Distortion which is currently in fashion |
Post Reply |
Author | |
Finefair
Starter Joined: 06 May 2005 Status: Offline Points: 6 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 08 August 2005 at 8:27pm |
The Internet, thought invaluable for spreading news, hasn�t the impact
on the public of a story pounded over and over on TV news or newspaper
front pages. Exposure on the Internet doesn�t have the same
embarrassment factor as exposure on TV news and the New York Times
front page. The public is still socialized into taking its cue from the
old TV and print media. This media is now heavily controlled, partly
through job fears of editors and reporters. This raises the question
whether government officials who have broken the law and betrayed trust
will be held accountable. People who actually achieve political power
are to be trusted even less than those who seek it without success;
winning elections requires a measure of deceitfulness and Machiavellian
immorality that no decent person comes close to possessing.
The anti-terrorist apparatus needs victims to demonstrate its effectiveness, and as warrants, hearings, and evidence are no longer required. That fine French historian of the 1914-2005 world conflict, St�phane Audoin-Rouzeau, suggested not long ago that the West was the inheritor of a type of warfare of very great violence. "Then, after 1945," he wrote, "... the West externalized it, in Korea, in Algeria, in Vietnam, in Iraq... we stopped thinking about the experience of war and we do not understand its return (to us) in different forms like that of terrorism... We do not want to admit that there is now occurring a different type of confrontation..." The reality is that it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with distortion, which is currently in fashion. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htm |
|
b95000
Senior Member Joined: 11 July 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1328 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
"we stopped thinking about the experience of war
and we do not understand its return (to us) in different forms like
that of terrorism..."
If the police stop the criminal and need to use force to do so, and that makes other criminals mad, should the police be forbadden to do so? I for one am glad that the police can stop the criminals. You must have a different view than that - one that equivocates police with criminals...certainly we all have human rights, but after that the comparison stops.. Criminals are criminals because they don't have a conscience - which society generally has and because they don't self police. What are you planning to do about that Finefair, with your "theory of cause and effects?" |
|
Bruce
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. |
|
Whisper
Senior Member Male Joined: 25 July 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4752 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Very simple. Keep your police theories for your own criminals. There is plenty for them to do in your own inner cities. This covoluted theory will appeal only to the mediocre mind. You shouldnt have cultured criminals if you are now so concerned with them. Another thing mediocre minds find extremely difficult to grasp: as you sow so shall you reap. They also find it difficult to understand that the Iraqis and the Afghans do not wish to be run by the Quran desecrators and prisoner abusers. Period. We want you out of our countries. |
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |