Imagine you have a radar threat detection system. It's meant to pick up on threats long before they become a problem, much like how regular radar systems see missiles, planes and ships.

Except it fails every single time. Instead of spotting the threat, the threat detection system lets every single one slide by, without fail. It is 0% effective.

How long would it take you to improve or replace this system?

I propose that the phrase "he was on our radar" serves no purpose but to give the masses the impression the government is more all-seeing / all-knowing than it actually is.

We were totally watching this guy just like we are totally watching you 😉

Imagine having an actual radar threat detection system on an air base and it fails every time. How long would you keep this system in place?

"Sir, the missile hit us and killed all these service members and blew up all these planes, but it was on our radar!"

I believe people are finally starting to see how much of a bluff this phrase is, and that the government is just using it to put on airs. It's been so overused it means functionally nothing. People are even memeing it left and right whenever it slides through the media.

Whenever you hear this phrase, you may as well conclude the government did NOT have this person on their radar, so you can study how this person stayed off their actual radar and was able to do what they did.

Posted by Silver-Honkler

1 Comment

  1. skeptical_spice on

    The other component is that the FBI goads some poor smuck into doing terrorism, when they wouldn’t have the know-how or the ability to do anything.

    It’s to justify their surveillance because they need to know *just a bit* more to really stop threats.

    Not sure we want a minority report situation.

Leave A Reply