarchy, have any ability whatsoever to work cooperatively <b>toward ording lunch</b>, much less decreasing
international terrorism.<br>
<br>
<br>
You want my personal take on this?  (Well, I'll give it anyway):<br>
<br>
The CIA had this really great program that gave them a golden "in" with their targets.<br>
The NSA said "Hey, cool idea, can we play too?"<br>
"Nuh-uh"<br>
"Pleeeeeease?"<br>
"Nope"<br>
"Well screw you guys, you goin' down!".<br>
"Bring it!"<br>
<br>
And as a result, <b>two</b> intelligence agencies will now produce significantly less information
than either one could have alone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
I doubt in the extreme that the DOD has gone to war with the CIA , or that they are this blatantly making like the Keystone Kops .
I know , right ?
Because , y'know , not like we had enough information to absolutely stop 9/11 from happening if only TweedleDee had shared his pie with TweedleDum.. . I have a reasonably high level of confidence that either agency has their shit reasonably together .
I have zero confidence that two organizations , both of whom encourage extreme distrust of everyone outside their own hierarchy , have any ability whatsoever to work cooperatively toward ording lunch , much less decreasing international terrorism .
You want my personal take on this ?
( Well , I 'll give it anyway ) : The CIA had this really great program that gave them a golden " in " with their targets .
The NSA said " Hey , cool idea , can we play too ?
" " Nuh-uh " " Pleeeeeease ?
" " Nope " " Well screw you guys , you goin ' down ! " .
" Bring it !
" And as a result , two intelligence agencies will now produce significantly less information than either one could have alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
I doubt in the extreme that the DOD has gone to war with the CIA, or that they are this blatantly making
like the Keystone Kops.
I know, right?
Because, y'know, not like we had enough information to absolutely stop 9/11 from happening if only
TweedleDee had shared his pie with TweedleDum...

I have a reasonably high level of confidence that either agency has their shit reasonably together.
I have
zero confidence that two organizations, both of whom encourage extreme distrust of everyone outside their
own hierarchy, have any ability whatsoever to work cooperatively toward ording lunch, much less decreasing
international terrorism.
You want my personal take on this?
(Well, I'll give it anyway):

The CIA had this really great program that gave them a golden "in" with their targets.
The NSA said "Hey, cool idea, can we play too?
"
"Nuh-uh"
"Pleeeeeease?
"
"Nope"
"Well screw you guys, you goin' down!".
"Bring it!
"

And as a result, two intelligence agencies will now produce significantly less information
than either one could have alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538766</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>jwietelmann</author>
	<datestamp>1269016860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The entire premise for your argument that the honeypot is a stupid idea rests on an assumption that if the CIA didn't operate a jihadi site, all those same site visitors wouldn't be going to any number of other jihadi sites instead.<br> <br>
That seems pretty far-fetched.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire premise for your argument that the honeypot is a stupid idea rests on an assumption that if the CIA did n't operate a jihadi site , all those same site visitors would n't be going to any number of other jihadi sites instead .
That seems pretty far-fetched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire premise for your argument that the honeypot is a stupid idea rests on an assumption that if the CIA didn't operate a jihadi site, all those same site visitors wouldn't be going to any number of other jihadi sites instead.
That seems pretty far-fetched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539138</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1269018000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The military intelligence guys say "what do you mean doing no good, we have dozens of people here talking about extremist acts, and we only lose track of a quarter of them!", totally missing the point that they now have a dozen untracked extremists, and three dozen who are currently tracked whereas without the site they would have had half a dozen untracked ones!</i> <br> <br>It's quite possible that without the "site" you'd have at least four dozen untracked ones. Since it's not like this honey pot is the only place they could be discussing whatever...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The military intelligence guys say " what do you mean doing no good , we have dozens of people here talking about extremist acts , and we only lose track of a quarter of them !
" , totally missing the point that they now have a dozen untracked extremists , and three dozen who are currently tracked whereas without the site they would have had half a dozen untracked ones !
It 's quite possible that without the " site " you 'd have at least four dozen untracked ones .
Since it 's not like this honey pot is the only place they could be discussing whatever.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The military intelligence guys say "what do you mean doing no good, we have dozens of people here talking about extremist acts, and we only lose track of a quarter of them!
", totally missing the point that they now have a dozen untracked extremists, and three dozen who are currently tracked whereas without the site they would have had half a dozen untracked ones!
It's quite possible that without the "site" you'd have at least four dozen untracked ones.
Since it's not like this honey pot is the only place they could be discussing whatever...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine! The gall of people, smashing two innocent and unrelated words together like that to create a third, wholly unauthorized word. That kind of original thinking and insubordination must be punished. Otherwise, people might catch on that language is created by people, not professors. They might realize that it's all arbitrary, and English is not a science, and barely a legitimate academic discipline at all, but rather the preferred refuge of pompous losers who can't make it in any other field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine !
The gall of people , smashing two innocent and unrelated words together like that to create a third , wholly unauthorized word .
That kind of original thinking and insubordination must be punished .
Otherwise , people might catch on that language is created by people , not professors .
They might realize that it 's all arbitrary , and English is not a science , and barely a legitimate academic discipline at all , but rather the preferred refuge of pompous losers who ca n't make it in any other field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine!
The gall of people, smashing two innocent and unrelated words together like that to create a third, wholly unauthorized word.
That kind of original thinking and insubordination must be punished.
Otherwise, people might catch on that language is created by people, not professors.
They might realize that it's all arbitrary, and English is not a science, and barely a legitimate academic discipline at all, but rather the preferred refuge of pompous losers who can't make it in any other field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539876</id>
	<title>Re:Disturbing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269020460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No worries, the Hunron Corporation is here to save the day!</p><p>This message was sponsored by The Hunron Corporation, the provider of the Honey You Know.<br>--The Hunron Corporation, bee respecting business practises since they went into law.--</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No worries , the Hunron Corporation is here to save the day ! This message was sponsored by The Hunron Corporation , the provider of the Honey You Know.--The Hunron Corporation , bee respecting business practises since they went into law.--</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No worries, the Hunron Corporation is here to save the day!This message was sponsored by The Hunron Corporation, the provider of the Honey You Know.--The Hunron Corporation, bee respecting business practises since they went into law.--</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539570</id>
	<title>Re:Here's all you need to know</title>
	<author>blueskies</author>
	<datestamp>1269019440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Once DoD went to the extent of saying, 'Soldiers are dying,'</p></div> </blockquote><p>This is such a stupid quote by the DoD.  If they don't want soldiers to die, pull them all out of Iraq.  They goal has never been to have no soldiers die, because you can't go to war unless you are ready to lose soldiers.  The question should always be are those soldiers' deaths being "spent" on achieving the current military goal.</p><p>It's never a question of soldiers dying, it's a question of HOW many soldiers are dying to achieve a specific aim.  Saving tens of soldiers' lives now might have cost them hundreds of lives later.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Once DoD went to the extent of saying , 'Soldiers are dying, ' This is such a stupid quote by the DoD .
If they do n't want soldiers to die , pull them all out of Iraq .
They goal has never been to have no soldiers die , because you ca n't go to war unless you are ready to lose soldiers .
The question should always be are those soldiers ' deaths being " spent " on achieving the current military goal.It 's never a question of soldiers dying , it 's a question of HOW many soldiers are dying to achieve a specific aim .
Saving tens of soldiers ' lives now might have cost them hundreds of lives later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Once DoD went to the extent of saying, 'Soldiers are dying,' This is such a stupid quote by the DoD.
If they don't want soldiers to die, pull them all out of Iraq.
They goal has never been to have no soldiers die, because you can't go to war unless you are ready to lose soldiers.
The question should always be are those soldiers' deaths being "spent" on achieving the current military goal.It's never a question of soldiers dying, it's a question of HOW many soldiers are dying to achieve a specific aim.
Saving tens of soldiers' lives now might have cost them hundreds of lives later.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31547284</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1269019080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No mention of the CIA in any recruiting posters I've seen.</p></div><p>Why should they?  They already know who you are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No mention of the CIA in any recruiting posters I 've seen.Why should they ?
They already know who you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No mention of the CIA in any recruiting posters I've seen.Why should they?
They already know who you are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31554790</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269101760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd feel safer if we left the president out of the loop, he's the worst enemy America currently has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd feel safer if we left the president out of the loop , he 's the worst enemy America currently has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd feel safer if we left the president out of the loop, he's the worst enemy America currently has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543066</id>
	<title>Re:Here's all you need to know</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1268990280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should just convince Stephenie Meyer to right about how angsty all of these Jihad forums are...<br> <br>

<a href="http://xkcd.com/591/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/591/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should just convince Stephenie Meyer to right about how angsty all of these Jihad forums are.. . http : //xkcd.com/591/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should just convince Stephenie Meyer to right about how angsty all of these Jihad forums are... 

http://xkcd.com/591/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542036</id>
	<title>Re:Disturbing</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1269028740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We had plenty until a certain "stuffed with fluff" Pooh Bear gained access.  As he was led away, he was heard saying "Oh bother!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We had plenty until a certain " stuffed with fluff " Pooh Bear gained access .
As he was led away , he was heard saying " Oh bother !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had plenty until a certain "stuffed with fluff" Pooh Bear gained access.
As he was led away, he was heard saying "Oh bother!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543580</id>
	<title>OBAMUNISM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268992140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like the progressive tartism and feckless defense policy born of libtards is creeping into every aspect of govt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like the progressive tartism and feckless defense policy born of libtards is creeping into every aspect of govt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like the progressive tartism and feckless defense policy born of libtards is creeping into every aspect of govt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540942</id>
	<title>Re:Domestic equivalent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269024180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We just need to find out why those extremists were leaving the site for others. Was it the banner ads? The trolls? Or did the lack of decent comment threading just annoy too many would-be suicide bombers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We just need to find out why those extremists were leaving the site for others .
Was it the banner ads ?
The trolls ?
Or did the lack of decent comment threading just annoy too many would-be suicide bombers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We just need to find out why those extremists were leaving the site for others.
Was it the banner ads?
The trolls?
Or did the lack of decent comment threading just annoy too many would-be suicide bombers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540222</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>davFr</author>
	<datestamp>1269021480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Generating terrorists yourself : government agencie's smartest idea to avoid budget cuts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generating terrorists yourself : government agencie 's smartest idea to avoid budget cuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generating terrorists yourself : government agencie's smartest idea to avoid budget cuts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540268</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1269021660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hate to break it to to you, but there isn't a linguist alive who doesn't already agree with your post (rather, those that don't tend to get beat up and have their lunch money stolen by the rest).</p><p>You're raging against a nonexistent "man."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate to break it to to you , but there is n't a linguist alive who does n't already agree with your post ( rather , those that do n't tend to get beat up and have their lunch money stolen by the rest ) .You 're raging against a nonexistent " man .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hate to break it to to you, but there isn't a linguist alive who doesn't already agree with your post (rather, those that don't tend to get beat up and have their lunch money stolen by the rest).You're raging against a nonexistent "man.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543338</id>
	<title>Re:FBI, CIA, NSA, Intelligence Agencies...</title>
	<author>elucido</author>
	<datestamp>1268991180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>The growth of the internet created an atmosphere wherein information and 'intelligence' became a commodity. Then the emergence of an enemy that is not only difficult, if not impossible, to clearly define but who also operates entirely without borders. The polar opposite from what the CIA were trained to do.</b></p><p>I don't see the connection between the internet and the loss of borders. The Mexican border was even more wide open during the cold war than it is now. The enemy always operated without borders, unless we truly thought oceans could protect us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The growth of the internet created an atmosphere wherein information and 'intelligence ' became a commodity .
Then the emergence of an enemy that is not only difficult , if not impossible , to clearly define but who also operates entirely without borders .
The polar opposite from what the CIA were trained to do.I do n't see the connection between the internet and the loss of borders .
The Mexican border was even more wide open during the cold war than it is now .
The enemy always operated without borders , unless we truly thought oceans could protect us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The growth of the internet created an atmosphere wherein information and 'intelligence' became a commodity.
Then the emergence of an enemy that is not only difficult, if not impossible, to clearly define but who also operates entirely without borders.
The polar opposite from what the CIA were trained to do.I don't see the connection between the internet and the loss of borders.
The Mexican border was even more wide open during the cold war than it is now.
The enemy always operated without borders, unless we truly thought oceans could protect us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538446</id>
	<title>You can't.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't fix stupid. Truer words were never said. Explains quite a bit about our fine Government too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't fix stupid .
Truer words were never said .
Explains quite a bit about our fine Government too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't fix stupid.
Truer words were never said.
Explains quite a bit about our fine Government too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539454</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269018960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because these silly Muslims can't think for themselves and can all be controlled by simple visual stimulus to switch them from your average person living a religious live to a radical would-be killer?</p><p>Are you really that devoid of empathy and how did this get upvoted as if it contains intelligent insight into human behaviour?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because these silly Muslims ca n't think for themselves and can all be controlled by simple visual stimulus to switch them from your average person living a religious live to a radical would-be killer ? Are you really that devoid of empathy and how did this get upvoted as if it contains intelligent insight into human behaviour ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because these silly Muslims can't think for themselves and can all be controlled by simple visual stimulus to switch them from your average person living a religious live to a radical would-be killer?Are you really that devoid of empathy and how did this get upvoted as if it contains intelligent insight into human behaviour?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541232</id>
	<title>Was this about Jesse???</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1269025260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did this involve that Huffington Post censorship of Jesse Ventura?</p><p>Thought so.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did this involve that Huffington Post censorship of Jesse Ventura ? Thought so.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did this involve that Huffington Post censorship of Jesse Ventura?Thought so.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540998</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269024420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The gall of people, smashing two innocent and unrelated words together like that to create a third, wholly unauthorized word.</p></div><p>I hereby deem that the result of this activity be described as "smashcabulary" and the action itself "to smashcabulize". That ought to help clear things up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The gall of people , smashing two innocent and unrelated words together like that to create a third , wholly unauthorized word.I hereby deem that the result of this activity be described as " smashcabulary " and the action itself " to smashcabulize " .
That ought to help clear things up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The gall of people, smashing two innocent and unrelated words together like that to create a third, wholly unauthorized word.I hereby deem that the result of this activity be described as "smashcabulary" and the action itself "to smashcabulize".
That ought to help clear things up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539824</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>O('\_')O\_Bush</author>
	<datestamp>1269020280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It also makes the assumption that they were fanning the flames of the Jihad in the first place, and not simply providing guides on how to inflict damage.<br><br>How to make an IED.<br>How to create deal with a hostage situation.<br>How to fly a plane.<br>Where to purchase a dirty bomb.<br><br>All of that is good honeypot material without promoting any radicalized viewpoints.<br><br>I think the biggest harm is that now several sources of media are trumpeting that there are honeypots in the first place. If terrorists didn't realize that before, they sure do now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It also makes the assumption that they were fanning the flames of the Jihad in the first place , and not simply providing guides on how to inflict damage.How to make an IED.How to create deal with a hostage situation.How to fly a plane.Where to purchase a dirty bomb.All of that is good honeypot material without promoting any radicalized viewpoints.I think the biggest harm is that now several sources of media are trumpeting that there are honeypots in the first place .
If terrorists did n't realize that before , they sure do now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also makes the assumption that they were fanning the flames of the Jihad in the first place, and not simply providing guides on how to inflict damage.How to make an IED.How to create deal with a hostage situation.How to fly a plane.Where to purchase a dirty bomb.All of that is good honeypot material without promoting any radicalized viewpoints.I think the biggest harm is that now several sources of media are trumpeting that there are honeypots in the first place.
If terrorists didn't realize that before, they sure do now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538124</id>
	<title>Credibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, at least the honeypot becomes more credible to real terrorists now...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , at least the honeypot becomes more credible to real terrorists now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, at least the honeypot becomes more credible to real terrorists now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538740</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>happyjack27</author>
	<datestamp>1269016740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the only problem with that is that i don't find you statistics credible.  show me the raw data and the math.  i think some of your hidden assumptions are flawed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the only problem with that is that i do n't find you statistics credible .
show me the raw data and the math .
i think some of your hidden assumptions are flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the only problem with that is that i don't find you statistics credible.
show me the raw data and the math.
i think some of your hidden assumptions are flawed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538374</id>
	<title>Disturbing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>None of this addresses the need for security of our strategic honey reserves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of this addresses the need for security of our strategic honey reserves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of this addresses the need for security of our strategic honey reserves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543410</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1268991420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The entire premise for your argument that the honeypot is a stupid idea rests on an assumption that if the CIA didn't operate a jihadi site, all those same site visitors wouldn't be going to any number of other jihadi sites instead.</i></p><p>One point. Web development sometimes costs a bit of money and skill depending on traffic to the site.</p><p>At some point you have to figure out if you are actually saving terrorists money in hosting or development fees if the site gets too popular.</p><p>In that regards its easier to track money to real people than it is to IP addresses in internet cafee's in Yemen or Iran so if the terrorists had to pay their own bills, you could find it easier to find them by tracing the money they pay to their ISP back to them directly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire premise for your argument that the honeypot is a stupid idea rests on an assumption that if the CIA did n't operate a jihadi site , all those same site visitors would n't be going to any number of other jihadi sites instead.One point .
Web development sometimes costs a bit of money and skill depending on traffic to the site.At some point you have to figure out if you are actually saving terrorists money in hosting or development fees if the site gets too popular.In that regards its easier to track money to real people than it is to IP addresses in internet cafee 's in Yemen or Iran so if the terrorists had to pay their own bills , you could find it easier to find them by tracing the money they pay to their ISP back to them directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire premise for your argument that the honeypot is a stupid idea rests on an assumption that if the CIA didn't operate a jihadi site, all those same site visitors wouldn't be going to any number of other jihadi sites instead.One point.
Web development sometimes costs a bit of money and skill depending on traffic to the site.At some point you have to figure out if you are actually saving terrorists money in hosting or development fees if the site gets too popular.In that regards its easier to track money to real people than it is to IP addresses in internet cafee's in Yemen or Iran so if the terrorists had to pay their own bills, you could find it easier to find them by tracing the money they pay to their ISP back to them directly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540884</id>
	<title>Re:Did I read this right?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1269023940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't there a story a few days about CIA officers launching precision assassination attacks against military targets due to anti-anti-terrorist operations? I'm thinking today is a Bad Day(tm) to work at the Pentagon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't there a story a few days about CIA officers launching precision assassination attacks against military targets due to anti-anti-terrorist operations ?
I 'm thinking today is a Bad Day ( tm ) to work at the Pentagon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't there a story a few days about CIA officers launching precision assassination attacks against military targets due to anti-anti-terrorist operations?
I'm thinking today is a Bad Day(tm) to work at the Pentagon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540220</id>
	<title>Re:You can't.....</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1269021480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Taliban are stupid.</p><p>We're fixing them pretty good right now.</p><p>But then they're just <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=texas+taliban" title="google.com">popping up in Texas</a> [google.com], so maybe we need to fix a little closer to home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Taliban are stupid.We 're fixing them pretty good right now.But then they 're just popping up in Texas [ google.com ] , so maybe we need to fix a little closer to home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Taliban are stupid.We're fixing them pretty good right now.But then they're just popping up in Texas [google.com], so maybe we need to fix a little closer to home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538190</id>
	<title>Created for a purpose of streamlining the defense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was actually created to pay wages and pensions. Like most of the rest of the government you have to hope there is enough side-effect left over from the jobs program aspect to actually accomplish the publicly stated mission of the dept. In the case of the DHS, maybe it is better that they just stay confined to the jobs program aspect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was actually created to pay wages and pensions .
Like most of the rest of the government you have to hope there is enough side-effect left over from the jobs program aspect to actually accomplish the publicly stated mission of the dept .
In the case of the DHS , maybe it is better that they just stay confined to the jobs program aspect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was actually created to pay wages and pensions.
Like most of the rest of the government you have to hope there is enough side-effect left over from the jobs program aspect to actually accomplish the publicly stated mission of the dept.
In the case of the DHS, maybe it is better that they just stay confined to the jobs program aspect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543102</id>
	<title>Terrorism is NOT Extremism.</title>
	<author>elucido</author>
	<datestamp>1268990400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have non violent "extremists" and you have terrorists. The difference is the non violent extremists are all talk, no action. The actual terrorists take action or provide financial support to individuals who do. Terrorists are more like paramilitary forces, this is not the same thing as 911 truthers, the Alex Jones crowd, or Glen Beck watchers.</p><p>So it makes absolute sense for the CIA to launch and host websites. And the argument that moderates can be radicalized into terrorists by a website is completely ridiculous. Especially if it's a CIA run site, that makes it even more ridiculous.</p><p>I'm sure it's possible that people do get radicalized, but I doubt that one website does it. It's probably a combination of things such as loss of family members via the Iraq war, the perception of Islam being under attack due to Bush announcing a crusade, and many other factors such as personality type. I don't think websites make people violent anymore than video games or "guns" kill people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have non violent " extremists " and you have terrorists .
The difference is the non violent extremists are all talk , no action .
The actual terrorists take action or provide financial support to individuals who do .
Terrorists are more like paramilitary forces , this is not the same thing as 911 truthers , the Alex Jones crowd , or Glen Beck watchers.So it makes absolute sense for the CIA to launch and host websites .
And the argument that moderates can be radicalized into terrorists by a website is completely ridiculous .
Especially if it 's a CIA run site , that makes it even more ridiculous.I 'm sure it 's possible that people do get radicalized , but I doubt that one website does it .
It 's probably a combination of things such as loss of family members via the Iraq war , the perception of Islam being under attack due to Bush announcing a crusade , and many other factors such as personality type .
I do n't think websites make people violent anymore than video games or " guns " kill people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have non violent "extremists" and you have terrorists.
The difference is the non violent extremists are all talk, no action.
The actual terrorists take action or provide financial support to individuals who do.
Terrorists are more like paramilitary forces, this is not the same thing as 911 truthers, the Alex Jones crowd, or Glen Beck watchers.So it makes absolute sense for the CIA to launch and host websites.
And the argument that moderates can be radicalized into terrorists by a website is completely ridiculous.
Especially if it's a CIA run site, that makes it even more ridiculous.I'm sure it's possible that people do get radicalized, but I doubt that one website does it.
It's probably a combination of things such as loss of family members via the Iraq war, the perception of Islam being under attack due to Bush announcing a crusade, and many other factors such as personality type.
I don't think websites make people violent anymore than video games or "guns" kill people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540440</id>
	<title>Re:Mission Accomplished?</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1269022260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Short Answer: He got reelected.  That's about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Short Answer : He got reelected .
That 's about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short Answer: He got reelected.
That's about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540292</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1269021720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed one major point.  The CIA isn't doing the radicalizing.  They are providing a forum for others who are radical to espouse their views.  To make a physical world analogy, it would be like the CIA setting up a "Jihadi Mosque" and hiding cameras and microphones in it.  Then they open the doors and see who shows up, who they talk to, and what they talk about.</p><p>If anything I'd encourage them to expand the program.  I'd encourage them to bring in linguists and psychologists and people with backgrounds in developing memes to counter the memes spread by the radicalizers.</p><p>As complex as the problem of radical jihad seems, it comes down to basic human interactions.  There is a large group of disenfrancised individuals who don't see any way of getting a better life.  Someone comes along and promises them and their families a better if they are willing to do X, Y and Z.  At the deepest level it isn't much different than the way American schools indoctrinate students into capitalism, the American dream, college, a house, a wife, and two point five kids.  The methods are different.  One is suicide bombings and AK-47s, the other is debt slavery and consumerism.  The underlying meta-message is the same though.  "If you do this, our collective society and way of life will be better off."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed one major point .
The CIA is n't doing the radicalizing .
They are providing a forum for others who are radical to espouse their views .
To make a physical world analogy , it would be like the CIA setting up a " Jihadi Mosque " and hiding cameras and microphones in it .
Then they open the doors and see who shows up , who they talk to , and what they talk about.If anything I 'd encourage them to expand the program .
I 'd encourage them to bring in linguists and psychologists and people with backgrounds in developing memes to counter the memes spread by the radicalizers.As complex as the problem of radical jihad seems , it comes down to basic human interactions .
There is a large group of disenfrancised individuals who do n't see any way of getting a better life .
Someone comes along and promises them and their families a better if they are willing to do X , Y and Z. At the deepest level it is n't much different than the way American schools indoctrinate students into capitalism , the American dream , college , a house , a wife , and two point five kids .
The methods are different .
One is suicide bombings and AK-47s , the other is debt slavery and consumerism .
The underlying meta-message is the same though .
" If you do this , our collective society and way of life will be better off .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed one major point.
The CIA isn't doing the radicalizing.
They are providing a forum for others who are radical to espouse their views.
To make a physical world analogy, it would be like the CIA setting up a "Jihadi Mosque" and hiding cameras and microphones in it.
Then they open the doors and see who shows up, who they talk to, and what they talk about.If anything I'd encourage them to expand the program.
I'd encourage them to bring in linguists and psychologists and people with backgrounds in developing memes to counter the memes spread by the radicalizers.As complex as the problem of radical jihad seems, it comes down to basic human interactions.
There is a large group of disenfrancised individuals who don't see any way of getting a better life.
Someone comes along and promises them and their families a better if they are willing to do X, Y and Z.  At the deepest level it isn't much different than the way American schools indoctrinate students into capitalism, the American dream, college, a house, a wife, and two point five kids.
The methods are different.
One is suicide bombings and AK-47s, the other is debt slavery and consumerism.
The underlying meta-message is the same though.
"If you do this, our collective society and way of life will be better off.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539904</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1269020520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then you should try German sometime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you should try German sometime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you should try German sometime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542506</id>
	<title>Like having more "intelligence" helped before</title>
	<author>crusisredux</author>
	<datestamp>1269030960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to recall a certain intelligence agency admitting to the 9/11 commission they had intelligence about the hijackers taking flight training classes prior to the attacks. Hmmmmm, having that intel and keeping that information source operating sure came in handy back then. Might as well go with the same logic this time. Hell yes NSA, you kill those terrorist websites, and the websites that they have spawned!!!!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to recall a certain intelligence agency admitting to the 9/11 commission they had intelligence about the hijackers taking flight training classes prior to the attacks .
Hmmmmm , having that intel and keeping that information source operating sure came in handy back then .
Might as well go with the same logic this time .
Hell yes NSA , you kill those terrorist websites , and the websites that they have spawned ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to recall a certain intelligence agency admitting to the 9/11 commission they had intelligence about the hijackers taking flight training classes prior to the attacks.
Hmmmmm, having that intel and keeping that information source operating sure came in handy back then.
Might as well go with the same logic this time.
Hell yes NSA, you kill those terrorist websites, and the websites that they have spawned!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543484</id>
	<title>Re:FBI, CIA, NSA, Intelligence Agencies...</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1268991780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>With their tutelage, the CIA became a formidable tool against the Soviet threat throughout the cold war.</i></p><p>I hate to say this, but because of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge\_Five" title="wikipedia.org">Soviet infiltration in MI5</a> [wikipedia.org], the CIA lost a lot of people and organizations in the field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With their tutelage , the CIA became a formidable tool against the Soviet threat throughout the cold war.I hate to say this , but because of the Soviet infiltration in MI5 [ wikipedia.org ] , the CIA lost a lot of people and organizations in the field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With their tutelage, the CIA became a formidable tool against the Soviet threat throughout the cold war.I hate to say this, but because of the Soviet infiltration in MI5 [wikipedia.org], the CIA lost a lot of people and organizations in the field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538776</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1269016860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love English just because anyone can shove words together and make a new word.</p><p>"English is a language that lurks in dark alleys, beats up other languages and rifles through their pockets for spare vocabulary."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love English just because anyone can shove words together and make a new word .
" English is a language that lurks in dark alleys , beats up other languages and rifles through their pockets for spare vocabulary .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love English just because anyone can shove words together and make a new word.
"English is a language that lurks in dark alleys, beats up other languages and rifles through their pockets for spare vocabulary.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540570</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1269022800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that the reason we have one person who is the head of the entire executive branch?</p><p>If the CIA wants one thing, and the DoD wants something else, why don't they just ask the president to make a call?</p><p>Or is the idea of cutting through bureaucracy so repugnant to government workers that the concept of just having somebody make a decision is completely alien?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that the reason we have one person who is the head of the entire executive branch ? If the CIA wants one thing , and the DoD wants something else , why do n't they just ask the president to make a call ? Or is the idea of cutting through bureaucracy so repugnant to government workers that the concept of just having somebody make a decision is completely alien ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that the reason we have one person who is the head of the entire executive branch?If the CIA wants one thing, and the DoD wants something else, why don't they just ask the president to make a call?Or is the idea of cutting through bureaucracy so repugnant to government workers that the concept of just having somebody make a decision is completely alien?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542064</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>zill</author>
	<datestamp>1269028860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's not forget that Abwehr, the German intelligence agency, were headed by members of the German resistance who sought to undermine Hitler's influence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not forget that Abwehr , the German intelligence agency , were headed by members of the German resistance who sought to undermine Hitler 's influence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not forget that Abwehr, the German intelligence agency, were headed by members of the German resistance who sought to undermine Hitler's influence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541374</id>
	<title>if your are goign to use a quote</title>
	<author>G00F</author>
	<datestamp>1269025920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are going to use a quote at least tell us who it's from, also here is the whole quote . . .</p><p>"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."<br>--James D. Nicoll</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are going to use a quote at least tell us who it 's from , also here is the whole quote .
. .
" The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore .
We do n't just borrow words ; on occasion , English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary .
" --James D. Nicoll</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are going to use a quote at least tell us who it's from, also here is the whole quote .
. .
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore.
We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
"--James D. Nicoll
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542808</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269032340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When two people have an argument, usually both are wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When two people have an argument , usually both are wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When two people have an argument, usually both are wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542078</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1269028920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The gall of people, smashing two innocent and unrelated words together like that to create a third, wholly unauthorized word.</p></div><p>I think the issue is not the process by which the word "cyberwar" was created (even granted that "cyber" is a word...) but the inherent stupidity of using the already dog tired "war" metaphor in this quite inappropriate context.</p><p>The "war" in cyber-war is about as meaningful as the "war" in the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Terrorism."  Which is to say, not much.  It is a cliche' rhetorical device designed to inspire people who aren't particularly able thinkers.</p><p>War is of course a fundamentally irrational activity--economically it is the least efficient and effective way of solving human problems.  It fails routinely to bring about any sort of viable solution--see the Basque, the Tamil, the Irish, the Palestinians...--and in the rare cases when it does (WWII, Napoleon, and maybe Bismark's little wars) it almost always involves vastly more cost in money and human life than any of the alternative solutions.</p><p>Wars are fought to satisfy our inner monkey needs, in defiance of anything that is good and rational in our nature.  People who are unable to control their emotions and who engage in emotion-driven thinking and decision-making are in favour of wars.  No one else is, because there is no rational motivation to go to war, except in the face of the most utterly intractable enemy.  Even then, alternatives to war are generally available.  They just take things that advocates of warfare don't have, like courage, self-control and a rudimentary level of rationality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The gall of people , smashing two innocent and unrelated words together like that to create a third , wholly unauthorized word.I think the issue is not the process by which the word " cyberwar " was created ( even granted that " cyber " is a word... ) but the inherent stupidity of using the already dog tired " war " metaphor in this quite inappropriate context.The " war " in cyber-war is about as meaningful as the " war " in the " War on Drugs " or the " War on Terrorism .
" Which is to say , not much .
It is a cliche ' rhetorical device designed to inspire people who are n't particularly able thinkers.War is of course a fundamentally irrational activity--economically it is the least efficient and effective way of solving human problems .
It fails routinely to bring about any sort of viable solution--see the Basque , the Tamil , the Irish , the Palestinians...--and in the rare cases when it does ( WWII , Napoleon , and maybe Bismark 's little wars ) it almost always involves vastly more cost in money and human life than any of the alternative solutions.Wars are fought to satisfy our inner monkey needs , in defiance of anything that is good and rational in our nature .
People who are unable to control their emotions and who engage in emotion-driven thinking and decision-making are in favour of wars .
No one else is , because there is no rational motivation to go to war , except in the face of the most utterly intractable enemy .
Even then , alternatives to war are generally available .
They just take things that advocates of warfare do n't have , like courage , self-control and a rudimentary level of rationality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The gall of people, smashing two innocent and unrelated words together like that to create a third, wholly unauthorized word.I think the issue is not the process by which the word "cyberwar" was created (even granted that "cyber" is a word...) but the inherent stupidity of using the already dog tired "war" metaphor in this quite inappropriate context.The "war" in cyber-war is about as meaningful as the "war" in the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Terrorism.
"  Which is to say, not much.
It is a cliche' rhetorical device designed to inspire people who aren't particularly able thinkers.War is of course a fundamentally irrational activity--economically it is the least efficient and effective way of solving human problems.
It fails routinely to bring about any sort of viable solution--see the Basque, the Tamil, the Irish, the Palestinians...--and in the rare cases when it does (WWII, Napoleon, and maybe Bismark's little wars) it almost always involves vastly more cost in money and human life than any of the alternative solutions.Wars are fought to satisfy our inner monkey needs, in defiance of anything that is good and rational in our nature.
People who are unable to control their emotions and who engage in emotion-driven thinking and decision-making are in favour of wars.
No one else is, because there is no rational motivation to go to war, except in the face of the most utterly intractable enemy.
Even then, alternatives to war are generally available.
They just take things that advocates of warfare don't have, like courage, self-control and a rudimentary level of rationality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31544360</id>
	<title>Re:DHS</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1268995500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I thought DHS was created for a purpose of streamlining the defense to avoid this kind of crap between different agencies.</p></div> </blockquote><p>No, the DHS was mainly created to create the appearance of "doing something" about terrorism by shuffling boxes about on an org chart and renaming a few existing agencies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought DHS was created for a purpose of streamlining the defense to avoid this kind of crap between different agencies .
No , the DHS was mainly created to create the appearance of " doing something " about terrorism by shuffling boxes about on an org chart and renaming a few existing agencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought DHS was created for a purpose of streamlining the defense to avoid this kind of crap between different agencies.
No, the DHS was mainly created to create the appearance of "doing something" about terrorism by shuffling boxes about on an org chart and renaming a few existing agencies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538056</id>
	<title>Re:Did I read this right?</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1269015060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cyber civil war has come before cyberwar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cyber civil war has come before cyberwar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cyber civil war has come before cyberwar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31567298</id>
	<title>I wonder...?</title>
	<author>OldHawk777</author>
	<datestamp>1269270000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is diaspora pattern matching?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is diaspora pattern matching ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is diaspora pattern matching?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31582386</id>
	<title>What a great way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269354060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to convince all jihadists that the new jihadi website they joined *isn't* a CIA honeypot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to convince all jihadists that the new jihadi website they joined * is n't * a CIA honeypot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to convince all jihadists that the new jihadi website they joined *isn't* a CIA honeypot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539902</id>
	<title>Mission Accomplished?</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1269020520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After 9/11, the clear cause of the breakdown in security was determined to be that government agencies had grown insular.  The overwhelming impetus for creating the Department of Homeland Security (a name that still creeps out my NaziDar&reg;) was to integrate these agencies, to make them share information and goals.</p><p>You mean GW Bush didn't even get the super-spook agencies to cooperate?</p><p>Did that fucktard do ANYTHING right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After 9/11 , the clear cause of the breakdown in security was determined to be that government agencies had grown insular .
The overwhelming impetus for creating the Department of Homeland Security ( a name that still creeps out my NaziDar   ) was to integrate these agencies , to make them share information and goals.You mean GW Bush did n't even get the super-spook agencies to cooperate ? Did that fucktard do ANYTHING right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After 9/11, the clear cause of the breakdown in security was determined to be that government agencies had grown insular.
The overwhelming impetus for creating the Department of Homeland Security (a name that still creeps out my NaziDar®) was to integrate these agencies, to make them share information and goals.You mean GW Bush didn't even get the super-spook agencies to cooperate?Did that fucktard do ANYTHING right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31546978</id>
	<title>Re:Here's all you need to know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They goal has never been to have no soldiers die, because you can't go to war unless you are ready to lose soldiers.  The question should always be are those soldiers' deaths being "spent" on achieving the current military goal.</p><p>It's never a question of soldiers dying, it's a question of HOW many soldiers are dying to achieve a specific aim.  Saving tens of soldiers' lives now might have cost them hundreds of lives later.</p></div><p>Crap like this has pissed me off since we let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora.  We should have fucking flooded that region with troops, casualties be damned, just to get that mother fucker but we blew the best opportunity we ever had to catch him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They goal has never been to have no soldiers die , because you ca n't go to war unless you are ready to lose soldiers .
The question should always be are those soldiers ' deaths being " spent " on achieving the current military goal.It 's never a question of soldiers dying , it 's a question of HOW many soldiers are dying to achieve a specific aim .
Saving tens of soldiers ' lives now might have cost them hundreds of lives later.Crap like this has pissed me off since we let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora .
We should have fucking flooded that region with troops , casualties be damned , just to get that mother fucker but we blew the best opportunity we ever had to catch him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They goal has never been to have no soldiers die, because you can't go to war unless you are ready to lose soldiers.
The question should always be are those soldiers' deaths being "spent" on achieving the current military goal.It's never a question of soldiers dying, it's a question of HOW many soldiers are dying to achieve a specific aim.
Saving tens of soldiers' lives now might have cost them hundreds of lives later.Crap like this has pissed me off since we let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora.
We should have fucking flooded that region with troops, casualties be damned, just to get that mother fucker but we blew the best opportunity we ever had to catch him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538616</id>
	<title>Dear Patriots:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269016500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you see suspicious activity, please call<br><a href="http://current.cf.huffingtonpost.com/" title="huffingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">1-800-ALQ-AEDA</a> [huffingtonpost.com]<br>Your information will be treated confidentially,</p><p>Yours In War,<br>President-VICE <a href="http://whitehouse.georgewbush.org/administration/dick.asp" title="georgewbush.org" rel="nofollow">Richard B. Cheney</a> [georgewbush.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you see suspicious activity , please call1-800-ALQ-AEDA [ huffingtonpost.com ] Your information will be treated confidentially,Yours In War,President-VICE Richard B. Cheney [ georgewbush.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you see suspicious activity, please call1-800-ALQ-AEDA [huffingtonpost.com]Your information will be treated confidentially,Yours In War,President-VICE Richard B. Cheney [georgewbush.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540948</id>
	<title>FBI, CIA, NSA, Intelligence Agencies...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269024240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a long history here that needs to be taken into consideration... This undermining of our own efforts is nothing new. This has to do with the disparate directives given to different government agencies.</p><p>It used to be that the government intelligence agencies had to protect paper documents, "eyes only", and the biggest threat were photocopiers and miniature cameras... not any more.</p><p>I wrote about this transformation many years ago.<br>From my post:</p><p>HumInt/SigInt:<br>Human Intelligence, CIA<br>Signal Intelligence, NSA</p><p>The English have been masters at the spy trade for centuries. In WWII, the United States felt that it should get into the act and turned to the English for guidance.</p><p>With their tutelage, the CIA became a formidable tool against the Soviet threat throughout the cold war. We had clearly defined enemies with clearly defined borders. Gathering intelligence became a methodical science... then, once the Soviet Union collapsed, the clearly defined enemies with clearly defined borders went with it.</p><p>The growth of the internet created an atmosphere wherein information and 'intelligence' became a commodity. Then the emergence of an enemy that is not only difficult, if not impossible, to clearly define but who also operates entirely without borders. The polar opposite from what the CIA were trained to do.</p><p>Not only has this rule-set reset turned the CIA upside-down, it has rendered it all but useless. The UK isn't doing much better either. The problem is that western society itself is at odds with the rules required to make an effective spy agency. Our open government(s), free access to information, laws against spying on citizens and so forth are what both protect our civil liberties as well as create the environment in which our enemies can plot against us.</p><p>The CIA knew about al Qaeda operators operating in the USA prior to 9/11, yet did nothing to notify the FBI. This is because of the opposing nature of each agency. The CIA finds a criminal and wants to <i>string them along</i> to see what intelligence they can uncover by monitoring them. When the FBI finds a criminal, they want to <i>string them up</i>. From the CIA perspective, the FBI sure knows how to screw up an investigation and destroy your intelligence network. (In this case, it was the DoD that took down the honeypot.)</p><p>The CIA is now dysfunctional to the point of uselessness. In fact, there isn't a single effective spy agency in the western world. The current battle we're fighting and the enemy we face is one that cannot be defeated by military might, it is a war that MUST be fought using intelligence.</p><p>So, the administration turned to the only other agency with experience in gathering and monitoring enemies. It also happens that this agency is experts at SigInt, as opposed to the HumInt. The problem is that the NSA is forbidden by law from spying on American Citizens, UNLESS they are monitoring overseas communications. This exception has always been allowed, no warrant necessary. There is no law that states that I have the constitutional right to conspire with enemies overseas.</p><p>No other nation even comes close to the SigInt capabilities of the NSA...</p><p>It is imperative that the NSA get on top of this nations information security. A staggering number of government agencies are still not even behind firewalls! There is so much bureaucratic stagnation that nothing meaningful has been done to secure this nations governmental infrastructure.</p><p>Finally, they are putting an agency in charge that actually *knows* something about security. I applaud this effort wholeheartedly.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Joel Helgeson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a long history here that needs to be taken into consideration... This undermining of our own efforts is nothing new .
This has to do with the disparate directives given to different government agencies.It used to be that the government intelligence agencies had to protect paper documents , " eyes only " , and the biggest threat were photocopiers and miniature cameras... not any more.I wrote about this transformation many years ago.From my post : HumInt/SigInt : Human Intelligence , CIASignal Intelligence , NSAThe English have been masters at the spy trade for centuries .
In WWII , the United States felt that it should get into the act and turned to the English for guidance.With their tutelage , the CIA became a formidable tool against the Soviet threat throughout the cold war .
We had clearly defined enemies with clearly defined borders .
Gathering intelligence became a methodical science... then , once the Soviet Union collapsed , the clearly defined enemies with clearly defined borders went with it.The growth of the internet created an atmosphere wherein information and 'intelligence ' became a commodity .
Then the emergence of an enemy that is not only difficult , if not impossible , to clearly define but who also operates entirely without borders .
The polar opposite from what the CIA were trained to do.Not only has this rule-set reset turned the CIA upside-down , it has rendered it all but useless .
The UK is n't doing much better either .
The problem is that western society itself is at odds with the rules required to make an effective spy agency .
Our open government ( s ) , free access to information , laws against spying on citizens and so forth are what both protect our civil liberties as well as create the environment in which our enemies can plot against us.The CIA knew about al Qaeda operators operating in the USA prior to 9/11 , yet did nothing to notify the FBI .
This is because of the opposing nature of each agency .
The CIA finds a criminal and wants to string them along to see what intelligence they can uncover by monitoring them .
When the FBI finds a criminal , they want to string them up .
From the CIA perspective , the FBI sure knows how to screw up an investigation and destroy your intelligence network .
( In this case , it was the DoD that took down the honeypot .
) The CIA is now dysfunctional to the point of uselessness .
In fact , there is n't a single effective spy agency in the western world .
The current battle we 're fighting and the enemy we face is one that can not be defeated by military might , it is a war that MUST be fought using intelligence.So , the administration turned to the only other agency with experience in gathering and monitoring enemies .
It also happens that this agency is experts at SigInt , as opposed to the HumInt .
The problem is that the NSA is forbidden by law from spying on American Citizens , UNLESS they are monitoring overseas communications .
This exception has always been allowed , no warrant necessary .
There is no law that states that I have the constitutional right to conspire with enemies overseas.No other nation even comes close to the SigInt capabilities of the NSA...It is imperative that the NSA get on top of this nations information security .
A staggering number of government agencies are still not even behind firewalls !
There is so much bureaucratic stagnation that nothing meaningful has been done to secure this nations governmental infrastructure.Finally , they are putting an agency in charge that actually * knows * something about security .
I applaud this effort wholeheartedly.Regards,Joel Helgeson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a long history here that needs to be taken into consideration... This undermining of our own efforts is nothing new.
This has to do with the disparate directives given to different government agencies.It used to be that the government intelligence agencies had to protect paper documents, "eyes only", and the biggest threat were photocopiers and miniature cameras... not any more.I wrote about this transformation many years ago.From my post:HumInt/SigInt:Human Intelligence, CIASignal Intelligence, NSAThe English have been masters at the spy trade for centuries.
In WWII, the United States felt that it should get into the act and turned to the English for guidance.With their tutelage, the CIA became a formidable tool against the Soviet threat throughout the cold war.
We had clearly defined enemies with clearly defined borders.
Gathering intelligence became a methodical science... then, once the Soviet Union collapsed, the clearly defined enemies with clearly defined borders went with it.The growth of the internet created an atmosphere wherein information and 'intelligence' became a commodity.
Then the emergence of an enemy that is not only difficult, if not impossible, to clearly define but who also operates entirely without borders.
The polar opposite from what the CIA were trained to do.Not only has this rule-set reset turned the CIA upside-down, it has rendered it all but useless.
The UK isn't doing much better either.
The problem is that western society itself is at odds with the rules required to make an effective spy agency.
Our open government(s), free access to information, laws against spying on citizens and so forth are what both protect our civil liberties as well as create the environment in which our enemies can plot against us.The CIA knew about al Qaeda operators operating in the USA prior to 9/11, yet did nothing to notify the FBI.
This is because of the opposing nature of each agency.
The CIA finds a criminal and wants to string them along to see what intelligence they can uncover by monitoring them.
When the FBI finds a criminal, they want to string them up.
From the CIA perspective, the FBI sure knows how to screw up an investigation and destroy your intelligence network.
(In this case, it was the DoD that took down the honeypot.
)The CIA is now dysfunctional to the point of uselessness.
In fact, there isn't a single effective spy agency in the western world.
The current battle we're fighting and the enemy we face is one that cannot be defeated by military might, it is a war that MUST be fought using intelligence.So, the administration turned to the only other agency with experience in gathering and monitoring enemies.
It also happens that this agency is experts at SigInt, as opposed to the HumInt.
The problem is that the NSA is forbidden by law from spying on American Citizens, UNLESS they are monitoring overseas communications.
This exception has always been allowed, no warrant necessary.
There is no law that states that I have the constitutional right to conspire with enemies overseas.No other nation even comes close to the SigInt capabilities of the NSA...It is imperative that the NSA get on top of this nations information security.
A staggering number of government agencies are still not even behind firewalls!
There is so much bureaucratic stagnation that nothing meaningful has been done to secure this nations governmental infrastructure.Finally, they are putting an agency in charge that actually *knows* something about security.
I applaud this effort wholeheartedly.Regards,Joel Helgeson</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539032</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1269017700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And totally missing from your argument is that the site is a CIA site, they're, like, civilian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And totally missing from your argument is that the site is a CIA site , they 're , like , civilian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And totally missing from your argument is that the site is a CIA site, they're, like, civilian.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537936</id>
	<title>Go Cyberwar!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can have snacks, live TV coverage and perhaps even some interactive challenges, all from the comfort of our homes while the contestants battle it out in a cyberwar tournament! It's gonna be great!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can have snacks , live TV coverage and perhaps even some interactive challenges , all from the comfort of our homes while the contestants battle it out in a cyberwar tournament !
It 's gon na be great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can have snacks, live TV coverage and perhaps even some interactive challenges, all from the comfort of our homes while the contestants battle it out in a cyberwar tournament!
It's gonna be great!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539226</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269018240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there is always trade-off between security and intelligence. The enemy constantly probes for leaks by mounting threats to your forces. Sometimes it is worth taking the hit, to score big, sometimes it isn't. This particular enemy is problematic because they have quite shallow and wide organizational structure, so most of the times your nets catch only small fry. Obviously, big fry are radical high clerics, but they are off limits, you can't touch them or all hell breaks loose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is always trade-off between security and intelligence .
The enemy constantly probes for leaks by mounting threats to your forces .
Sometimes it is worth taking the hit , to score big , sometimes it is n't .
This particular enemy is problematic because they have quite shallow and wide organizational structure , so most of the times your nets catch only small fry .
Obviously , big fry are radical high clerics , but they are off limits , you ca n't touch them or all hell breaks loose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there is always trade-off between security and intelligence.
The enemy constantly probes for leaks by mounting threats to your forces.
Sometimes it is worth taking the hit, to score big, sometimes it isn't.
This particular enemy is problematic because they have quite shallow and wide organizational structure, so most of the times your nets catch only small fry.
Obviously, big fry are radical high clerics, but they are off limits, you can't touch them or all hell breaks loose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540218</id>
	<title>Re:DHS</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1269021480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>think John Casey in Chuck, that character is NSA, along with DIA and national Geospatial Mapping Agency</p></div><p>That character is not real, or realistic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>think John Casey in Chuck , that character is NSA , along with DIA and national Geospatial Mapping AgencyThat character is not real , or realistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>think John Casey in Chuck, that character is NSA, along with DIA and national Geospatial Mapping AgencyThat character is not real, or realistic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539262</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1269018360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem here is they are trying to replace a word ('hackers') that already has plenty of mainstream traction with one that sounds patently retarded.  I mean seriously, shit like "cyberwarriors"?  "cyber" brings to mind a coked out science fiction genre, and "warriors" implies they are doing something a tad more strenuous than sitting at a damned keyboard.  How anyone takes this stuff seriously is beyond me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is they are trying to replace a word ( 'hackers ' ) that already has plenty of mainstream traction with one that sounds patently retarded .
I mean seriously , shit like " cyberwarriors " ?
" cyber " brings to mind a coked out science fiction genre , and " warriors " implies they are doing something a tad more strenuous than sitting at a damned keyboard .
How anyone takes this stuff seriously is beyond me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is they are trying to replace a word ('hackers') that already has plenty of mainstream traction with one that sounds patently retarded.
I mean seriously, shit like "cyberwarriors"?
"cyber" brings to mind a coked out science fiction genre, and "warriors" implies they are doing something a tad more strenuous than sitting at a damned keyboard.
How anyone takes this stuff seriously is beyond me...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31567418</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>OldHawk777</author>
	<datestamp>1269270300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intelligence agencies leaders all came from a small ruling class, who were closely tied together by bonds of shared educational experiences, family ties, and even homosexual liaisons (US, EU, and RURU).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intelligence agencies leaders all came from a small ruling class , who were closely tied together by bonds of shared educational experiences , family ties , and even homosexual liaisons ( US , EU , and RURU ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intelligence agencies leaders all came from a small ruling class, who were closely tied together by bonds of shared educational experiences, family ties, and even homosexual liaisons (US, EU, and RURU).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31544060</id>
	<title>Re:DHS</title>
	<author>Earthquake Retrofit</author>
	<datestamp>1268994240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fatherland, I mean Homeland Security was sold as a clearinghouse for intelligence and to avoid inter-agency disputes. They've spent a lot of money, a huge new government department. It's important, really important, so important that the Senate put Joe Lieberman in charge of oversight... oh wait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fatherland , I mean Homeland Security was sold as a clearinghouse for intelligence and to avoid inter-agency disputes .
They 've spent a lot of money , a huge new government department .
It 's important , really important , so important that the Senate put Joe Lieberman in charge of oversight... oh wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fatherland, I mean Homeland Security was sold as a clearinghouse for intelligence and to avoid inter-agency disputes.
They've spent a lot of money, a huge new government department.
It's important, really important, so important that the Senate put Joe Lieberman in charge of oversight... oh wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541484</id>
	<title>Given the history of the CIA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269026400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably saved American lives to shut this down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably saved American lives to shut this down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably saved American lives to shut this down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538912</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269017280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Army, of course.</p><p>The Marines are looking for a few good men.<br>The Navy is an adventure.<br>Those who don't make the cut, just be all that they can be, in the Army.</p><p>No mention of the CIA in any recruiting posters I've seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Army , of course.The Marines are looking for a few good men.The Navy is an adventure.Those who do n't make the cut , just be all that they can be , in the Army.No mention of the CIA in any recruiting posters I 've seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Army, of course.The Marines are looking for a few good men.The Navy is an adventure.Those who don't make the cut, just be all that they can be, in the Army.No mention of the CIA in any recruiting posters I've seen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538648</id>
	<title>big egos, small brains</title>
	<author>happyjack27</author>
	<datestamp>1269016560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>rule #1: don't be a dick.  what isn't yours isn't yours.  it's none of your business. so shut up.

rule #2: use common sense.  and if you don't have any, then your best bet is probably just to be completely passive.

both rules were egregiously broken here.  and by who?  military.  surprise, surprise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>rule # 1 : do n't be a dick .
what is n't yours is n't yours .
it 's none of your business .
so shut up .
rule # 2 : use common sense .
and if you do n't have any , then your best bet is probably just to be completely passive .
both rules were egregiously broken here .
and by who ?
military. surprise , surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rule #1: don't be a dick.
what isn't yours isn't yours.
it's none of your business.
so shut up.
rule #2: use common sense.
and if you don't have any, then your best bet is probably just to be completely passive.
both rules were egregiously broken here.
and by who?
military.  surprise, surprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31546552</id>
	<title>And the CIA thought the threat was China</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1269010200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't spell China without "Ha!" This is the Fort Sumter of cyberwar. It's the beginning of the Cyberwar Between The Agencies (or the Civil Cyberwar for you Yanks).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^P</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't spell China without " Ha !
" This is the Fort Sumter of cyberwar .
It 's the beginning of the Cyberwar Between The Agencies ( or the Civil Cyberwar for you Yanks ) .
: ^ P--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't spell China without "Ha!
" This is the Fort Sumter of cyberwar.
It's the beginning of the Cyberwar Between The Agencies (or the Civil Cyberwar for you Yanks).
:^P--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538842</id>
	<title>Re:There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1269017040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>US military computer specialists, over the objections of the CIA, mounted a cyberattack that dismantled an online 'honey pot' monitored by US and Saudi intelligence agencies to identify extremists before they could strike, after military commanders said that the site was putting Americans at risk.</p></div><p>Reading between the lines, someone in the military had a brilliant idea on how to find people liable to be extremists. "Lets make our own extremist site", they said. "Just to make sure we get them all we'll make it really fan the flames of Jihad, and tell Muslims why they should join in". What happens. A few people who would be terrorists come a long<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fine. A large number of moderates come along and leave comments like "you're a disgrace to Islam" and move on.. fine. But a sizeable number of Muslims who are not extremists hit the site and become radicalised by it. Some continue to use the site, but some inevitably find other "real" sites.</p><p>Someone does an analysis and says "Look, the number of people being radicalised by us who we lose track of is now larger than the number of people who are already radical who come along and get tracked". The military intelligence guys say "what do you mean doing no good, we have dozens of people here talking about extremist acts, and we only lose track of a quarter of them!", totally missing the point that they now have a dozen untracked extremists, and three dozen who are currently tracked whereas without the site they would have had half a dozen untracked ones!</p></div><p>What impressive baseless speculation!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>US military computer specialists , over the objections of the CIA , mounted a cyberattack that dismantled an online 'honey pot ' monitored by US and Saudi intelligence agencies to identify extremists before they could strike , after military commanders said that the site was putting Americans at risk.Reading between the lines , someone in the military had a brilliant idea on how to find people liable to be extremists .
" Lets make our own extremist site " , they said .
" Just to make sure we get them all we 'll make it really fan the flames of Jihad , and tell Muslims why they should join in " .
What happens .
A few people who would be terrorists come a long ... fine. A large number of moderates come along and leave comments like " you 're a disgrace to Islam " and move on.. fine. But a sizeable number of Muslims who are not extremists hit the site and become radicalised by it .
Some continue to use the site , but some inevitably find other " real " sites.Someone does an analysis and says " Look , the number of people being radicalised by us who we lose track of is now larger than the number of people who are already radical who come along and get tracked " .
The military intelligence guys say " what do you mean doing no good , we have dozens of people here talking about extremist acts , and we only lose track of a quarter of them !
" , totally missing the point that they now have a dozen untracked extremists , and three dozen who are currently tracked whereas without the site they would have had half a dozen untracked ones ! What impressive baseless speculation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US military computer specialists, over the objections of the CIA, mounted a cyberattack that dismantled an online 'honey pot' monitored by US and Saudi intelligence agencies to identify extremists before they could strike, after military commanders said that the site was putting Americans at risk.Reading between the lines, someone in the military had a brilliant idea on how to find people liable to be extremists.
"Lets make our own extremist site", they said.
"Just to make sure we get them all we'll make it really fan the flames of Jihad, and tell Muslims why they should join in".
What happens.
A few people who would be terrorists come a long ... fine. A large number of moderates come along and leave comments like "you're a disgrace to Islam" and move on.. fine. But a sizeable number of Muslims who are not extremists hit the site and become radicalised by it.
Some continue to use the site, but some inevitably find other "real" sites.Someone does an analysis and says "Look, the number of people being radicalised by us who we lose track of is now larger than the number of people who are already radical who come along and get tracked".
The military intelligence guys say "what do you mean doing no good, we have dozens of people here talking about extremist acts, and we only lose track of a quarter of them!
", totally missing the point that they now have a dozen untracked extremists, and three dozen who are currently tracked whereas without the site they would have had half a dozen untracked ones!What impressive baseless speculation!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342</id>
	<title>There's military intelligence for you</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1269015720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>US military computer specialists, over the objections of the CIA, mounted a cyberattack that dismantled an online 'honey pot' monitored by US and Saudi intelligence agencies to identify extremists before they could strike, after military commanders said that the site was putting Americans at risk.</p></div><p>Reading between the lines, someone in the military had a brilliant idea on how to find people liable to be extremists. "Lets make our own extremist site", they said. "Just to make sure we get them all we'll make it really fan the flames of Jihad, and tell Muslims why they should join in". What happens. A few people who would be terrorists come a long<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fine. A large number of moderates come along and leave comments like "you're a disgrace to Islam" and move on.. fine. But a sizeable number of Muslims who are not extremists hit the site and become radicalised by it. Some continue to use the site, but some inevitably find other "real" sites.

Someone does an analysis and says "Look, the number of people being radicalised by us who we lose track of is now larger than the number of people who are already radical who come along and get tracked". The military intelligence guys say "what do you mean doing no good, we have dozens of people here talking about extremist acts, and we only lose track of a quarter of them!", totally missing the point that they now have a dozen untracked extremists, and three dozen who are currently tracked whereas without the site they would have had half a dozen untracked ones!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>US military computer specialists , over the objections of the CIA , mounted a cyberattack that dismantled an online 'honey pot ' monitored by US and Saudi intelligence agencies to identify extremists before they could strike , after military commanders said that the site was putting Americans at risk.Reading between the lines , someone in the military had a brilliant idea on how to find people liable to be extremists .
" Lets make our own extremist site " , they said .
" Just to make sure we get them all we 'll make it really fan the flames of Jihad , and tell Muslims why they should join in " .
What happens .
A few people who would be terrorists come a long ... fine. A large number of moderates come along and leave comments like " you 're a disgrace to Islam " and move on.. fine. But a sizeable number of Muslims who are not extremists hit the site and become radicalised by it .
Some continue to use the site , but some inevitably find other " real " sites .
Someone does an analysis and says " Look , the number of people being radicalised by us who we lose track of is now larger than the number of people who are already radical who come along and get tracked " .
The military intelligence guys say " what do you mean doing no good , we have dozens of people here talking about extremist acts , and we only lose track of a quarter of them !
" , totally missing the point that they now have a dozen untracked extremists , and three dozen who are currently tracked whereas without the site they would have had half a dozen untracked ones !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US military computer specialists, over the objections of the CIA, mounted a cyberattack that dismantled an online 'honey pot' monitored by US and Saudi intelligence agencies to identify extremists before they could strike, after military commanders said that the site was putting Americans at risk.Reading between the lines, someone in the military had a brilliant idea on how to find people liable to be extremists.
"Lets make our own extremist site", they said.
"Just to make sure we get them all we'll make it really fan the flames of Jihad, and tell Muslims why they should join in".
What happens.
A few people who would be terrorists come a long ... fine. A large number of moderates come along and leave comments like "you're a disgrace to Islam" and move on.. fine. But a sizeable number of Muslims who are not extremists hit the site and become radicalised by it.
Some continue to use the site, but some inevitably find other "real" sites.
Someone does an analysis and says "Look, the number of people being radicalised by us who we lose track of is now larger than the number of people who are already radical who come along and get tracked".
The military intelligence guys say "what do you mean doing no good, we have dozens of people here talking about extremist acts, and we only lose track of a quarter of them!
", totally missing the point that they now have a dozen untracked extremists, and three dozen who are currently tracked whereas without the site they would have had half a dozen untracked ones!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539760</id>
	<title>White House MIA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269020100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The DoD and the CIA are both Executive Branch...  O.o  Why didn't this get handled via the chain of command to the White House?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DoD and the CIA are both Executive Branch... O.o Why did n't this get handled via the chain of command to the White House ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DoD and the CIA are both Executive Branch...  O.o  Why didn't this get handled via the chain of command to the White House?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31544250</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1268995020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Isn't that the reason we have one person who is the head of the entire executive branch?</p></div></blockquote><p>Its also the problem within the intelligence community specifically that designating the Director of Central Intelligennce as the single head of the intelligence community in, IIRC, 1948 was supposed to address.</p><p>Its also the problem within the intelligence community that moving that responsibility out of the office of the DCI (who is also the head of the CIA, and thus was thought to be in danger of being parochially tied to that particular agency) into the new Director of National Intelligence a few years ago was supposed to address.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that the reason we have one person who is the head of the entire executive branch ? Its also the problem within the intelligence community specifically that designating the Director of Central Intelligennce as the single head of the intelligence community in , IIRC , 1948 was supposed to address.Its also the problem within the intelligence community that moving that responsibility out of the office of the DCI ( who is also the head of the CIA , and thus was thought to be in danger of being parochially tied to that particular agency ) into the new Director of National Intelligence a few years ago was supposed to address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that the reason we have one person who is the head of the entire executive branch?Its also the problem within the intelligence community specifically that designating the Director of Central Intelligennce as the single head of the intelligence community in, IIRC, 1948 was supposed to address.Its also the problem within the intelligence community that moving that responsibility out of the office of the DCI (who is also the head of the CIA, and thus was thought to be in danger of being parochially tied to that particular agency) into the new Director of National Intelligence a few years ago was supposed to address.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541994</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>guyfawkes-11-5</author>
	<datestamp>1269028620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sadly this is history repeating itself. In WWII German intelligence efforts were grossly ineffective primarily due to the infighting between the SS, Gestapo and the military  intelligence agencies. Great Britain's intelligence work on the other hand was extremely effective, for example every single German agent in the UK was either executed or turned. The terrific achievements of British intelligence were largely due to the fact that the intelligence agencies leaders all came from a small ruling class who were closely tied together by bonds of shared educational experiences, family ties and perhaps even homosexual liaisons.
Now the US is big country and our intelligence leaders come from a variety of backgrounds so the British approach can never work here. What we need is strong DOD leadership so that the incessant rivalries between the CIA, FBI, NSA and military intelligence agencies are at least made less harmful I am not optimistic however.</p></div><p>I think the terrific achievements of British Intelligence were more of a "By jove, if we don't do this right, the german horde is going to march into London"  rather than the fappish dalliances of the ruling class, who squeezed in intelligence gathering between tea and cricket.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly this is history repeating itself .
In WWII German intelligence efforts were grossly ineffective primarily due to the infighting between the SS , Gestapo and the military intelligence agencies .
Great Britain 's intelligence work on the other hand was extremely effective , for example every single German agent in the UK was either executed or turned .
The terrific achievements of British intelligence were largely due to the fact that the intelligence agencies leaders all came from a small ruling class who were closely tied together by bonds of shared educational experiences , family ties and perhaps even homosexual liaisons .
Now the US is big country and our intelligence leaders come from a variety of backgrounds so the British approach can never work here .
What we need is strong DOD leadership so that the incessant rivalries between the CIA , FBI , NSA and military intelligence agencies are at least made less harmful I am not optimistic however.I think the terrific achievements of British Intelligence were more of a " By jove , if we do n't do this right , the german horde is going to march into London " rather than the fappish dalliances of the ruling class , who squeezed in intelligence gathering between tea and cricket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly this is history repeating itself.
In WWII German intelligence efforts were grossly ineffective primarily due to the infighting between the SS, Gestapo and the military  intelligence agencies.
Great Britain's intelligence work on the other hand was extremely effective, for example every single German agent in the UK was either executed or turned.
The terrific achievements of British intelligence were largely due to the fact that the intelligence agencies leaders all came from a small ruling class who were closely tied together by bonds of shared educational experiences, family ties and perhaps even homosexual liaisons.
Now the US is big country and our intelligence leaders come from a variety of backgrounds so the British approach can never work here.
What we need is strong DOD leadership so that the incessant rivalries between the CIA, FBI, NSA and military intelligence agencies are at least made less harmful I am not optimistic however.I think the terrific achievements of British Intelligence were more of a "By jove, if we don't do this right, the german horde is going to march into London"  rather than the fappish dalliances of the ruling class, who squeezed in intelligence gathering between tea and cricket.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31547100</id>
	<title>Re:FBI, CIA, NSA, Intelligence Agencies...</title>
	<author>Darkman, Walkin Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1269016260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The English have been masters at the spy trade for centuries.</p></div><p>Heh, fewer Bond movies methinks. The Irish, under Michael Collins, infiltrated English intelligence operations so thoroughly in the 1920s that they were able to eliminate all of their bagmen in a single morning's work. To quote Collins, "how did these people ever get an Empire". They were eventually reduced to hiring mercenaries to terrorise old ladies on farms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The English have been masters at the spy trade for centuries.Heh , fewer Bond movies methinks .
The Irish , under Michael Collins , infiltrated English intelligence operations so thoroughly in the 1920s that they were able to eliminate all of their bagmen in a single morning 's work .
To quote Collins , " how did these people ever get an Empire " .
They were eventually reduced to hiring mercenaries to terrorise old ladies on farms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The English have been masters at the spy trade for centuries.Heh, fewer Bond movies methinks.
The Irish, under Michael Collins, infiltrated English intelligence operations so thoroughly in the 1920s that they were able to eliminate all of their bagmen in a single morning's work.
To quote Collins, "how did these people ever get an Empire".
They were eventually reduced to hiring mercenaries to terrorise old ladies on farms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539078</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269017880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly this is history repeating itself. In WWII German intelligence efforts were grossly ineffective primarily due to the infighting between the SS, Gestapo and the military  intelligence agencies. Great Britain's intelligence work on the other hand was extremely effective, for example every single German agent in the UK was either executed or turned. The terrific achievements of British intelligence were largely due to the fact that the intelligence agencies leaders all came from a small ruling class who were closely tied together by bonds of shared educational experiences, family ties and perhaps even homosexual liaisons.<br>Now the US is big country and our intelligence leaders come from a variety of backgrounds so the British approach can never work here. What we need is strong DOD leadership so that the incessant rivalries between the CIA, FBI, NSA and military intelligence agencies are at least made less harmful I am not optimistic however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly this is history repeating itself .
In WWII German intelligence efforts were grossly ineffective primarily due to the infighting between the SS , Gestapo and the military intelligence agencies .
Great Britain 's intelligence work on the other hand was extremely effective , for example every single German agent in the UK was either executed or turned .
The terrific achievements of British intelligence were largely due to the fact that the intelligence agencies leaders all came from a small ruling class who were closely tied together by bonds of shared educational experiences , family ties and perhaps even homosexual liaisons.Now the US is big country and our intelligence leaders come from a variety of backgrounds so the British approach can never work here .
What we need is strong DOD leadership so that the incessant rivalries between the CIA , FBI , NSA and military intelligence agencies are at least made less harmful I am not optimistic however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly this is history repeating itself.
In WWII German intelligence efforts were grossly ineffective primarily due to the infighting between the SS, Gestapo and the military  intelligence agencies.
Great Britain's intelligence work on the other hand was extremely effective, for example every single German agent in the UK was either executed or turned.
The terrific achievements of British intelligence were largely due to the fact that the intelligence agencies leaders all came from a small ruling class who were closely tied together by bonds of shared educational experiences, family ties and perhaps even homosexual liaisons.Now the US is big country and our intelligence leaders come from a variety of backgrounds so the British approach can never work here.
What we need is strong DOD leadership so that the incessant rivalries between the CIA, FBI, NSA and military intelligence agencies are at least made less harmful I am not optimistic however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537958</id>
	<title>DHS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought DHS was created for a purpose of streamlining the defense to avoid this kind of crap between different agencies. Don't they have some kind of procedure regulating clashing interdepartmental opinions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought DHS was created for a purpose of streamlining the defense to avoid this kind of crap between different agencies .
Do n't they have some kind of procedure regulating clashing interdepartmental opinions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought DHS was created for a purpose of streamlining the defense to avoid this kind of crap between different agencies.
Don't they have some kind of procedure regulating clashing interdepartmental opinions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541610</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>Keebler71</author>
	<datestamp>1269026940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems perfectly cromulent to me..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems perfectly cromulent to me. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems perfectly cromulent to me..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537934</id>
	<title>Did I read this right?</title>
	<author>Mitchell314</author>
	<datestamp>1269014820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US military mounted a cyberattack against the CIA? (disclaimer: did not read TFA) <br>
<br>
At least they weren't desperate enough to resort to sending a DMCA take down notice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US military mounted a cyberattack against the CIA ?
( disclaimer : did not read TFA ) At least they were n't desperate enough to resort to sending a DMCA take down notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US military mounted a cyberattack against the CIA?
(disclaimer: did not read TFA) 

At least they weren't desperate enough to resort to sending a DMCA take down notice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541848</id>
	<title>And you want them managing your healthcare?</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1269027900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enough said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enough said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enough said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539748</id>
	<title>Jeeze, use your common sense</title>
	<author>fnj</author>
	<datestamp>1269020040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all the collective intellect of slashdot users, hasn't it even occurred to a single one of you geniuses that maybe, just maybe, this news is a bit of disinformation that has been spread deliberately to obscure some kind of real reorganization/shakeup that is taking place?  Huh?  I doubt in the extreme that the DOD has gone to war with the CIA, or that they are this blatantly making like the Keystone Kops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all the collective intellect of slashdot users , has n't it even occurred to a single one of you geniuses that maybe , just maybe , this news is a bit of disinformation that has been spread deliberately to obscure some kind of real reorganization/shakeup that is taking place ?
Huh ? I doubt in the extreme that the DOD has gone to war with the CIA , or that they are this blatantly making like the Keystone Kops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all the collective intellect of slashdot users, hasn't it even occurred to a single one of you geniuses that maybe, just maybe, this news is a bit of disinformation that has been spread deliberately to obscure some kind of real reorganization/shakeup that is taking place?
Huh?  I doubt in the extreme that the DOD has gone to war with the CIA, or that they are this blatantly making like the Keystone Kops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31544292</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1268995260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What we need is strong DOD leadership so that the incessant rivalries between the CIA, FBI, NSA and military intelligence agencies are at least made less harmful I am not optimistic however.</p></div></blockquote><p>How does strong DoD leadership play into that when DoD doesn't even notionally have authority out of anything other than the military intelligence agencies (including the NSA.) Prior to the recent creation of the post of Director of National Intelligence, the designated head of the intelligence community was the Director of Central Intelligence, now its the DNI, and neither of those are within DoD.</p><p>If you are arguing that moving the intelligence community under the authority of the Department of Defense would improve things, well, that's an argument that probably needs to be developed more before it could be convincing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need is strong DOD leadership so that the incessant rivalries between the CIA , FBI , NSA and military intelligence agencies are at least made less harmful I am not optimistic however.How does strong DoD leadership play into that when DoD does n't even notionally have authority out of anything other than the military intelligence agencies ( including the NSA .
) Prior to the recent creation of the post of Director of National Intelligence , the designated head of the intelligence community was the Director of Central Intelligence , now its the DNI , and neither of those are within DoD.If you are arguing that moving the intelligence community under the authority of the Department of Defense would improve things , well , that 's an argument that probably needs to be developed more before it could be convincing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need is strong DOD leadership so that the incessant rivalries between the CIA, FBI, NSA and military intelligence agencies are at least made less harmful I am not optimistic however.How does strong DoD leadership play into that when DoD doesn't even notionally have authority out of anything other than the military intelligence agencies (including the NSA.
) Prior to the recent creation of the post of Director of National Intelligence, the designated head of the intelligence community was the Director of Central Intelligence, now its the DNI, and neither of those are within DoD.If you are arguing that moving the intelligence community under the authority of the Department of Defense would improve things, well, that's an argument that probably needs to be developed more before it could be convincing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539078</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31546978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31544060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31544360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31567418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31544250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31547284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31546344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31554790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31552462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31544292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1321249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31547100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31547100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538678
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31544360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31544060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31546978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31537932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540570
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31544250
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31554790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538912
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31547284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541994
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31567418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31544292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31543184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31552462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31542078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538776
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541374
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540710
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31546344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31538330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1321249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31539902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31541666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1321249.31540440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
