The real Threat to American safety?

[Kain]

I was watching TV last night, and a commercial came on for a movie about the presidents daughter going to college and cameras everywhere blah blah blah. So it got me thinking: Is the news media a bigger threat to National Security than terrorists?

 

Terrorists tend to work plans out to every detail - months of planning go into a single attack (saving the old women with bombs strapped to their bodies hugging people). Does the media only help them make bigger and nastier attacks? The media tends to be all over the President whenever he is to make a public apperance - wouldn't this aid the terrorists if they wanted to make a direct attack on the President. They would know his precise location and the time he would arrive, and with their training, I'm sure they could elude the Secret Service long enough to get a bullet off or a bomb planted - it has been done (JFK).

 

Do we really need our own people helping the enemy attack our land, even if it is on accident? Discuss.

[Spider AL]

I think freedom of the press in any country is worth the risk of providing maniacs with important intelligence. All freedoms are inherently risky.

 

Secondly I think that the government has sufficient control over what the media sees to report, that they can focus its attention away from the things that are truly vital to national security. As a hypothetical example: While they are reporting on the first daughter's boring collegiate antics, the media are NOT reporting on the large shipment of volatile nuclear waste travelling by train across the country. Thus, by distracting the media with something populist, the government can avert too many fanatics learning about the really important things. Personally I don't think the government should have ANY control over the media at all, but they do, just through a little common sense on their part.

 

However, I don't think the media of your country or mine is actually anything but entertainment. They do not report on things that matter to the everyman. They're more concerned with peddling popcorn-popping provender.

[kipperthefrog]

Originaly posted by Spider AL

 

I think freedom of the press in any country is worth the risk of providing maniacs with important intelligence. All freedoms are inherently risky.

 

Secondly I think that the government has sufficient control over what the media sees to report, that they can focus its attention away from the things that are truly vital to national security

 

 

If the government has ANY control of this at all, then we dont realy have free press!

 

I say the GOVERNMENT is a bigger threat to our country, for example,

 

the insurance companies paid off congress to pass a law aginst driving without insurance. the FORCE us to give them money! no they get a chunk out of our paycheaks and when we DO have wrecks, the dont pay or the just give a little cheack! if we want to get the money we deserve, we have to se the insurance companies!

 

another example! they want to spy on our internet stuff and other privacy stuff!

 

the government is working aginst us! they are a bigger threat than terrorists!

 

Historicaly, governments killed thousands of times more people than terrorists, so shouldn't it follow we should be more watchful of governments han terrorists?

[Cpt. Bannon]

And thus, we have libertarians and rational anarchists. I myself am a libertarian, seeing the need for a limited government, but just that a LIMITED GOVERNEMNT. Then you have the rational anarchists, who would (theoretically) have the best form of government aside from communism. However, when you throw in the human factor, neither rational anarchy nor communism are feasable in their theoretical form.

[Spider AL]

Sorry, but throw in the human factor and you can ruin ANY and ALL concepts of fairness, justice and equality. We're all out for ourselves, it's just anarchy with gangs, anarchy with natural human organisational skills. That's what society is.

[Cpt. Bannon]

Yes. However, as part of the human factor, there will always be someone seeking (and getting) power. the best way for this (IMHO) is to have a limited government. After all, the founding fathers based this country on a constitution that you can easily carry in your pocket, but yet our government has grown so bloated that it spends $2 billion dollars a year on the IRS.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Cpt. Bannon

Yes. However, as part of the human factor, there will always be someone seeking (and getting) power. the best way for this (IMHO) is to have a limited government.

 

I have to agree. Big goverment is not a good thing. But with the changes in modern society, I think we have to consider what indicators we use to measure size: number of gov. employees vs. civilians; percent of annual budget; number of agencies; size of defense forces (military, guard/reserve, law enforcement, etc.); number of intelligence agencies; some combination?

 

In the period of our founding fathers, our nation consisted of a little over 2 million people (not counting the Indians or Slaves). There was no infrastructure as we know it today, nor was it likely that concepts such as modern energy resources, paved interstate highways, 120 kph automobiles on every road, modern media outlets, and modern weapons and technology were considered.

 

Privatization of the controls in place for these and other modern ideas needs to have some balance (and check) that includes government. Otherwise we end up with corporations usurping power as history noted with the advent of the railroad and steel industries.

[Spider AL]

Yes. However, as part of the human factor, there will always be someone seeking (and getting) power. the best way for this (IMHO) is to have a limited government.

I'm not saying that there aren't better and worse ways of ensuring goverments are less corrupt than they are now... I'm just saying that those in power are those with resources, and those with resources will tend to find a way around even the most stringent anti-corruption measures. People tend to allow them to do so, as well.

 

In other words, corrupt powermongers will always run society, due to the impressionable nature of the populace. But hey, if you can push a system that relatively minimises the corruption into place, if only for a short time until they adapt... good on you.

[ShadowTemplar]

Yes, one should be wary of governments. Minimalistic governing and deregulation, however are not desireable results of such wariness. Regulation is required to effect the nessecary redistribution of the wealth that makes for a strong and stable society. Additionally, deregulations pave the way for corporate takeover, something that is infinitely harmful to a country.

[iamtrip]

Don't you think a government censors everything it likes anyway? If it was anything serious, then it wouldn't even be screened.

 

 

***

 

And you're presuming that the terrorists are a 3rd party.

There's no more evidence to imply terrorism is 3rd party, than there is to imply that it is controlled by the state.

What you/others may want to believe doesn't make it factual

[Spider AL]

Yes, one should be wary of governments. Minimalistic governing and deregulation, however are not desireable results of such wariness. Regulation is required to effect the nessecary redistribution of the wealth that makes for a strong and stable society. Additionally, deregulations pave the way for corporate takeover, something that is infinitely harmful to a country.

Just want to point out that wealth is redistributed far too unevenly in our current societies, and that corporations already have controlling interests in our governments.

[toms]

Indeed.

The problems with government are rarely to do with size, but to do with transparency, accountability and connection with the people. How you solve those is beyond me though...

[Nairb Notneb]

The founding fathers of the good old USA had a great concept here and they understood that the human nature was corrupt in that given enough time some person or group would seek out ultimate power I the nation in some way, especially in government no matter what system was in place. That's why they placed all of the checks and balances that they did. The ultimate and best check in our system here is the public itself. If the public sits idly by and does nothing then the systems will fail, but if we stay focused on what our elected officials are doing with our hard earned tax dollars and hold them responsible for their actions then it will continue to work for that much longer. A democratic system of any type will eventually fail when the people become complacent and turn a blind eye to government. Ask pre World War 2 Germany.

[Spider AL]

That's why they placed all of the checks and balances that they did. The ultimate and best check in our system here is the public itself. If the public sits idly by and does nothing then the systems will fail,

Looks like the systems have failed then. Lowest number of voters for some time... largest amount of ignorance of economic policy and mechanics and world affairs... Largest amount of propaganda and new and better ways to control the minds of the public through the media...

 

It was a nice idea. Just not workable, a bit like Communism.

[kipperthefrog]

Our government IS getting currupt! Our governer took away raises away from the state workers and now he is working on our health insurance benefits!

 

now the teachers and other state workers are protesting! they walked out of school for this!

 

I say we NEED to stand up to them! The worst thng we can do, the absolute worst, is to do nothing!

[Nairb Notneb]

If this current system has failed Spider Al, then what system is better? The only reason a democratic-republic such as this doesn't work is because of the laziness of the public. The people allow the elected officials to do anything. Look at history. The collapse of the two great Deomocratic-Repbuplics of Greece and Rome happened the same way, the people became complacent and allowed the governments to take over, much like we are allowing our federal government to take over America today. The government is slowly and has been slowly encroaching into our daily lives for decades now using the excuse of "for our own good", or "for the good of the needy" and etc. There are many needs that the government can and should provide I agree but the more limited the government the better. The more contained the better. As soon as the people realize that the government can vote all of the money in the treasury into their pockets and get away with it, its all over.

[kipperthefrog]

Agreed!

 

we are like the roman empire! the actors are like the gladiators, and we are the most powerfull govt. in the world! we like to bully other countries around!

 

we are also like pre WWII germany! germany was a free country once with a president and a senate and free speech and civil rights and every thing! till Hitler came along!

 

take this picture for example!

 

see what I mean? they are using the New York thing as an exuse to start taking over! I certainy hope people are voting aginst him!

 

those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it!

[DarthBuzzard]

Originally posted by Nairb Notneb

If this current system has failed Spider Al, then what system is better? The only reason a democratic-republic such as this doesn't work is because of the laziness of the public. The people allow the elected officials to do anything. Look at history. The collapse of the two great Deomocratic-Repbuplics of Greece and Rome happened the same way, the people became complacent and allowed the governments to take over, much like we are allowing our federal government to take over America today. The government is slowly and has been slowly encroaching into our daily lives for decades now using the excuse of "for our own good", or "for the good of the needy" and etc. There are many needs that the government can and should provide I agree but the more limited the government the better. The more contained the better. As soon as the people realize that the government can vote all of the money in the treasury into their pockets and get away with it, its all over.

 

Correct. Everyone likes to think that "the good 'ol USA" will never collapse, but recently (IMHO ever since Regan went out of office) things have been declining. Some unneeded wars, some economical failures here and there are slowly eating away at us. When representatives see these things, they begin capitalizing upon it. Since we all have such a feeling of security, we become complacent and don't see the lapses and corruptness of the government around us. (sidenote, I just asked my mom about this, and she said, "nope, not worried. We've always had our faults, we'll keep going" - just goes to show you how everyone can be unaware of what's truly going on). Then come wars, which are trying times for everyone. On one side, you have radicals, and on the other, anti-war protesters. Each bring up good points and lots of people aren't sure what to think. Everyone supported the war in Afghanistan, because they saw it as showing the world we will fight back to attacks on our freedom. We had (and continue to have) things pretty much won there, but then came Iraq. Massive mistake. Bush claims it was a preemptive strike, but what did it accomplish in reality? Iraq may have been developing weapons, and they ,ay have been harming their own citizens. Not the nicest of things, but those aren't exactly reasons to go stomping around in a country. There may have been intelligence faults, but did Iraq REALLY pose a threat to the U.S.? I don't think so. Now, because we got caught up in this spiderweb of a mess, they may have to reinstate the draft due to a shortage of a "peace keeping" force.

 

Now some of those things are probably off and a lot of it was senseless rambling, but please correct me on what I messed up on. Even if I'm 12, I like to keep up with politics

[iamtrip]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

Agreed!

 

we are like the roman empire! the actors are like the gladiators, and we are the most powerfull govt. in the world! we like to bully other countries around!

 

we are also like pre WWII germany! germany was a free country once with a president and a senate and free speech and civil rights and every thing! till Hitler came along!

 

take this picture for example!

 

see what I mean? they are using the New York thing as an exuse to start taking over! I certainy hope people are voting aginst him!

 

those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it!

 

Yes, the fear of terror and the insecurity generated by 9/11 has been used in much the same way that fear of Communism was used after the burning of the Reichstag. The comparason is much more clear when compared to the Beslan school seige and Putin's increases to his own personal power.

 

Interestingly enough, the Nazis had secret tunnels leading to the Reichstag from their offices. Its quite possible that a fanatical Nazi (In fact Goering reportedly boasted of personally setting the Reichstag alight in a secret meeting at Nuremburg) started the fire and used the Communists as scape goats.

 

Similarly the Bush administration had been warned of a potential terrorist threat to the twin towers. Furthermore, on 76 other occaisions that year, fighter jets were scrambled to escort passenger planes that had moved off course, each within 10 minutes of a course violation.

On the day of 9/11, 90 minutes after the planes had hit (plus the other 90 minutes taken to go off course, turn around, line up with the towers and hit them), no fighter jet had even left the ground.

 

 

After the Reichstag Fire, a Communist (van der Lubbe) was arrested by the SA and 'confessed' to starting the fire, the beginnings of a communist revolt.

After 9/11, a truck with a Koran was found and the hijcakers had received 'flying lessons'. (No, no letter "Dear boys, good luck with the hijacking, love Osama" was found".

Within a day the finger had already been firmly pointed at Al Qaeda. Quite amazing and a rapid discovery since there hadn't been an attack by the group for a few years.

 

 

[Kain]

Originally posted by iamtrip

After the Reichstag Fire, a Communist (van der Lubbe) was arrested by the SA and 'confessed' to starting the fire, the beginnings of a communist revolt.

After 9/11, a truck with a Koran was found and the hijcakers had received 'flying lessons'. (No, no letter "Dear boys, good luck with the hijacking, love Osama" was found".

Within a day the finger had already been firmly pointed at Al Qaeda. Quite amazing and a rapid discovery since there hadn't been an attack by the group for a few years.

 

Know what I love about the media? The fact that they never say ANY of this. And someone said that the media was Liberal. BAH!!

[Spider AL]

Nairb Notneb:

If this current system has failed Spider Al, then what system is better? The only reason a democratic-republic such as this doesn't work is because of the laziness of the public.

So it's the public's fault that they're de-skilled and dumbed down by a propaganda and spin-ridden government like that of the US AND the UK, that uses the media like a sledgehammer to manipulate the minds of the young and impressionable just as ancient dictatorships used the threat of violence? The violence has merely become more sophisticated... it's become psychological.

 

The apathy of the public is not self-induced, nor would it be entirely blameworthy if it were. As countries mature, naturally the population becomes more aware of the fact that most of the people available for them to elect, are those who desire POWER. Those who desire power are by definition CORRUPT. It is therefore impossible to elect a government free of corruption. When faced with this fact, apathy seems the only logical reaction.

 

But if you want to know what system would be LESS corrupt, well a true democracy might be less corrupt. America and my home country (the lovely old England) are NOT true democracies. Two words: Electoral college.

 

One man, one vote. Now that's a TRUE democracy.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by iamtrip

Interestingly enough, the Nazis had secret tunnels leading to the Reichstag from their offices. Its quite possible that a fanatical Nazi (In fact Goering reportedly boasted of personally setting the Reichstag alight in a secret meeting at Nuremburg) started the fire and used the Communists as scape goats.

 

Actually, the Nazis DID start the fire.

[toms]

Originally posted by Spider AL

[The apathy of the public is not self-induced, nor would it be entirely blameworthy if it were. As countries mature, naturally the population becomes more aware of the fact that most of the people available for them to elect, are those who desire POWER. Those who desire power are by definition CORRUPT. It is therefore impossible to elect a government free of corruption. When faced with this fact, apathy seems the only logical reaction.

 

Possibly the best thing i have heard you say.

 

That is the real problem with ALL political systems... the politicians. The reson communism failed was the politicians, the reason democracy is failing is the politicians.

 

The only thing i can think of to improve things is to change the proccess to have less career politicians involved and more of the common man. Maybe a jury duty type process that selected people at random (for one house) to serve for a year. I don't know....

[Nairb Notneb]

Actually Spider, Democracy in its purist form is anarchy, because a democracy is government by the people. At the time of its inception, the electoral college was a good idea, one that has probably outgrown its necessity with technology and the basic loss of state rights these days.

 

I agree with you on several points, the majority of the people seeking office are power hungry and therefore corrupt by their very nature making them unqualified for the positions they seek by default. Rest assured that if any individual wants to be President he or she has something wrong with him. I also agree that all political parties and lobbyists both purposely use much propaganda to influence the wills of the people.

 

That is where we come to our disagreement, but that's ok. I disagree with your statement about apathy being a logical choice. Being apathetic is understandable, but it is an unacceptable solution, therefore it is not logical. If the public adopts apathy as an election policy then the power hungry powers that be have won and will control everything thus ruining the lives of everyone. Freedoms will eventually leave rendering all powerless except those in power. Apathy is what gives a dictator his power. Apathy is what all of our political parties and lobbyists want. Why? When you are apathetic you say that there is nothing that I can do about it so I don't care and that leaves the door open for somebody else to walk in and take what is yours. Who is it then that takes what is your? The power hungry, the corrupt, the evil, the bad.

 

That is why I so strongly shout against apathy and complacency of the public. That is why I hold the public to be responsible at election time. If you don't like the bums that are in office, then vote the bums out. If you don't like the bums that keep running for office then you become a bum yourself and run for office. Write to your elected officials, get involved at town meetings, write letters to local newspapers, start web sites, start your own newspaper, get involved and for the love of Pete vote!!!!!!!! If you don't vote then you have no right to complain. If you don't vote then somebody else voted for you. If you don't vote then you are saying to the rest of the country that your rights and freedoms that you do have mean nothing to you and whatever the elected officials tell you to do you will do because you love them with all of your heart, mind and soul and that you agree with them 100 freaking percent. Not voting also says that you have no mind and no opinion that is worth expressing. Voting is one of the most important things that you, as a citizen will ever do. Vote now and vote every time there is an election.

 

I'm Nairb Notneb, and I approved this outburst. Thank you very much for my first amendment right to free speech.

[iamtrip]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Actually, the Nazis DID start the fire.

 

In terms of orthodox arguements.

Most revisionists question the Nazi involvement.

Who did it is irrelevant in this instance.

Its the use of the event's consequences that really matters...