Dissent: The Dangerous Words

reply to post by TheLoony


Lol, I asked you a question and pointed out a logical fallacy. I didn't offer an opinion or point of view, nor did I inquire about yours.

But you are right, it's not worth arguing about.

reply to post by BuckWilder


I was waiting for someone to post in it before I mentioned anything. But the 9/11 forums opened back up about an hour and a half ago.

Now... Any cynicism removed yet?

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

I was waiting for someone to post in it before I mentioned anything. But the 9/11 forums opened back up about an hour and a half ago.

Around the time we were arguing about it or right after. That's great timing. Seems like it wasn't planned for tonight, judging by moderators' reactions earlier today.

Well good job, wonder if there is a new crew over there.

Wow, I'm baffled that this thread has had so few participants. I also must say I quite enjoyed the exchanged that has dominated it thus far. It sort of complimented one of the main points: the increase in outspoken opposition to authority.

Is trust sinking to the point where people are no longer confident in available channels within the system, such as ATS, for discussing the failures of society?

Is this part of the conspiracy? To have the population, even those who question to the extent of joining a conspiracy forum, lose faith in their ability in make things better with nonviolent discourse.

Anyway, before reading the whole thread, the angle I was going to take with relation to the OP was the growth of the classification/confidential construct. Free speech is gone when the topic is classified by the government.

(a) National Security Information (hereinafter "classified information") shall be classified at one of the following three levels:
(1) "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
(2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.

(3) "Confidential" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.

Last on the list of things that could be considered top secret..

(7) Vital information concerning radically new and extremely important equipment (munitions of war), such as nuclear weapons, atomic weapons stockpile data, and any other munitions of comparable importance the scientific or technological development aspects of which are vital to national defense.

www.fas.org...

The information available to the public is limited. How many things could qualify as vital to national defense? Computer technology, biotech, nanotech, energy.

Almost any major tech/scientific advancement at this point would have huge implications on geopolitics.

The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 (Pub.L. 82-256, 66 Stat. 3, enacted February 1, 1952, codified at 35 U.S.C. §§ 181–188) is a body of United States federal law designed to prevent disclosure of new inventions and technologies that, in the opinion of selected federal agencies, present a possible threat to the national security of the United States. The U.S. government has long sought to control the release of new technologies that might threaten the national defense and economic stability of the country.

en.wikipedia.org...

This type of stuff is surely old news, here. But, with more people becoming aware of the control on information and technology by the US gov and it's corporate backers, new threats to national security are increasing in the philosophical realm. It starts with a vague movement like Occupy ,and as I see it, the trend continues upward to the point where a significant portion of the population become anti establishment activists.

The under 25 crowd are internet junkies who know nothing else, glued to a smart phone 24/7. Yes, even in their dreams they are on smart phones. How long is it until more start stumbling on material that shake them up to the point of involvement. Word of mouth is very efficient when mouths are connected by satellites.

National security. What nation? Which people decide the jurisdiction of developments that effect national security? Oligarchs and aristocracy, or common citizens. Are these power brokers gaining control, or on the verge of losing it?

At what point do the moderators of the real world pull the plug on the citizens capacity for communication and protest?

As far as I can see, it hasn't happened to any extent on ATS and those who are frustrated with how things are run may one day reminisce of the days when the 9/11 discussion board wasn't available. Let's use our free speech in a productive manner while we can before this right is truly disrupted.

reply to post by tetra50

citing this thread and the language for the opening of the 9/11 forum, specifically, "...the truth has ended...."

What was said exactly and where?

A very good post.
I wish all americans read it.
sighs will it do any good?
I dont think so...

reply to post by momoney


Thank you momoney, I could not have said it any better. The OP started this very interesting thread and I too hope many additions to it can be made.