71–80 of 273 posts
""Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme, and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the 1793–1794 Reign of terror."
I have 0 faith in governments both for understanding and acting properly in the information age. They have time and again acted bad, and seem to not even understand the medium with they try to regulate. In the information age, power does not lie with the one who has the guns. I hope everyone reading this takes some time to research how to encrypt your communication & how to use bitcoin. I also hope we will see more u…
> I have 0 faith in governments both for understanding and acting properly in the information age. Can we go without a government that properly understand the information age? If so, how? Who would you trust instead, to organize public affairs? If not, why does this kind of government doesn't (want to) understand it?
>Because all media, from the phonetic alphabet to the computer, are extensions of man that cause deep and lasting changes in him and transform his environment. Such an extension is an intensification, an amplification of an organ, sense or function, and whenever it takes place, the central nervous system appears to institute a self-protective numbing of the affected area, insulating and anesthetizing it from conscious awareness of what’s happening to it. It’s a process rather like that which occurs to the body under shock or stress conditions, or to the mind in line with the Freudian concept of repression. I call this peculiar form of self-hypnosis Narcissus narcosis, a syndrome whereby man remains as unaware of the psychic and social effects of his new technology as a fish of the water it swims in. As a result, precisely at the point where a new media-induced environment becomes all pervasive and transmogrifies our sensory balance, it also becomes invisible.
>This problem is doubly acute today because man must, as a simple survival strategy, become aware of what is happening to him, despite the attendant pain of such comprehension. The fact that he has not done so in this age of electronics is what has made this also the age of anxiety, which in turn has been transformed into its Doppelganger–the therapeutically reactive age of anomie and apathy. But despite our self protective escape mechanisms, the total-field awareness engendered by electronic media is enabling us–indeed, compelling us–to grope toward a consciousness of the unconscious, toward a realization that technology is an extension of our own bodies.
-Marshall McLuhan
All this because 130 people were killed. What would they do to prevent the 4600 people killed in road accidents in France last year? Or the 49000 people killed by alcohol [in 2009]?
And as far as I know, they did not use any encryption anyway, so I don't even see the point here, it's totally unrelated. Should we ban unencrypted connections then since that's what they used ?
[Well, with current tech anyways. A hyperintelligent AI with on-demand wormhole mastery could probably pull it off.]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Pseudo-Operations are a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Flag#Pseudo-operations >Similar false flag tactics were also employed during the Algerian civil war, starting in the middle of 1994. Death squads composed of Département du Renseignement et de la Sécurité (DRS) security forces disguised themselves as Islamist terrorists and committed false flag terror attacks.
God, I can't wait until you find out about Operation Gladio... Conspiracy theories are comforting, in a way, because they project the belief that somebody is in control. The truth is far more terrifying: no one is in control.
That's logical since the known attackers did not use public Wi-Fi nor Tor as far as we know today but all kinds of plain text channels. /s
You see, outlawing $RANDOMTHING is cheaper than properly staffing police units so they can follow all the leads they get.
You tell the public you're banning something they don't really use? Fine. You tell the public you're doubling police forces in a time of strong anti-police sentiment? Good luck in the next election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless. I agree. However, I believe the reason for this is more legislative laziness than anything else. In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer. The executive's law enforcement and intelligence agencies typically have a wish…
"In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer" = false. The public never said that. You can watch any public rally condemning any terrorist attack and you will never see: "we want more laws and tighter filters and controls everywhere and higher and more taxes spent on security and defense". That's what the government says that "the public wants". In reality most of the…
The "public" is not the people at rallies, not even what people in the street and cafes are saying, but the tally of the vote at the next election, and politicians act accordingly.
As you can see from the first round of the regional elections, the French "public" overwhelmingly voted for more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless. I agree. However, I believe the reason for this is more legislative laziness than anything else. In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer. The executive's law enforcement and intelligence agencies typically have a wish…
"In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer" = false. The public never said that. You can watch any public rally condemning any terrorist attack and you will never see: "we want more laws and tighter filters and controls everywhere and higher and more taxes spent on security and defense". That's what the government says that "the public wants". In reality most of the…
Well, that may be a subtle difference in interpretation but the general opinion is that we are 'unsafe' and that 'something should be done'.
Opposition parties in various countries have definitely used these attacks to create an impression that 'something could have been done' and that if they were in the driving seat 'something would have been done'. Incumbents are scared of losing voters due to being seen as 'doing nothing' and so will resort to doing 'something' just to stave off the inevitable (admitting that they don't know what to do, and neither does the opposition, mostly because there isn't a whole lot they can do to begin with that does not involve a change of course for the next 30 years and an admission that they royally messed up during the last 30 years).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
God, I can't wait until you find out about Operation Gladio... Conspiracy theories are comforting, in a way, because they project the belief that somebody is in control. The truth is far more terrifying: no one is in control.
Not sure what your point is? Are you saying what I quoted (or Operation Gladio for that matter) is just a conspiracy theory?
The second part of his point is that by positing a conspiracy theory you are presenting a view that there is an overarching plan to all this, whereas the reality is more like a bunch of headless chickens trying to run in three directions at once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did just voted in their equivalent of the Nazi party in the regional elections though so let's wait and see... Edit: correction... vote not over yet but it's not looking good.
Nobody got 50% of votes, so no, they didn't. ( and with about half of registered voters not participating, it can still change easely )
> a ban on free and shared Wi-Fi connections during a
> state of emergency