NationStates Jolt Archive

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.

The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.

Each of the links below go to a web page that has a video and transcript of a BBC documentry. Each video is about an hour long and the quality is pretty bad.

However this is a must watch!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1038.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1040.htm

I watched these, and can say that they really are very good.

I watched these, and can say that they really are very good.

And quite frightening. I am seriously starting to think that democracy is failing.

The only saving grace being that we still have access to information like this.

Ok. I sat through the entire three parts. The presentation is very well done, and like most presentations of this sort, began with a priori assumptions and sought evidence to support them.

It's possible, but not probable, that the producers of this presentation are right. As a matter of fact, I hope they are, since that would mean the US and other Western countries are not in danger of near or long term assault by a terrorist organization. I along with many others would heave a massive sigh of relief.

Where the problem comes in is that should we believe the thesis of this presentation and act as though terrorist attacks like 9/11 were some sort of abberation and relax our guard, only to discover later that the thesis was incorrect, the consequences would be incredibly dire. So the question is, can we really afford to take the chance? I'm inclined to answer no.

Ok. I sat through the entire three parts. The presentation is very well done, and like most presentations of this sort, began with a priori assumptions and sought evidence to support them.

It's possible, but not probable, that the producers of this presentation are right. As a matter of fact, I hope they are, since that would mean the US and other Western countries are not in danger of near or long term assault by a terrorist organization. I along with many others would heave a massive sigh of relief.

Where the problem comes in is that should we believe the thesis of this presentation and act as though terrorist attacks like 9/11 were some sort of abberation and relax our guard, only to discover later that the thesis was incorrect, the consequences would be incredibly dire. So the question is, can we really afford to take the chance? I'm inclined to answer no.

and this is one of those ultimate ironies in that its the environmentalists who first broached the idea of 'better safe than sorry' into the political arena.

However this is a issue that actually will end up damaging the democratic process in that it means the people will not have a say because for the idea to be successfull requires that the state knows best for the populace.

Notwithstanding the removal of the usual checks and balances. We can see this already in the way that the war on Iraq was justified on the basis of WMD which eventually were not found.

bump

And quite frightening. I am seriously starting to think that democracy is failing.

The only saving grace being that we still have access to information like this.

A free press is the best hedge against the loss of freedom.

A free press is the best hedge against the loss of freedom.

Indeed....and what is the fundemental building block of a free press?

Ok. I sat through the entire three parts. The presentation is very well done, and like most presentations of this sort, began with a priori assumptions and sought evidence to support them.

It's possible, but not probable, that the producers of this presentation are right. As a matter of fact, I hope they are, since that would mean the US and other Western countries are not in danger of near or long term assault by a terrorist organization. I along with many others would heave a massive sigh of relief.

Where the problem comes in is that should we believe the thesis of this presentation and act as though terrorist attacks like 9/11 were some sort of abberation and relax our guard, only to discover later that the thesis was incorrect, the consequences would be incredibly dire. So the question is, can we really afford to take the chance? I'm inclined to answer no.

Fair point. Couldn't the same be said for say, global warming? Its interesting that a lot of people who are convinced that terrorists are the ultimate threat, but have decided that global warming is a myth and should keep driving around town in their SUV...

Fair point. Couldn't the same be said for say, global warming? Its interesting that a lot of people who are convinced that terrorists are the ultimate threat, but have decided that global warming is a myth and should keep driving around town in their SUV...

Thats a good point.

One can say that things follow the path of least resistance but here we have 2 examples where that is not the case...and the information is derived via the media....

Indeed....and what is the fundemental building block of a free press?
Multiple, independent, non government controlled sources.

Multiple, independent, non government controlled sources.

No. You can have all that and still have a controlled media.

No. You can have all that and still have a controlled media.
Well, then what do you want?

Well, then what do you want?

Me? This is not about me....

But I would say that the fundemental building block of a free press is the ability to perfrom critical analysis without prejuidice...

Me? This is not about me....

But I would say that the fundemental building block of a free press is the ability to perfrom critical analysis without prejuidice...
But can you have that without most of my criterion?

I'd also say that that's a sign of a free press, and a function thereof, but not a causation.

But can you have that without most of my criterion?

No. You would be (correct me if I am misunderstanding your post) advocating privately owned media. That means shareholders. Therefore you will have prejuidice in analysis if the subject matter impinges upon the interests of the shareholders.

I'd also say that that's a sign of a free press, and a function thereof, but not a causation.

I'd say its all three...

btw....love the sig! :)

No. You would be (correct me if I am misunderstanding your post) advocating privately owned media. That means shareholders. Therefore you will have prejuidice in analysis if the subject matter impinges upon the interests of the shareholders.
I'm advocating an "all of the above" approach. Private media, socially owned media, I want to force competition so that the sources have to do the best, and not just get a single source.

I'm advocating an "all of the above" approach. Private media, socially owned media, I want to force competition so that the sources have to do the best, and not just get a single source.

Which would work if my fundemental was allowed to flourish. Sadly though that contradicts the free market concept that brooks no analysis of itself...

Which would work if my fundemental was allowed to flourish. Sadly though that contradicts the free market concept that brooks no analysis of itself...
Well, I'm not for a totally free market, I'm advocating having socially owned sources (kind of like NPR here in the states, only more profuse) which will do so, and provoke the other outlets into such discussion as well.

Where the problem comes in is that should we believe the thesis of this presentation and act as though terrorist attacks like 9/11 were some sort of abberation and relax our guard, only to discover later that the thesis was incorrect, the consequences would be incredibly dire. So the question is, can we really afford to take the chance? I'm inclined to answer no.

The point that "The power of nightmares" series was making was not that we should relax our guard, but that the enemy is not as dangerous as it seems and that many governments are perverting their enemies abilities for their own ends

Well, I'm not for a totally free market, I'm advocating having socially owned sources (kind of like NPR here in the states, only more profuse) which will do so, and provoke the other outlets into such discussion as well.

In other words a media supported by taxes....if not directly then indirectly by donations...in otherwords shareholders/stakeholders.....meaning vested interests...which also conflicts with the idea of non prejudicial critical analysis...