Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The truth is that the religious Zealots amongst the Islaamic population are/were as marginalized as ours were, until we gave them legitimacy by overreacting to their actions.

Oh, I must have been wrong them. Ayatollah Kohmeini didn't topple the Shah with overwhelming popular support. The Taliban didn't take hold of Afghanistan with weapons the US had given them. Thanks for enlightening me about religious zealots.

Islaamic terrorism has a zero percent chance of seriously harming the US. THey have no military capacity to do so.

Cycloptichorn

None of those attacks hurt the US seriously. None of them had the potential to harm the Sovreignity of the US in the slightest or do more than short-term damage to our people or economy, and certainly didn't even dent us militarily.

You all have a twisted view of the strength of the US. You see us as weak, poor, scared little country that trembles with fear every time someone knocks us one in the face.

Cycloptichorn

I see the US as a country that was afraid,until Bush was elected,to use its power and military might to hit back at anyone and everyone that attacks us.

Quote:

I see the US as a country that was afraid,until Bush was elected,to use its power and military might to hit back at anyone and everyone that attacks us.

And some who didn't attack us at all, like Iraq.

Why is it that Republicans continually harp on how afraid voters should be of terrorists, if they don't think America is a weak country which could be conquered by terrorism?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I see the US as a country that was afraid,until Bush was elected,to use its power and military might to hit back at anyone and everyone that attacks us.

And some who didn't attack us at all, like Iraq.

Why is it that Republicans continually harp on how afraid voters should be of terrorists, if they don't think America is a weak country which could be conquered by terrorism?

Cycloptichorn

I dont know,you need to ask the Republicans that.
I'm not a repub,so I am not qualified to speak for them.

But,being cautious of them isnt the same as fearing them.

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I see the US as a country that was afraid,until Bush was elected,to use its power and military might to hit back at anyone and everyone that attacks us.

And some who didn't attack us at all, like Iraq.

Why is it that Republicans continually harp on how afraid voters should be of terrorists, if they don't think America is a weak country which could be conquered by terrorism?

Cycloptichorn

I dont know,you need to ask the Republicans that.
I'm not a repub,so I am not qualified to speak for them.

But,being cautious of them isnt the same as fearing them.

I agree. One would think that someone who is cautious, would do something to defend themselves from attack. We haven't done much of anything to defend ourselves from attack.

Cycloptichorn

I notice, mysteryman, that you didn't respond to Cycloptichorn's first point: "None of those attacks hurt the US seriously. None of them had the potential to harm the Sovreignity of the US in the slightest or do more than short-term damage to our people or economy, and certainly didn't even dent us militarily." Cycloptichorn is correct: New York alone loses about as many lives in traffic accidents every year as it lost on September 11th. Terrorism is a trivial threat to Americans compared to boring killers such as traffic, overweight, guns, and swimming pools.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I see the US as a country that was afraid,until Bush was elected,to use its power and military might to hit back at anyone and everyone that attacks us.

And some who didn't attack us at all, like Iraq.

Why is it that Republicans continually harp on how afraid voters should be of terrorists, if they don't think America is a weak country which could be conquered by terrorism?

Cycloptichorn

I dont know,you need to ask the Republicans that.
I'm not a repub,so I am not qualified to speak for them.

But,being cautious of them isnt the same as fearing them.

I agree. One would think that someone who is cautious, would do something to defend themselves from attack. We haven't done much of anything to defend ourselves from attack.

Cycloptichorn

Here is a simple yes or no question for you.

Have we been attacked since 2001?

If the answer is no,then whatever the govt is doing must be working.

I did address his point.
I said that ANYONE that attacks us,no matter who they are or how much damage they do to us.
If they destroy a building in one city,we destroy one of their cities.

Its that simple.

mysteryman wrote:

I did address his point.
I said that ANYONE that attacks us,no matter who they are or how much damage they do to us.
If they destroy a building in one city,we destroy one of their cities.

Its that simple.

That doesn't qualify as addressing his point: just because you destroy one of their cities, that doesn't say anything about the danger they pose to Americans.

Thomas wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

I did address his point.
I said that ANYONE that attacks us,no matter who they are or how much damage they do to us.
If they destroy a building in one city,we destroy one of their cities.

Its that simple.

That doesn't qualify as addressing his point: just because you destroy one of their cities, that doesn't say anything about the danger they pose to Americans.

What these other countries and the terrorists need to learn is that messing with us will get them hurt.
How hurt they get,we leave that as a surprise.
Its time we quit being so predictable in our responses.

If they kill 10 of us,we kill 1000 or more of them.
We leave it as a surprise to them as to how hard or where they are gonna get hit if they attack us.

Eventually,they will cease to be a threat,because they will either be dead or will have smartened up and will leave us alone.

As to the US not being safe now,are you saying it will be safer if we dont hit back,if we just swallow any attacks aimed at us,if we abandon our long standing policies towards Israel,if we just do nothing to intercept or otherwise stop terrorist activity?

What these other countries and the terrorists need to learn is that messing with us will get them hurt.
How hurt they get,we leave that as a surprise.

blatham wrote:

And that's what makes tico's argument above (photos of servicemen's burials constitute 'propaganda') inappropriate and deeply dangerous in a democracy.

I was working off of your definition, as you know, in making that argument. Thus, it appears your complaint above is not with my argument, but with your previously given poor definition of "propaganda." You now seem to be of the opinion that dissemination of information is only "propaganda" if it is not truthful and accurate information.

But you must recall that you were the one who first made the claim that Bush having the radio talk show host event was part of his "propaganda machine," and I was "tiresome" for questioning you on the matter. You said:

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2343820#2343820]A few pages back, blatham[/url] wrote:

I suppose that this event, as with the earlier white house meeting with bush and hannity et al, was designed entirely with the purpose of propagating particular talking points/attitudes so as to mobilize these individuals's audiences prior to the election...guys like you, and not guys like me or thomas. It is propaganda machinery and clearly so. Please don't be tiresome.

Since you believe that event was "clearly" propaganda, can you identify what made it so -- using your latest definition? What information was disseminated at that event that was not accurate or truthful? Or has your prior view of that event now evolved?

blatham wrote:

I hold, as a fundamental premise, that democracy cannot survive in the presence of serious and pervasive government secrecy. It follows then that I believe serious and objective (non-partisan) inquiries in Britain and the US regarding the initiation of the war with Iraq are absolutely mandatory.

A reasonable position. Do you also believe that the legal structures of Britain, France and other European countries, all of which permit much greater government discretion in the control of information and much greater penalties for unauthorized release, should be modified?
I cannot speak with much knowledge of the relevant legal constraints elsewhere. I understand that Britain has an OSA with relatively stringent restraints and I understand that this administration would like to have something similar in place in the US.

Obviously, the intent behind and the reach/application of such laws are what will determine their potential threat to an informed citizenry and to a functioning democracy, as we normally understand that term. If the use of such laws, effectively if not in original intent, becomes merely forwarding the electoral chances of the reigning government party (hiding embarrassing information, etc) then we are in propaganda territory. We all understand that there are many things which can validly be held secretively. To the degree that such laws, in any jurisdiction, permit the opportunity for mis-use such as above, then they are dangerous to a properly informed citizenry.
How about the direct involvement of the government of France in the governance of corporations there. There is little or no disclosure of government actions in the management of a major portion of the French economy. Would you change that as well? Do you believe that these too are threats to democracy?
You'd have to provide some specific examples of how this actually operates. But unless I misunderstand what you are talking about, that is quite a separate issue from 'propaganda' (the relation between government and business; regulations, rules of compensation, etc).

I suspect that what you want investigated with respect to Iraq is what were the inner motives of the major figures in the administration, and not the objective facts, which are fairly clear. The WMD issue has been discussed ad nauseum, and the dispute centers around whether a budding Iraqi capability was probable or merely possible. Saddam flew his air force to Iran in the closing days of the Gulf war, and it is entirely possible that some WMD materials were dispersed to safe locations in the days before our later intervention. How do you conduct a "non partisan" investigation into the before-the-fact deliberations and calculations of those responsible? Do you believe that such a non partisan investigation is a practical possibility?
Of course. Unless you wish to hold that any investigation of any government operation is inevitably worthless, that nothing is worthy of investigation and oversight and that accountability is a joke. In Britain, for example, the notion was to have the invest done by Privy Council members. Unfortunately, Blair managed to beat this one back by a slim majority. I expect the electorate there will force this later via Brown's electoral goals.

As you know, the one aspect of the Iraq war which has been stonewalled consistently is investigation into the possible mis-uses and manipulation of intelligence information to build a consensus for war. That is indefensible. And your citizens deserve far better, unless you grant them so little capacity for rational behavior and decision making that you'd prefer them not to have access to such information.