What grieves me and gives me a heavy heart

[ryaldin]

The problem with media is that they are drawn by two very weighty factors:

1) To provide coverage of any and all news, whenever and wherever it happens; In essence, to inform the public of the truth, whatever that may entail.

and

2) To make money. Ergo, they need to attract readers (viewers, listeners, etc) and the most successful way of doing that, is to have the most exciting or shocking or befuddling headlines, even at the risk of aggrandizement.

Of course, you can't pluck them out of the market system and put them on the government payrolls. That creates a whole new rote of problems. =]

I suppose that we'll all have to hope and pray for people to take the time to become self-informed, in this day of 24 newscasts and emergency email updates.

Edit:Elmonster! Woot!

[ 03-19-2004, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: ryaldin ]

[B_part]

Originally posted by YYYYY: quote: Originally posted by XXXXX: Where does this feeling come from? It's difficult to say, but perhaps te most important factor is that Europeans don't want to be followers, they would like to decide on their own

Actually, they would rather decide TOGETHER - otherwise there wouldn't be an EU. We decide important issues together and we do not take unilateral action esp. when it will hurt all and only benefit one state.
[/QUOTE]Europeans would like to decide on their own = as EU on the whole. I might have been unclear, or you might have misread me.
As to the "we decide important issues together", it doesn't seem that true: on every single EU decision there seems to be at least one country trying to get it their way. Disagreement is kinda normal in democracy, but the problem is, many issues simply cannot be solved because of the dissent of this or that country. Either we get a true constitution with a built-in way of composing disputes, or we will never be able to "decide together" Too bad the european constitution writers disagree exactly on that built-in way... bigger countries want to count more, smaller countries don't want to lose influence and get pushed around by the biggies...

Originally pposted by:YYYY quote: Originally posted by : Add the fact that the pacifist movement [...]consensus.

THERE IS NO PACIFIST MOVEMENT in Europe - there is a JUSTICE movement.

If Iraq invades Kuwait - THAT'S WRONG
If the UK invades Iraq - THAT'S WRONG
If a Palestinian straps on bombs and kills innocent people - THAT'S WRONG
If an Israeli warplane bombs a civilian appartment block - THAT'S WRONG.

[/QUOTE]I am glad you see it this way, and you blame violence wherever it comes from. As I said above, this view is shared by the MAJORITY of pacifists (or justice-ists, it's just difficult to pronounce). I do not completely agree with some of the things they/you say, but I respect their opinion and yours among theirs. What I was saying above is that, hiding among the true pacifists, there are some (a MINORITY) who simply use the pacifist movement as a way to cover what is simply anti-USA propaganda. And I am not the only one to think this: just to mention one thing, recently there was a pro-peace demonstration in Assisi. Actually there were TWO different demonstrations: one by the true pacifists, who protested and voiced their anger against all wars, from Albania to Zaire; another in which demonstrators burned american flags, dressed up as palestinian kamikaze and so on.
In my previous post I simply stated the fact that, at least judging by what I see, the consensus to these latter pro-terror-camouflaged-as-pro-peace demonstration is increasing, and this must be because an increasing anti-US feeling. And I am concerned by this rising force that is widening the rift between the shoers of the Atlantic ocean

Edit: spelling

[ 03-19-2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: B_part ]

[philip]

What do you all understand with 'anti-USA.' Am I the only one who thinks this is stupid cause you can't hate a country? I mean if you don't like the leaders you at least have a point. But I don't think there's much difference in the USA and Europe looking at rights and constitutes but that governments make the difference.

Also I don't think right now you can speak of the EU. It's still a bunch of loose countries which all do what they like best and what gives most profit.

Wouldn't this whole anti-terror stuff be better organised by actually making longterm agreements. Like now it's so easy to back out. Apart from IMO the bad decision in Spain to still vote immediately after the attacks and not postpone it, I don't like it that this sort of 'alliance' can be broken so easily. While I understand people don't want more attacks I feel terrorists got a huge win by Spain retreating out of the war.

While terrorists are getting more organised, countries involved in countering them are IMO still a loose bunch, they actually never have been a real unity. While the groups targeted in anti-terror campaigns have a common goal in trying to take down the west, countries fighting terror all have different goals and worse, some are even keeping in mind their own profit or so it seems. In fighting terror countries should take their responsibility in making a safer world, despite negative things that (could) happen.

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Jesus had his chance. He failed.

Warning to everyone in this thread...

Please ignore Johnny's flamebaiting scheme.
[/QUOTE]Just a friendly reminder to all that we still have a moratorium on religious discussion here. I'd appreciate it if we kept the discussion away from this particular tangent. Cheers. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by philip: What do you all understand with 'anti-USA.' Am I the only one who thinks this is stupid cause you can't hate a country? I mean if you don't like the leaders you at least have a point. But I don't think there's much difference in the USA and Europe looking at rights and constitutes but that governments make the difference. Also I don't think right now you can speak of the EU. It's still a bunch of loose countries which all do what they like best and what gives most profit. Wouldn't this whole anti-terror stuff be better organised by actually making longterm agreements. Like now it's so easy to back out. Apart from IMO the bad decision in Spain to still vote immediately after the attacks and not postpone it, I don't like it that this sort of 'alliance' can be broken so easily. While I understand people don't want more attacks I feel terrorists got a huge win by Spain retreating out of the war. While terrorists are getting more organised, countries involved in countering them are IMO still a loose bunch, they actually never have been a real unity. While the groups targeted in anti-terror campaigns have a common goal in trying to take down the west, countries fighting terror all have different goals and worse, some are even keeping in mind their own profit or so it seems. In fighting terror countries should take their responsibility in making a safer world, despite negative things that (could) happen.

So basically you're saying Counter-Terrorism = Good, Terrorism = Bad?

Sure, Nation-States should get organised and provide co-ordinated counter-terrorism measures, but the problem lies in getting rid of National rivalries that simply refuse to go away. Tied in with that is the myriad of differing opinions on how to tackle the international terrorism phenomenon, not to mention the incredibly diverse motivations of terrorist groups throughout the world. Devoting time and resources toward weakening one group may strengthen another. Some want money, some want religious uniformity, others simply wish to expel 'foreign' influence from 'their' land. Different nations have different terrorist enemies. Chechnyan terrorists are unlikely to target American interests, likewise Al Qaeda isn't likely to target Russians, nor is the IRA going to take a bite out of the Australian government anytime soon etc etc.

So, how do you organise a co-ordinated, international counter-terrorist effort? Keeping in mind that 'terrorism' is a blanket term applied to so many ideologically and logistically different militant groups that the generalisation is almost ludicrous...

[ 03-20-2004, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[philip]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: you're saying Counter-Terrorism = Good, Terrorism = Bad? [/qb]

More like counter-terrorism is bad, terrorism is worse. I don't like either of them but when I got to choose I'm for counter-terrorism (despite possible other intentions of countries involved), because I don't like terrorist's way of trying to accomplish things. But if it's needed to ensure (more) security I think it's something that has to be done. Simply because IMO it's irresponsible to have militant groups running around and influencing others with threats of attacks.

So, how do you organise a co-ordinated, international counter-terrorist effort? Keeping in mind that 'terrorism' is a blanket term applied to so many ideologically and logistically different militant groups that the generalisation is almost ludicrous...

I know that but I'm not saying that all terrorist groups should be attacked by a whole lot of countries. But if you're going to target worldwide organisationslike alquaida and their allied organisations and governments then you can at least have some more unity in countering them. And in the EU as well, yesterday I read that all security agencies in the EU are reluctant to give the other countries entrance to the information. To have an advantage over other countries while we're supposed to be a unity.

I think I didn't make it obvious enough that I was talking about the specific subject of the topic and not about all terrorist groups.

[The Hierophant]

Chill bro, be cool I wasn't attacking you [img]smile.gif[/img]

[philip]

Didn't feel that way, just want to make sure I'm not misunderstood [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by philip: And in the EU as well, yesterday I read that all security agencies in the EU are reluctant to give the other countries entrance to the information. To have an advantage over other countries while we're supposed to be a unity.

That's a rather cynical conclusion Philip.
The more people that share a secret the less chance that it remains one. It is a sad but true fact that it is a neccessity to treat all counter-intelligence material on a strict 'need to know' basis, releasing information only when it is absolutely essential to do so.

That's not to say that nations do not trust eachother - more that they have a genuine worry of 'whistleblowers', political malcontents and even traitors in their midst and are sensibly seeking to reduce the risk of such persons derailing intelligence activities by leaking or sharing information with those who should not have access to it.

[philip]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by philip: And in the EU as well, yesterday I read that all security agencies in the EU are reluctant to give the other countries entrance to the information. To have an advantage over other countries while we're supposed to be a unity.

That's a rather cynical conclusion Philip.
The more people that share a secret the less chance that it remains one. It is a sad but true fact that it is a neccessity to treat all counter-intelligence material on a strict 'need to know' basis, releasing information only when it is absolutely essential to do so.

That's not to say that nations do not trust eachother - more that they have a genuine worry of 'whistleblowers', political malcontents and even traitors in their midst and are sensibly seeking to reduce the risk of such persons derailing intelligence activities by leaking or sharing information with those who should not have access to it.
[/QUOTE]It wasn't my conclusion, it was the conclusion of the article. It wasn't only that but if needed it was even hard to get and cooperation was bad.

That's one of the reasons I feel either do it good or don't do it. If they had said that slowly we would be growing together as a EU with a few changes at a time, I'd be fine. But now the one of the few things we have in common is the same money. I don't think you can speak of the EU growing apart of the US cause there simply isn't a real EU. It's still a loose bunch of countries.