Norade wrote:
I was speaking more to overseas terrorists. As for domestic terrorists they would do what they do regardless. Most do it for reasons other than simply causing fear.
Then it wouldn't matter if they got "press releases" or not. Any group of terrorists with organizational capability greater than a boy-scout troup wouldn't exclusively rely on the media for their intel.
It isn't about intel, it's about fear spread. A terrorist that nobody hears about spreads very little terror.
Unlike those in the states my government doesn't engage in wars of aggression on shitty intel so I could care less if Canada's military gets press. In the States what press you do get is so biased as to be useless in seeing the big picture anyway so that it would almost be better for people to see nothing at all. After all, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Exactly how do you expect to know whether or not your government is getting into wars of aggression on shitty intel if the press doesn't cover it? Magic? We wouldn't have learned about all the fuckups of Bush's maladministration if it weren't for the press coverage.
How much did knowing about the fuck-ups change anything in the slightest? Bush stayed in office, isn't charged with anything, and the war is still going strong. Prove that covering it changes anything and has ever changed anything for the better in the history of news covering American wars. It made Vietnam worse for both the government and returning soldiers... But remember your average mouth breather needs to know the details of a war that has little effect on him...
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norade wrote:
It isn't about intel, it's about fear spread. A terrorist that nobody hears about spreads very little terror.
People don't work that way. If hundreds of people get killed it's going to spread.
How much did knowing about the fuck-ups change anything in the slightest? Bush stayed in office, isn't charged with anything, and the war is still going strong. Prove that covering it changes anything and has ever changed anything for the better in the history of news covering American wars. It made Vietnam worse for both the government and returning soldiers... But remember your average mouth breather needs to know the details of a war that has little effect on him...
If people didn't know about them, idiots like you wouldn't be able to grandstand about how their country doesn't get into illegal wars like a chest beating wanker. But I guess a damaged international reputation doesn't count for much in your world. In case you have the memory of a goldfish, most countries were actually supportive of the US's decisions until it was revealed that Bush was a liar.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Norade wrote:
It isn't about intel, it's about fear spread. A terrorist that nobody hears about spreads very little terror.
People don't work that way. If hundreds of people get killed it's going to spread.
No shit, but that doesn't mean it has to be front page news. I also never suggested that it was even possible to do this, merely that it would be beneficial if it did happen. For all you harp on me for reading what you wrote you sure pay fuck all attention back.
How much did knowing about the fuck-ups change anything in the slightest? Bush stayed in office, isn't charged with anything, and the war is still going strong. Prove that covering it changes anything and has ever changed anything for the better in the history of news covering American wars. It made Vietnam worse for both the government and returning soldiers... But remember your average mouth breather needs to know the details of a war that has little effect on him...
If people didn't know about them, idiots like you wouldn't be able to grandstand about how their country doesn't get into illegal wars like a chest beating wanker. But I guess a damaged international reputation doesn't count for much in your world. In case you have the memory of a goldfish, most countries were actually supportive of the US's decisions until it was revealed that Bush was a liar.
So I'm not allowed to be glad I live in a nation with less proportional debts, stronger banks, better health care, and a government that doesn't do stupid shit with our military? Go fuck yourself! The US sucks unless you're at least upper middle class and even then it has more issues than other first, and many second world nations I could name.
Yes and the politicians in those nations would still get the information and could disseminate it as needed. Not to mention that in Europe the don't have the same sensationalist and alarmist media to stir up the morons over the way wars are normally fought. Also for all the withdrawing of support what did it change about the war for the better? Oh yeah, it fucked America worse in public image, denied more soldiers to get things done quicker, and generally made it worse than if other nations had stayed on board...
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norade wrote:
No shit, but that doesn't mean it has to be front page news. I also never suggested that it was even possible to do this, merely that it would be beneficial if it did happen. For all you harp on me for reading what you wrote you sure pay fuck all attention back.
You haven't even bothered showing how it could be beneficial, you've just stated it as a matter of fact. Incidentally, what's this bullshit about harping on you for reading? Now you're just flat out making shit up.
So I'm not allowed to be glad I live in a nation with less proportional debts, stronger banks, better health care, and a government that doesn't do stupid shit with our military? Go fuck yourself! The US sucks unless you're at least upper middle class and even then it has more issues than other first, and many second world nations I could name.
Thanks for completely missing the point.
Yes and the politicians in those nations would still get the information and could disseminate it as needed. Not to mention that in Europe the don't have the same sensationalist and alarmist media to stir up the morons over the way wars are normally fought. Also for all the withdrawing of support what did it change about the war for the better? Oh yeah, it fucked America worse in public image, denied more soldiers to get things done quicker, and generally made it worse than if other nations had stayed on board...
You're a half-witted imbecile without a clue. You know what happens when you implement policies similar to the ones you're praising as a good idea? You get North Korea.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Norade wrote:
No shit, but that doesn't mean it has to be front page news. I also never suggested that it was even possible to do this, merely that it would be beneficial if it did happen. For all you harp on me for reading what you wrote you sure pay fuck all attention back.
You haven't even bothered showing how it could be beneficial, you've just stated it as a matter of fact. Incidentally, what's this bullshit about harping on you for reading? Now you're just flat out making shit up.
Here's how it works. You don't report it, people freak out less, America doesn't go rah rah we need to be tough on crime, instead of a massive back lashing war on terror we quietly nail the guys behind the operation. Billions aren't wasted, the idiots behind the attacks are dead, and everybody wins.
So I'm not allowed to be glad I live in a nation with less proportional debts, stronger banks, better health care, and a government that doesn't do stupid shit with our military? Go fuck yourself! The US sucks unless you're at least upper middle class and even then it has more issues than other first, and many second world nations I could name.
Thanks for completely missing the point.
How much press do you think the Canadian military gets? The war hardly makes the news and they're more often mentioned for disaster relief or humanitarian aid than anything.
Yes and the politicians in those nations would still get the information and could disseminate it as needed. Not to mention that in Europe the don't have the same sensationalist and alarmist media to stir up the morons over the way wars are normally fought. Also for all the withdrawing of support what did it change about the war for the better? Oh yeah, it fucked America worse in public image, denied more soldiers to get things done quicker, and generally made it worse than if other nations had stayed on board...
You're a half-witted imbecile without a clue. You know what happens when you implement policies similar to the ones you're praising as a good idea? You get North Korea.
Only if you elect a power mad asshole and have no other checks to his power. The steps needed to get from where we are to where I'm aiming wouldn't just change one thing.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norade wrote:
Here's how it works. You don't report it, people freak out less, America doesn't go rah rah we need to be tough on crime, instead of a massive back lashing war on terror we quietly nail the guys behind the operation. Billions aren't wasted, the idiots behind the attacks are dead, and everybody wins.
Newsflash genius. When people's families get killed? They will freak out. Attempting to downplay it will just get people screeching about conspiracy theories. Imagine 9/11 truthers on a much larger scale, and you have your system at work.
Only if you elect a power mad asshole and have no other checks to his power. The steps needed to get from where we are to where I'm aiming wouldn't just change one thing.
You mean checks like the media to keep the people informed of who they're voting in?
Oh wait.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Norade wrote:
Here's how it works. You don't report it, people freak out less, America doesn't go rah rah we need to be tough on crime, instead of a massive back lashing war on terror we quietly nail the guys behind the operation. Billions aren't wasted, the idiots behind the attacks are dead, and everybody wins.
Newsflash genius. When people's families get killed? They will freak out. Attempting to downplay it will just get people screeching about conspiracy theories. Imagine 9/11 truthers on a much larger scale, and you have your system at work.
So those truthers accomplished all of fuck all and on a larger scale they're still less dangerous than most other groups.
Only if you elect a power mad asshole and have no other checks to his power. The steps needed to get from where we are to where I'm aiming wouldn't just change one thing.
You mean checks like the media to keep the people informed of who they're voting in?
Oh wait.
I mean like mandatory classes before people can vote. Like jury duty people are paid to attend and the issues are covered over a few day long course, start the courses a few months before elections and you can cover everybody. You get voters more informed than we have now without the need to scare people.
Now you're going to screech that the info would be biased for one side or the other. I'm going to say that what we have now is so biased anyway that it would change little, and that the info can be made public little by little as the courses grow nearer so many people can see it.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norade wrote:
I mean like mandatory classes before people can vote. Like jury duty people are paid to attend and the issues are covered over a few day long course, start the courses a few months before elections and you can cover everybody. You get voters more informed than we have now without the need to scare people.
Now you're going to screech that the info would be biased for one side or the other. I'm going to say that what we have now is so biased anyway that it would change little, and that the info can be made public little by little as the courses grow nearer so many people can see it.
You don't have any kind of "voting tests" because the very corrupt dipshits you're railing against will use it to keep people they don't like from voting in order to secure their power. Your ideas are so hopelessly ignorant and naive I don't know where to begin.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Norade wrote:
I mean like mandatory classes before people can vote. Like jury duty people are paid to attend and the issues are covered over a few day long course, start the courses a few months before elections and you can cover everybody. You get voters more informed than we have now without the need to scare people.
Now you're going to screech that the info would be biased for one side or the other. I'm going to say that what we have now is so biased anyway that it would change little, and that the info can be made public little by little as the courses grow nearer so many people can see it.
You don't have any kind of "voting tests" because the very corrupt dipshits you're railing against will use it to keep people they don't like from voting in order to secure their power. Your ideas are so hopelessly ignorant and naive I don't know where to begin.
I never said anything about tests, try reading a bit closer next time. It's just a course the only requirement is that you attend all three days and stay there the entire day. If you don't feel the need to go don't vote. If you can't afford the time off then they mail you a course package instead.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norade wrote:
I never said anything about tests, try reading a bit closer next time. It's just a course the only requirement is that you attend all three days and stay there the entire day. If you don't feel the need to go don't vote. If you can't afford the time off then they mail you a course package instead.
It's the same fucking thing you moron. Anything that acts as a barrier to keep people from voting is unacceptable and will only serve the corrupt assholes you're railing against.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Norade wrote:
I never said anything about tests, try reading a bit closer next time. It's just a course the only requirement is that you attend all three days and stay there the entire day. If you don't feel the need to go don't vote. If you can't afford the time off then they mail you a course package instead.
It's the same fucking thing you moron. Anything that acts as a barrier to keep people from voting is unacceptable and will only serve the corrupt assholes you're railing against.
So a course that is open to all with an optional paper test mailed to the home is a barrier? The only people that won't go wouldn't vote anyway.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norade wrote:
I never said anything about tests, try reading a bit closer next time. It's just a course the only requirement is that you attend all three days and stay there the entire day. If you don't feel the need to go don't vote. If you can't afford the time off then they mail you a course package instead.
It's the same fucking thing you moron. Anything that acts as a barrier to keep people from voting is unacceptable and will only serve the corrupt assholes you're railing against.
So a course that is open to all with an optional paper test mailed to the home is a barrier? The only people that won't go wouldn't vote anyway.
Exactly how would you pay for that sort of thing? What kind of politician that valued their career would support it? You sound more and more like some dumb highschooler. In any case this is getting off topic faster than your mom can swallow a 9" cock.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
General Zod wrote:Exactly how would you pay for that sort of thing? What kind of politician that valued their career would support it? You sound more and more like some dumb highschooler. In any case this is getting off topic faster than your mom can swallow a 9" cock.
Did I say that this plan had a hope in hell of working? No, my argument is that it would be a better option and you keep back peddling trying to make me jump more and more hurdles. Then when you can't shit the goal posts anymore you try to duck out.
Go fuck yourself! Enjoy being broke in New York because you're obviously too learning disabled to find a cheaper place to live.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norade wrote:
Did I say that this plan had a hope in hell of working? No, my argument is that it would be a better option and you keep back peddling trying to make me jump more and more hurdles. Then when you can't shit the goal posts anymore you try to duck out.
Go fuck yourself! Enjoy being broke in New York because you're obviously too learning disabled to find a cheaper place to live.
Okay, now you're just acting like a babbling retard and you should put away the paint chips for awhile. Here's a tip: In order for something to be a better option? It has to have more than a snowball's chance in hell of working.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Norade wrote:
Did I say that this plan had a hope in hell of working? No, my argument is that it would be a better option and you keep back peddling trying to make me jump more and more hurdles. Then when you can't shit the goal posts anymore you try to duck out.
Go fuck yourself! Enjoy being broke in New York because you're obviously too learning disabled to find a cheaper place to live.
Okay, now you're just acting like a babbling retard and you should put away the paint chips for awhile. Here's a tip: In order for something to be a better option? It has to have more than a snowball's chance in hell of working.
No I don't, the entire argument started when down this path when you asked me to show why no coverage would be good and how it would put a dent in terrorist attacks. I proved my point, that it isn't ever going to happen doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a good thing if it did.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norade wrote:
No I don't, the entire argument started when down this path when you asked me to show why no coverage would be good and how it would put a dent in terrorist attacks. I proved my point, that it isn't ever going to happen doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a good thing if it did.
You didn't prove shit. You just kept stating your opinion as a fact while ignoring how things work in the real world.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Norade wrote:No I don't, the entire argument started when down this path when you asked me to show why no coverage would be good and how it would put a dent in terrorist attacks. I proved my point, that it isn't ever going to happen doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a good thing if it did.
You didn't prove shit. You just kept stating your opinion as a fact while ignoring how things work in the real world.
You couldn't disprove anything I put forth either and when I brought up an idea you didn't want to deal with you back peddled away faster than FOX News changing a disgraced Republican to a Democrat.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norade wrote:
You couldn't disprove anything I put forth either and when I brought up an idea you didn't want to deal with you back peddled away faster than FOX News changing a disgraced Republican to a Democrat.
Every idea you've posted has either been completely detached from reality or a total red herring combined with some good old fashioned jingoism. Frankly an autistic 5 year old has a better grasp of logic than you. At this point arguing with a brick wall would be a more productive use of my time.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Norade wrote:
You couldn't disprove anything I put forth either and when I brought up an idea you didn't want to deal with you back peddled away faster than FOX News changing a disgraced Republican to a Democrat.
Every idea you've posted has either been completely detached from reality or a total red herring combined with some good old fashioned jingoism. Frankly an autistic 5 year old has a better grasp of logic than you. At this point arguing with a brick wall would be a more productive use of my time.
You have yet to address my point that not covering terrorists (assuming of course this could ever be done) would decrease the net terror they spread and thus make their attacks less harmful overall. You have yet to point out a case where media coverage has helped a nation in regards to fighting a war. You have yet to show how having voters take a course, available to all, would be a barrier to people voting. I never once argued that any of this was practical, merely that if it were possible my changes would cause a net reduction in harm caused by terror attacks.
I will even go so far as to take a stab at how I'd fund the voter education, I'd do it by slowly cutting the pay for politicians, removing the senate, and and cutting wages and benefits to most over payed public sector workers. Would this ever happen? Not unless shit really hit the fan and change was called for. Would it be painful to implement? Of course, but so is all large scale change.
Your go.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norade wrote:
You have yet to address my point that not covering terrorists (assuming of course this could ever be done) would decrease the net terror they spread and thus make their attacks less harmful overall.
You haven't bothered providing any evidence that it would other than your say-so. Since it can't be done short of quantum, your entire point is meaningless grandstanding.
You have yet to point out a case where media coverage has helped a nation in regards to fighting a war.
You must enjoy making strawmen to beat down.
I never once argued that any of this was practical, merely that if it were possible my changes would cause a net reduction in harm caused by terror attacks.
A point completely detached from reality.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Norade wrote:
You have yet to address my point that not covering terrorists (assuming of course this could ever be done) would decrease the net terror they spread and thus make their attacks less harmful overall.
You haven't bothered providing any evidence that it would other than your say-so. Since it can't be done short of quantum, your entire point is meaningless grandstanding.
If people don't know an attack happened, how can they fear it? If people don't fear an attack how was your attack successful unless terror wasn't your first goal?
You have yet to point out a case where media coverage has helped a nation in regards to fighting a war.
You must enjoy making strawmen to beat down.
You were the one that said a lack of media coverage was a bad thing, I'm asking you to fucking prove it.
I never once argued that any of this was practical, merely that if it were possible my changes would cause a net reduction in harm caused by terror attacks.
A point completely detached from reality.
The point was never about if it could happen, this all sprang from a hypothetical and you're asking like I said we should ban all news networks overnight to stop terror.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norade wrote:
If people don't know an attack happened, how can they fear it? If people don't fear an attack how was your attack successful unless terror wasn't your first goal?
You really are an ignorant cunt if you think covering up hundreds of deaths is remotely possible.
You were the one that said a lack of media coverage was a bad thing, I'm asking you to fucking prove it.
I've already pointed out North Korea as an example of what happens when the public isn't being informed of what's going on in their government. There's also any number of Middle Eastern shitholes that do the same thing as NK.
The point was never about if it could happen, this all sprang from a hypothetical and you're asking like I said we should ban all news networks overnight to stop terror.
In other words you were being a grandstanding wanker.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Norade wrote:If people don't know an attack happened, how can they fear it? If people don't fear an attack how was your attack successful unless terror wasn't your first goal?
You really are an ignorant cunt if you think covering up hundreds of deaths is remotely possible.
Perhaps not, but not making a car bombing nationwide front page news is possible. Then you force bigger attacks which are harder to plan and easier to stop when you know they're the only option left.
You were the one that said a lack of media coverage was a bad thing, I'm asking you to fucking prove it.
I've already pointed out North Korea as an example of what happens when the public isn't being informed of what's going on in their government. There's also any number of Middle Eastern shitholes that do the same thing as NK.
To which I proposed the idea of a voter information session and even went so far as to show how I'd pay for it. Now we're going in circles...
The point was never about if it could happen, this all sprang from a hypothetical and you're asking like I said we should ban all news networks overnight to stop terror.
In other words you were being a grandstanding wanker.
You attacked me for posting a hypothetical scenario, I'm merely defending myself. As we got further in I proposed that had so much effort not been spent on covering the 9/11 attacks and whipping our nation into a frenzy we could have used the attack as a way to find Osama. Instead we made it public news we were after him and he went into deep hiding and hasn't been reliably spotted since. Thus news only further spread panic, and, in part, lead to a fairly bad outcome.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norade wrote:
Perhaps not, but not making a car bombing nationwide front page news is possible. Then you force bigger attacks which are harder to plan and easier to stop when you know they're the only option left.
Car bombings in important areas will attract a lot of attention whether you like it or not.
You attacked me for posting a hypothetical scenario, I'm merely defending myself. As we got further in I proposed that had so much effort not been spent on covering the 9/11 attacks and whipping our nation into a frenzy we could have used the attack as a way to find Osama. Instead we made it public news we were after him and he went into deep hiding and hasn't been reliably spotted since. Thus news only further spread panic, and, in part, lead to a fairly bad outcome.
I attacked you for being a grandstanding wanker. I could make the claim that getting rid of the catholic church would help reduce pedophilia, but it wouldn't be feasible or realistic and I'd still be a grandstanding wanker for saying so. Just because something is "hypothetical" doesn't mean it's not stupid.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Norade wrote:
Perhaps not, but not making a car bombing nationwide front page news is possible. Then you force bigger attacks which are harder to plan and easier to stop when you know they're the only option left.
Car bombings in important areas will attract a lot of attention whether you like it or not.
The point is that they shouldn't nobody even died. All reporting it does is cause people to point fingers wildly at shadows.
You attacked me for posting a hypothetical scenario, I'm merely defending myself. As we got further in I proposed that had so much effort not been spent on covering the 9/11 attacks and whipping our nation into a frenzy we could have used the attack as a way to find Osama. Instead we made it public news we were after him and he went into deep hiding and hasn't been reliably spotted since. Thus news only further spread panic, and, in part, lead to a fairly bad outcome.
I attacked you for being a grandstanding wanker. I could make the claim that getting rid of the catholic church would help reduce pedophilia, but it wouldn't be feasible or realistic and I'd still be a grandstanding wanker for saying so. Just because something is "hypothetical" doesn't mean it's not stupid.
So by saying that something like a failed car bombing shouldn't get covered provokes this from you... Imagine if I'd said something controversial. I'm not even going to say anything on removing the catholic church issue, except that it would be easier to do than to stop the media from scaring people to sell ad space.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
The point was never about if it could happen, this all sprang from a hypothetical and you're asking like I said we should ban all news networks overnight to stop terror.