Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

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.[...]

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.

Its time we quit being so predictable in our responses.

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?

There are two intellectual steps which you are not willing or able to take, under any circumstances I have been able to discover or now, to even imagine. First, that this administration has spoken falsely or deceitfully. Second, that an alternate media apparatus has been formed, or at least cultivated and organized, to forward the political success/control of one party and where objectivity or even truthfulness are secondary considerations to this political support.

The definition I pasted was/is insufficient. I should have taken more care with it before forwarding it by itself. Of course, we often have to refine our terms as discussions become more careful and nuanced. Still, some portion of my noggin sent alarms to which I didn't attend. In part, because I wasn't much interested in another unprofitable discussion with you.

But you could make yourself valuable finally. Why not take an example, say Pravda, and delineate what elements of its operations and content mark or define it as 'propaganda'.

Source

It includes radical states, willing to use terrorism; modern weapons, including rockets and nuclear warheads; petroleum resources; and even emigrants radicalized to confront the cultures in their new homes rather than assimilate. This is no small distraction: it is a serious challenge, one that goes well beyond the mere terrorism on which Cyclo focuses so narrowly.

Here is how the Pentagon publicly described the situation in Iraq in an email newsletter sent out on Monday:



Here's how the Pentagon described the situation in Iraq in a classified briefing conducted just days earlier, according to a report in the New York Times. From a secret slide called "Index of Civil Conflict":

blatham wrote:

There are two intellectual steps which you are not willing or able to take, under any circumstances I have been able to discover or now, to even imagine. First, that this administration has spoken falsely or deceitfully. Second, that an alternate media apparatus has been formed, or at least cultivated and organized, to forward the political success/control of one party and where objectivity or even truthfulness are secondary considerations to this political support.

The definition I pasted was/is insufficient. I should have taken more care with it before forwarding it by itself. Of course, we often have to refine our terms as discussions become more careful and nuanced. Still, some portion of my noggin sent alarms to which I didn't attend. In part, because I wasn't much interested in another unprofitable discussion with you.

But you could make yourself valuable finally. Why not take an example, say Pravda, and delineate what elements of its operations and content mark or define it as 'propaganda'.

And with all of that, you failed to address the questions posed to you.

The implication from your first paragraph above, is that you would have us all believe that the information disseminated at the radio talk show host event was false and deceitful, because you believe the Bush Administration has previously spoken falsely and deceiptfully. Ergo, the radio talk show host event was dissemination of propaganda.

Yet when the New York Times -- which has issued false news stories in the past (surely you don't need examples) -- you do not instantly leap to the conclusion that it is propaganda.

The reason, blatham, is because of your inherent liberal bias ... which you desperately would like to believe is nonexistant.

tico

I have zero interest in debating these matters with you. I have biases and preferences. The absence of them is not possible for any human. Yet, minds change. New information or new perspectives often set us on new directions in our thinking. But my experience here with you (and some others) has been a clear demonstration that some people hold partisan of nationalist or ideological notions and allegiances which are deeply resistant to alteration, quite regardless of all else.

... But what's remarkable about you is your hypocritical stance that those conservatives who don't appear to change their minds after reading what you or your favorite pundits or authors have to say, are in some way deficient, ...

Ahhh.

Thanks again, old europe.

Frank Rich: "What I've Found Everywhere... Is A Tremendous Sense Of Frustration At Having Been Misled And Lied To About The Iraq War."

Over at Radar, Charles Kaiser has a meaty interview with Frank Rich about his book, The Greatest Story Ever Sold, and his views on the dissemblings, obfuscations, and behind-the-scenes-machinations of the Bush administration.

What I've found everywhere else--whether in Seattle or Kansas City, though Houston is yet to come--is a tremendous sense of frustration at having been misled and lied to about the Iraq war, an appetite for harder-hitting media that can be trusted, and concern about whether the Democrats will be any better at leading the country out of the morass.

As for the media, Rich makes an important point about how the news was filtered in the run-up to war: ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/11/02/frank-rich-what-ive-fo_e_33082.html

What's interesting here, is that my experience here with you has revealed the clear allegiance you hold to the liberal notions you hold most dear. You have not demonstrated any change in your bias or preferences, or inclination to change. So while you claim that I (and some others) are "deeply resistant" to change, you have not demonstrated that you aren't.

Yes, we all have biases and preferences. But what's remarkable about you is your hypocritical stance that those conservatives who don't appear to change their minds after reading what you or your favorite pundits or authors have to say, are in some way deficient, even though you yourself don't appear to change your own mind after reading what you or your favorite pundits or authors have to say.

What's interesting here, is that my experience here with you has revealed the clear allegiance you hold to the liberal notions you hold most dear. You have not demonstrated any change in your bias or preferences, or inclination to change. So while you claim that I (and some others) are "deeply resistant" to change, you have not demonstrated that you aren't.

Yes, we all have biases and preferences. But what's remarkable about you is your hypocritical stance that those conservatives who don't appear to change their minds after reading what you or your favorite pundits or authors have to say, are in some way deficient, even though you yourself don't appear to change your own mind after reading what you or your favorite pundits or authors have to say.

What's interesting here, is that my experience here with you has revealed the clear allegiance you hold to the liberal notions you hold most dear. You have not demonstrated any change in your bias or preferences, or inclination to change. So while you claim that I (and some others) are "deeply resistant" to change, you have not demonstrated that you aren't.

Yes, we all have biases and preferences. But what's remarkable about you is your hypocritical stance that those conservatives who don't appear to change their minds after reading what you or your favorite pundits or authors have to say, are in some way deficient, even though you yourself don't appear to change your own mind after reading what you or your favorite pundits or authors have to say.

What military capacity did they have to fly jets into the WTC?

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.