Double-think

[pdoherty76]

I would be interested in peoples views on this. In an alex jones video a lady on the street is asked about the london bombing and the subsequent shooting of the brazilian man on the tube train.

She says something startling: "i am prepared to give up my liberty for freedom"

are liberty and freedom different?

Jones makes the connection to the doublethink in 1984. war is peace, freedom is slavery etc

its convincing to me. but hey im just a fruitloop

 

[Oliver]

My translator says:

liberty: n. Freiheit; Entlassung; Frechheit

freedom: n. Freiheit; Emanzipation; Unabhängigkeit; Befreiung; Freilassung; Entlassung; Offenheit; freier Zugriff

Looks different.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Doublethink, in 1984, is specifically believing something to be true while at the same time knowing it to be false.

The "war is peace", etc, is Newspeak; which is the idea of redefining meanings, and changing how language is used to make it a form of propaganda.

The idea of giving up personal liberties in exchange for "freedom" (in this case freedom from some fear, whether real or imaginary) is not a new idea and one which political philosophers have struggled with for a long time.

 

[rikzilla]

It makes a great sound-bite....but isn't it more likely that this random lady in the street either mis-spoke, was under-educated, or simply is stupid? In any case I rather think a random lady in the street is a terribly small sample to use as evidence of the encroachment of the Orwellian state.

-z

 

[pdoherty76]

ok let me expand on it.

Bush said the terrorists attack america because they hate your freedoms, surely taking civil liberties away means the terrorists have won?

In the last ten years more people in america have been shot by the police than killed by terrorists. i cant see why america has become the place of fear it has. surely the best tactic against any terrorist is to continue life as normal so their terror doesnt work.

In my fruitloop opinion, and no i cant give u hard evidence, i think the culture of fear helps the american government

 

[Darth Rotor]

ok let me expand on it.

Bush said the terrorists attack america because they hate your freedoms, surely taking civil liberties away means the terrorists have won?

In the last ten years more people in america have been shot by the police than killed by terrorists. i cant see why america has become the place of fear it has. surely the best tactic against any terrorist is to continue life as normal so their terror doesnt work.

In my fruitloop opinion, and no i cant give u hard evidence, i think the culture of fear helps the american government

Osama has already won a significant battle at the psychological level. Go fly on any airplane in the US, compare the experience to September of 2000, and consider the profound difference in atmosphere. The great garment rending, gnashing of teeth, and over weepy memorialization of the 9-11 attack is an ongoing tribute to Osama.

Way to cheer the enemy, idiots. I had once heard that giving aid and comfort to the enemy was called treason.

DR

 

[DarkMagician]

A good example of either idiocy or doublethink, from our friend, PD'oh.

 

[Hellbound]

ok let me expand on it.

Bush said the terrorists attack america because they hate your freedoms, surely taking civil liberties away means the terrorists have won?

In the last ten years more people in america have been shot by the police than killed by terrorists. i cant see why america has become the place of fear it has. surely the best tactic against any terrorist is to continue life as normal so their terror doesnt work.

In my fruitloop opinion, and no i cant give u hard evidence, i think the culture of fear helps the american government

IN the last 100 years more people have been shot by police than by terrorists.

THat's a meaningless sound bite. How many of these were justified (as in, police shooting someone who shot at them first)? How many were crimes in which the police in question were punished and jailed? How many were justified shootings, and how many were actually indicative of some sort of problem?

The only culture of fear I see is among the CTers, such as yourself, who want to foster an intense fear and distrust of our own government. Such a fear that leads one to refuse government services and assistence, or to hide away in order to maintain anonymity, or to refrain from speaking their mind so as not to be identified.

I see more of the culture of fear being spread by those against the government than by those in it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

ok let me expand on it.

Bush said the terrorists attack america because they hate your freedoms, surely taking civil liberties away means the terrorists have won?

In the last ten years more people in america have been shot by the police than killed by terrorists. i cant see why america has become the place of fear it has. surely the best tactic against any terrorist is to continue life as normal so their terror doesnt work.

In my fruitloop opinion, and no i cant give u hard evidence, i think the culture of fear helps the american government

It is that course of action that is the root of many debates nowadays. Based on your comments I assume you do not live in the US, so I don't know what access you have to the political/social/civil discourse/debates going on. There are, on a daily basis, debates and contention over such things as: wiretapping, Gitmo, overseas interrogation, etc.

The crux is that these discussions/debates/arguments are being held in public, visible areas; be it message boards, TV, radio, newspapers, e-news, or on the floor of Congress itself. The point is that it is not being pulled off in a clandestine manner and public dissent is part of the discourse on the subjects.

 

[pdoherty76]

the public cant dissent because the =y are then called traitors and terrorist symathisers. Fetzer on o'reilly was a typical example. O' reilly called on the fbi to investigate him.

Where is ur evidence that i, or anyone like me, supports terrorism.

My country and indeed my city of manchester was bombed for years by the IRA. Do you think i support that?

 

[Spindrift]

ok let me expand on it.

Bush said the terrorists attack america because they hate your freedoms, surely taking civil liberties away means the terrorists have won?

In the last ten years more people in america have been shot by the police than killed by terrorists. i cant see why america has become the place of fear it has. surely the best tactic against any terrorist is to continue life as normal so their terror doesnt work.

In my fruitloop opinion, and no i cant give u hard evidence, i think the culture of fear helps the american government

Okay, but couldn't it just be the government taking advantage of the situation instead of creating the situation in the first place?

And what does comparing the number of people killed by police with the number killed by terrorists have to do with anything? Are you implying that police are killing innocent people like terrorists are doing? Otherwise the comparison doesn't mean much.

 

[Hellbound]

IN the last 100 years more people have been shot by police than by terrorists.

THat's a meaningless sound bite. How many of these were justified (as in, police shooting someone who shot at them first)? How many were crimes in which the police in question were punished and jailed? How many were justified shootings, and how many were actually indicative of some sort of problem?

The only culture of fear I see is among the CTers, such as yourself, who want to foster an intense fear and distrust of our own government. Such a fear that leads one to refuse government services and assistence, or to hide away in order to maintain anonymity, or to refrain from speaking their mind so as not to be identified.

I see more of the culture of fear being spread by those against the government than by those in it.

the public cant dissent because the =y are then called traitors and terrorist symathisers. Fetzer on o'reilly was a typical example. O' reilly called on the fbi to investigate him.

Where is ur evidence that i, or anyone like me, supports terrorism.

My country and indeed my city of manchester was bombed for years by the IRA. Do you think i support that?

*ahem*

 

[pdoherty76]

spindrift the comparison could have used other examples, i believe more people die from choking than are killed by terrorists aswell.

You may indeed be right that the government only exploited the situation, but then I look at the pearl harbour references in PNAC and the Grand Chessboarrd

 

[pdoherty76]

"the power of nightmares" documentary is very compelling. it isnt made by internet hacks, its made by the BBC

 

[T.A.M.]

Fear, in fact, helps all of us. Without fear we can become careless. Without fear we can sing ourselves into a sleep of self-security.

Does fear benifit the government? I guess, if you believe the government is controlled solely by rich corporations who would benifit financially from the production of items to make us feel safer, or production of arms to fight for our safety...this is AJ's take, right?

So, explain this. If the goal of the Republican party was to obtain control of the USG, as it did, and then to rule forever, through its "State of Fear". Why would it then bury itself in a war, causing it to sustain the worse popularity figures in years, and in all likelihood cost itself not only control of the law making congress, but also the ruling executive?

So you will say the war has generated alot of money for the defense companies...yes that is true, but why did they not plant some WMDs and covertly set up some WMD facilities. They had Saddam on the run, they could have very easily dropped a few covert ops down with said weapons and equipment, and then a week or two later...oooh look what we found....see we told you he had WMDs and was building more...then they could have stayed there much longer AND enjoyed public approval. Do you really think they wanted all this power, only to be sloppy/stupid enough to lose it eight years later?

I mean if this same govt could pull off something as complex as 9/11, the planting of WMDs and facilities, should be childs play.

Why could this evil cabal of a govt not keep a godamn pediphilic indiscretion quiet? Why could this evil cabal not keep Abramoff silent? It so godamn rediculous to think that the mighty all evil, all powerful USG, capable of a sinister, and super complex attack (for them to have pulled it off with noone finding it out, would have been extremely complex) like 9/11, could not keep such simple things out of the public eye, yet now they will lose congress and the executive because of it all...come on.

TAM

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

By "double-think", do you mean like a guy who lies about having a degree, then has his ass handed to him then tries to recover by saying "I only lied to make you uncover the lie so I could show the world I control you."?

Or is there something else you were referring to?

 

[Popeholden]

doherty you are right in that the government has cultivated this fear of terrorism in order to further their foriegn policy, but while that's pretty sick in and of itself it doesn't mean we live in a police state, and it certainly doesn't mean that they orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. it's politics, man.

while the grand chessboard certainly exposes the Bush admin's foreign policy mindset, the PNAC document doesn't say what you think it says. i suggest you read the entire document, or even that entire section, before assuming anything.

are you now accusing Zbigniew [SIZE=-1]Brzezinski (sp sorry it's a toughy and i'm lazy) of having foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks?
[/SIZE]

 

[T.A.M.]

Have you read the PNAC paper you are quoting from. I havent, but I have read the 4-5 pages before and after the "Pearl Harbour" quote. If you were to do so, you would realize that the context of that quote is vitally important. They are referring to the creation/production/bringing to fruition of NEW INTELLIGENT DEFENSE WEAPONRY and SYSTEMS, when they refer to needing a "new Pearl Harbour" to make this change (to more intelligent defense systems) acceptable to the public. The Aghanistan and Iraq wars have not done that one Iota. they have brought about the use of regular defense/offese weaponry. It has not lead to any change to new defense systems. It is not what they wanted, or what they were talking about in the paper.

Read it...go ahead...

TAM

 

[pdoherty76]

my degree is real. alex will im sure confirm that

 

[Spindrift]

spindrift the comparison could have used other examples, i believe more people die from choking than are killed by terrorists aswell.

The comparison of the number of people killed by method X to the number killed by terrorists has no meaning unless you can make a correlation between the terrorist killings and the method X deaths.

You may indeed be right that the government only exploited the situation, but then I look at the pearl harbour references in PNAC and the Grand Chessboarrd

They are planning on bombing Hawaii?