So should we consider the NSA a terrorism-aiding organization?

edit: the tone is lost via internet; my own opinion on this: yes, it is.

> So should we considered the NSA a terrorism-aiding organization

This statement needs the "we" defined to be meaningful.

If it is the U.S., then obviously no, the NSA is an arm of the state. If "we"` is e.g. China, probably no, because words have meanings and the arms of recognized foreign states don't conduct terrorism, they do espionage and they do war. If "we" is a freshman dorm room, then, of course, the NSA is a terrorist organization alongside the student government.

> > So should we considered the NSA a terrorism-aiding organization

> If it is the U.S., then obviously no, the NSA is an arm of the state.

Its perhaps worth noting that “terrorism” originally exclusively denoted action by the State against its own subjects, though it was within a few years expanded to include other activities.

> “terrorism” originally exclusively denoted action by the State against its own subjects

Correct, in the French Revolution, I believe. There are a variety of definitions of terrorism. The common elements seem to be the (a) peacetime use (b) of violence (c) against non-combatants (d) as a political tool. There also seems to be an unspoken requirement that it occurred after the formation of modern states (otherwise almost all of the preceding human history was terrorism and the word gets normalized); the French Revolution is a useful line.

The NSA targets non-combatants (c) in peacetime (a). It does not use violence (b), though it does enable it (⅓b). It does not do so for domestic political aims (to any proven degree); the degree to which it does so abroad depends on where one draws the line between politics and geopolitics. (The CIA, in contrast, engages in all four overseas.)

When an organization that has done terrorism becomes a terrorist organization is another question.

Okay that settles it, the word terrorism has so many conflicting and overlapping contexts that it is useless

> If it is the U.S., then obviously no, the NSA is an arm of the state.

Some here in the states don't exactly feel like the people running the USG have the people's best interests at heart. Common folk across countries probably have more in common with each other than with the ruling elite.

State-sponsored terrorism is a thing - and has been for a LONG time. And US citizens are targets as well as non-citizens.

It requires indoctrination to believe the US as an aggregate sovereign brand functions with the interest of US people in mind.

Nothing about US foreign policy suggests that. Very little about the Federal government’s domestic policy does.

Said indoctrination is baked into school, movies, sports events, and every fiber of the country's dialog.

Some will never leave the Matrix.

Is this supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"? Both are despicable.

Exactly, lol. Not sure if the GP comment is trying to imply some sort of good comes out of the NSA.

There comes good out of the NSA, at least good for the US like stealing IP and patents for American companies [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial...

Ummm, stopping terror attacks is pretty good.

There is a community on reddit called "self-aware wolves" that narrowly identifies a much broader phenomenon: there are many elements of modern society which are generally tolerated but not morally permissible. This is a representative instance.

Yes, we should

Yes. We should.

Does terrorizing citizens through illegal spying and mass surveillance constitute terrorism? Or does only setting off bombs in public spaces count?

There would need to be some actual violence involved to constitute terrorism. If you spy on some journalist and then us that info to catch him and cut him in pieces while he's still alive, then the dismemberment may be considered terrorism and the spying was aiding that terrorism; if you spy on many people and the end result is just that some officers laugh about their naked photos or deny them jobs or disallow crossing borders, then that's just "ordinary" mass surveillance with no relationship to terrorism.

Once you too have had the misfortune of a bomb going off near your family, you will know the answer.

The NSA does not illegally spy. Congress has given them large authorizations to collect data and they need FISA approval before tapping Americans. 99.9% of the good work that NSA does will never be seen by the public.

How quickly we forget the massive warrantless wiretapping that occurred under the umbrella of the patriot act.

Terrorism aiding, they said.

1. There are many, many more Western countries other than the US.

2. Even if they develop their own tools and research their exploits, using NSO provides a layer of plausible deniability and hiding behind someone else's fingerprint (think about the command and control servers, for example).

3. Even if they develop their own stuff, most governments have multiple arms which can use these tools (think about FBI, CIA, NSA, various military intelligence branches), and they tend not to share between them. This makes smaller government branches which don't have the resources and expertise of the others (think DEA, ATF...) buy from 3rd parties.

4. Zero days are a scarce resource, if I ran an agency I'd rather use someone else's every day and keep my own just for the special stuff.

In summary, it's exceedingly appealing for bodies like the Dutch police to use NSO tools and NSO's association with the Saudis and other provides a convenient masking to their operations.