In regards to terrorism and publicity, its mainly a matter of perspective. People tend to equate terrorism with the acts of blowing things up, mass killings and so on. What I'm suggesting here is the changing of the playing field, with more specific targets. Remember that its mainly a mind game. It doesnt matter if there's not that much publicity, what matters is that those that can make the most noise will know and will make hell of a lot of noise on it. Tell me something. What do you personally think of some of those laws in regards to patents or copyright, or stuff like the DMCA in the US? As dumb as how some of those may look, how do you think they get passed in the first place? Due to political lobbying done by corporations who stand to gain the most from it. Its not as if those corporations are going to go out of business if those do not get passed, its just that their greed will not allow them to not let it get passed. In regards to the appeal to terrorists, well, appeal or not, recall what I had mentioned in an earlier post, about changing with the times. Blowing things up will only result in having more bombs dropped on their heads.
I believe the actual phrase I had used was: 'pirating software, music, movies and so on'. So which part of that phase had you thinking that software piracy is all that I am refering to? Looking at what you had said about the music industry. Take a look back at my post in regards to the capitalist mind, and what I had mentioned before a few times as well, that it is not about threatening their survival, but kicking them where it'll really annoy them the most, which is the thought of the possibility of money not going their way. Yup, governments do not care much about what the public thinks, but the individuals in the government do care about the thoughts of those who had contributed to their campaigns. In regards to acts of terrorism being chosen for maximum publicity, see again on what I had said about purpose. What is the purpose of all of these anyways? Is it because they just crave publicity for the sake of publicity? Or is the publicity just a means to the goal here? Are they terrorizing people for the sake of terrorizing people? Or in an attempt to force the US government to back off? Now, combine that with governments and public interest in general, do you really think that governments will back off in the name of public interest? Or will it be more effective having more specific targets?
Well, it would be interesting to see them implement your ideas. I personally don't think they will work, but it would be interesting to see what happens. Yup, I know what you mean by corporations getting their laws approved via lobbyists. But seriously, what will they do if they are under attack? If you are right, they will scream at their "bought" politicans for action against terrorists. But the politicians will just say, "Aren't we already at war with terrorists??" What more can they do? Drop more bombs. So, is there really a change in paradigm? Not really. The effect is still the same. The US will still be in a war against terrorists, the terrorists will still try to attack the US. Probably the only difference is no one dies in your terrorist attacks.
Okay, so it's pirating all sorts of stuff. Hehe.. But seriously, no matter what you pirate, it's still a victimless crime. If there's no blood, it's really not newsworthy, sad to say. Okay, so you wanna kick them where it annoys them. But I think casual downloaders are already doing that. I just wonder what can terrorists do that most teenagers can't already do? Plus, even if they do get into the action and force companies to pressure their minions in the government, what can they do that they are not already doing? After all, they are already AT WAR. Hehe.. That's the ultimate tool a government can wield. As for publicity, no matter what the purpose is, whether it's for their own ego, to improve recruitment, for morale purposes or to strike fear into the people, publicity is still the key element of any terrorist attack. Hence, they won't bother with acts that don't generate good publicity. Think about it. If you have the choice of either bombing a train or releasing a pirated copy of Windows Vista, which act do you think will make front page news?
I don't think 'pirating software, music, movies and so on' is really an effective terrorist tool. reproducing and selling illegitimate copies does cost the company money, and to some degree reduce the tax income of those government who would have recieved it from a legal sale, but that is minor compared to what a violent terrorist act costs in lost economic activity (increased security, lost trade and investment, lack of tourists, etc.)
Nice exchange of words here. I believe history will show that terrrorism is always geared for maximum publicity. Why? Because terrorists have certain beliefs that convinces them that what they do is right and that they will be justified in the end. It's a fanatical faith. The reason why they mostly do murderous acts is because they want people to lend them their ears to whatever they have to say. And they always give their explanations after the act because nobody wanted to listen to them in the first place. So going back to the quote, piracy , in my honest opinion, can and is probably being used by terrorists not as a means to convey their thoughts, messages or ideals but rather to fund their other unwanted activities.
Well, I did say that its its mainly a mind game right? The choice between an act that makes the front page news and an act that does not will depend on the following: - the type of PR it will generate with the overall public - the overall purpose of the act. if it is simply for publicity, or for other reasons Recall all those conspiracy theories that 911 is something that Bush allowed to happen? Well, regardless of if its true or not, the reason for such theories is due to the hypothesis that Bush needed an excuse to drop bombs. Claiming that they are already at war can only work for a certain amount of time. That's the problem with democracy actually. On one hand, democracy is used as the rallying point of the actions, but democracy is also a two edged sword here, as the general population can get war weary after a while. Its something to do with human nature really. The day after 911, everybody gets keyed up about the necessity of war against the terrorists. But as time passes, especially if the terrorist leaders r still not found, or if there's no more attacks, general opinion on the war will drop, and people will eventually start to wonder if its all really necessary. The other thing about democracy is, individuals in the government may be more likely to bow to pressure from political lobbyists, but during election time, its the votes from the public that decides if they manage to stay in office. Hence, its a fine line for them to walk on, and that is the weak point there. Well, the whole point of the victimless crime is to put the government in a position where: - they are pressured by those who thinks they are being threatened - the acts that are commited do not allow them to justify the dropping of bombs - a war weary public getting more and more fed up about the 'war on terrorism' when they have not seen anymore bombs going off lately (yup, people do tend to be like that) Putting them in the position where they will be claiming what can they do that they are already not doing is exactly the point here. Do you think that the campaign contributors will be happy to hear that after spending that kinda money? Finally, on the casual downloaders vs what can the terrorists do. Once again, its a mind game. Remember the Star Wars program initiated by Ronald Reagan? That's quite a big sum of money spent there, and is generally considered to be a big waste of money. But why was it still an effective strategy? Because it provoked the Soviet Union into launching their own version of the program out of paranoia, getting them spend money that they really r not able to afford, and crippling their own economy. U see, its not a matter of how much it can hurt the industries targeted. Its about making those industries paranoid. Any possible threats to the pockets of a capitolist will make them paranoid, regardless of if those threats are real or not. Given a choice between an act that can be used by the other side to justify the war on terrorism and how evil you are, resulting in bombs droppinng on your head (and on the rest of your country too), or an act that puts the other side in a difficult situation, which will you go for?
Yeah, it doesnt really acts as a means to convey their thoughts, as the delivery method is not as powerful, but that is not the purpose here actually. That's why I had asked before, on what is the purpose of it all. If its publicty for the sake of publicity? If its just bombing stuff for the sake of bombing stuff. Or is it because of the foreign policies of the US that drove them to do all of these, and they are out to achieve something out of those acts.
Well, the point here is for them to just say stuff like, 'aren't we already at war?' or 'so what else r we able to do?' The contributions made helps the campaign funds of those politicians. But it is the public vote that determines if they can stay in office. Its going to be more and more difficult to dropping more bombs if its a victimless act as you have put it. Let's say, you contacted a advertising firm to do PR work for your company, but after continuouly dumping money there, there is still no result. Would you continue to give them money still?
Well, that sort of attitude is also the reason why I had suggested the alternate approach. People look at 911, and that is what they think. Whatever actual reasons those people have for conducting such an act is forgotten in the background. Just because you do not need to understand them, and just believe that they are killers without a cause does not mean that to be the absolute truth, unless you have reality altering abilities in your mind.
My friend, ignorance is not bliss. Again, I am not sympathetic to anyone's or any other government's cause. But labelling all of them as killers is not the right way to do it either. It's just like saying all of the people in China are thieves (see this thread: http://forums.rojakpot.com/showthread.php?t=20286). That is never an accurate nor a fair judgement. If you've had the privilege of living in a democratic country, then you at least should know how to be fair regardless of circumstances. If you can't try to understand them, at least try to remember that they are still human beings. These Arabs are made from flesh and blood too. American soldiers during World War II made the same discovery when they were fighting the Germans. They realized that the Nazi's were as young as they, as tired as they, as afraid as they and as human as they were. It led to many feeling and concluding that the Germans were never really what they were led to believe. And the sad fact is that history will again show us that human beings are easily fooled by their leaders into thinking whatever agenda these leaders want them to think. Likewise, the Arabs must have been lied to by key people in their society who were spreading all sorts of malice against the US so that they could justify their "attack" on the WTC. And please do take note that probably most Arabs are not even educated at all. I'm not saying that the US has no right to do what they are doing. The only problem that I see is that they exaggerated some things a bit to promote their own goals. But sadly, "little white lies", in truth, really goes a long long way. Stereo-typing all Arabs as "killers" is already bordering discrimination. Discrimination comes in so many different shapes or forms and this is only one of them. And by saying that all Arabs are evil gives the US the right to attack Iraq? I think not! Lastly, I hope no one will be offended with my post as this is only one person's opinion and each one is entitled to his/her own opinions. Let's all have fun expressing ourselves!! Three cheers for all!!
[off topic - sorry, can't help this, but...] Oooooh, religious war of opinions! Back to topic, there's just one tiny bit I want to point out here: Now imagine the press finding out that Al-Qaeda or something has overtaken Malaysia or China or whoever's the current leader as the primary pirateers of Windows Vista, or software in general. Imagine the panic and chaos it'll create in US. As it is, US (RIAA, Microsoft, etc) is already scrambling like mad to combat piracy and resorting to all sorts of methods to curb it. Imagine if you add the weight of knowing their country's biggest enemy is behind all those. Now compare that kind of news to Al-Qaeda bombing a train. Same with why the bombing with the twin towers created so much chaos. It's probably never done before, and if it has, never on this scale. Likewise, al-Qaeda bombing another thing is just going to be plain old yesterday's news, cough, sneeze, can we all move on to the next big news kinda thing. But al-Qaeda doing piracy, or anything else not related to violent terrorism (not necessarily piracy) to hurt US politically and economically *will* be big news indeed. Now go on and continue entertaining me
I can assure you that "ignorant" is not a word that would be used to describe me when referring to this subject. I am a veteran of Desert Shield, Storm, and Somalia. After I received my honorable discharge in 93, I became a Federal Agent and still am to this day. I arrived in New York on September 13th on a U.S. Marshals plane. I stayed there and helped provide security to the three major airports for 12 hours a day until Oct, 13th. Stood in the middle of ground zero while it still burned. I can describe the smell if you like. I'm not ignorant at all. I simply do not choose to understand murders. They attacked us, unprovoked, on our own soil. There isn't a reason they could give for doing so that would be excepted by me. No? what should I call them then? Somehow you turned my comment in to my referring to Arabs. My comment was directed toward the Islamic fundamentalist that flew three planes in to three different buildings on U.S. soil. Just my opinion as well.
Ok, that is exactly what I had refered to when I mentioned PR campaign earlier. Take those very experiences that you had had, and think on them. Such experiences at ground 0 is what that gave u such strong feelings on this issue is it not? Now, even if you had not been a veteran of Desert Shield, Storm and Somalia, being on scene at 911 even as a volunteer will already give u such strong feelings towards those who had commited the acts right? Now, the interesting thing here is, it is also the same thing too for those people in Iraq who had bombs dropping over their heads. You think that the 911 incident was unprovoked, but those who had commited the act thinks otherwise. Same thing too, those who had bombs dropping over their heads in Iraq will think that its an unprovoked attack on their homes, but u will think otherwise right? Islamic fundamentalist? No, they are not Islamic fundamentalists. They are just a bunch of people who used their religion as a catalyst to spark off the entire thing. Hence my original reply to you, just because you choose to have that sort of opinion does not mean that your opinion is the absolute truth.
No...it's not. Being the type of person that commits his entire adult life to the defense the United States in one form or another gives me such strong feelings on this issue. Again. I don't care what they think. It was unprovoked. Do you mean those people that came out of their homes in droves to stomp on the statued face of their now fallen dictator? Besides the Iraq war is a completely different argument. No real reason to argue this point. In fact, I'm not going to argue any of this any longer. It's non-productive. To get back on topic. The attacks on 911 happened...in my opinion. This kid is just out to make a buck with his site and has done a well enough job at raising suspicion to get that buck. I still haven't watched the whole video but I have heard the 911 commission's report. I'll watch the video when I have more time. Thank you for the friendly debate.
Fuh, your replies all damn long. But I better break it up, so it's easier to reply. Yup, it is a mind game, if we think about it. But you are probably giving the terrorists and government more credit than they deserve! I seriously doubt terrorists actually think of it as a mind game. I'm not saying that they are not intelligent. But their fanaticism often blinds them to even simple truths. So, whether they actually appear to us as mind games or not, I believe acts of terrorism are created as more mundane acts of violence by individuals who feel they have no better way to express their anger, or to impose their views on others. Well, that is true. Bush needed an excuse to start a war. Congress would never allow him to go to war without a pretext of some sort. Without 9/11, Bush will never obtain the mandate to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan. Even the war on Iraq was pushed through with such a flimsy excuse like the presence of "WMDs" in Iraq partly because of 9/11. Actually, there's no need to claim they are at war. Terrorist organizations already declare war on the US. Technically, they were already at war BEFORE 9/11. Of course, how a nation can actually combat a terrorist organization that actually has no national boundaries to breach, land to invade and hold or population to threaten, is another question altogether... Yeah, well, any form of government has its pros and cons. You can have a theocratic government with supreme power like the Taliban in Afghanistan, but your economy and social development will suffer. America's democracy may be perceived by more militaristic types as a damn nuisance, but for the more liberal types, it will be seen as a way that offers them the opportunity to maintain sanity or righteousness in the actions of their nation. Yup, that's human nature actually. Hehe... Most people are reactive, instead of proactive. Actually, the act of lobbying is quite unique to America. I don't think you will find it particularly common in other democracies. For example, over here, we seem to prefer cronyism. No democracy (or form of government, for the matter) is perfect. I, myself, think their Presidential electoral system is a little inane, but that's just me. As long as it works for the American people, they will continue to maintain it. If it doesn't work, then it's their responsibility to effect changes. It's really up to them. That's what democracy is all about. Well, the governments are already being pressured to do something about piracy of the media, software, etc. I seriously doubt it will spur them further if they found out terrorists were doing it. Of course, if terrorists are pirating stuff to finance their acts of violence, then yes, governments will do their best to crack down on them. But if they are doing it as an "act of terrorism", then I believe people in the government will probably breathe a sigh of relief. Yes, I do see your point where such acts would not give governments like the Bush administration the justification to bomb another country. Then again, you can't really think of attacking another country when you fight against a terrorist organization. Does Al Qaeda has a mailing address? A physical headquarters? BTW, if Bush or any other leader wants a pretext to invade another country, they will find ways and means to do it. You don't need a terror attack for an excuse. Err.. I don't get this part. But no matter what their campaign contributors insist, they cannot do what their laws don't allow them to do. For example, they can only lambast China in Congress for numerous acts of counterfeiting and piracy. But can they force China to do something about it? Till today, it's still going on. Campaign contributors can exert influence on their "bought" politicians, up to a point. And they know just how limited their influence is. They certainly cannot force their "bought" politicians to do what they cannot do, just like you cannot force a mechanic to repair a hole in someone's heart! Again, a mind game is only a mind game if everyone participating knows it's a mind game. For example, if terrorists actually pirate and distribute everything from Disney's latest movies to Microsoft Windows Vista, will it make a difference? The world will still assume it's the work of enterprising (albeit less ethical) businessmen, probably from China. Hahah... And imagine how it will look to their supporters if they find out that their "freedom fighters" are actually selling fake DVDs of One Night In Paris? Jumping to the Star Wars programme... Actually, the Soviet Union never created their own Star Wars programme. They were actually bankrupted by their profligate spending and inattention to their economy. If the US government was actually intelligent enough to force the Soviet Union to bankrupt itself by overspending, then it's the arms race that did it, not the Star Wars programme. Errr.. Trust me, most capitalists are born paranoid. Look at what Andrew Grove of Intel name his book - Only The Paranoid Survive. If you really want to make a REAL threat to a capitalist, threaten the validity of the medium he/she delves in - MONEY. To focus on piracy is to lose the big picture. It's like looking at a tree, instead of the forest. What's money really? It's just face value. The value of money changes according to market sentiment. There's no real value to money. If I'm not mistaken, it's no longer backed by gold, but rather by the economy. So, if you want to threaten any capitalist, threaten the money, not the product. After all, like you said, isn't money all they care about? TBH, most terrorists may have bases in certain countries or regions. But terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda have been known to operate even in countries like Singapore! So, what do you expect the US to do? Bomb Singapore? Seriously, national boundaries are a thing of the past, especially in the fight against terrorists. Bush may have invaded Afghanistan to find Bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda bases there. But he certainly did not invade Iraq to kill the Al Qaeda organization. Besides, I don't think terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda really care about whether bombs will be dropped on their heads or not. If they are worried, then they are in the wrong profession. Even if the US drops bombs on their fellow countrymen, they will rejoice. Why? Because there will be more martyrs and more volunteers for the "jihad" against the infidels. So, you see, violence is a necessity for terrorist organizations. They are certainly not going to waste their time with pansy acts like making and selling fake DVDs or CDs.
True, but the people can always be hoodwinked. Actually, that's only true if they are bombing Al Qaeda. But as we know, there's no country or place called Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a worldwide terrorist organization. You can't bomb Al Qaeda. You can only bomb their bases, if you can find them. So, moving to a victimless act will not stop anyone from bombing. If Bush wants to invade Iraq, he won't need to use the terrorist card. If he has it, all the better - it makes things easier. If not, they can always conjure something up.. like WMDs that never were, for example. In fact, moving to a victimless act will only get terrorist organizations sidelined and ignored. Ahh.. How would you judge something as intangible as public relations? Some things just can't be judged with certainty. Also, coming back to the topic, you can buy a politician, but you cannot force him to do anything more than a politician is capable of doing. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Actually, it won't create that much of a panic. After all, it's already happening. The thing that people forget or ignore is the fact that while you may PROVIDE pirated copies for free or at a much lower cost, software companies can still count on a large number of users who will still buy legit software. Due to strict enforcement of law in developed nations, piracy is really quite low. Companies buy loads of licences, probably where software companies like MS derive the bulk of their profits from. So, even if Al Qaeda comes in and undercuts other software pirates by offering free copies of Windows Vista, they are only replacing the present distributors of pirated software. They are not going to be able to cut into the market of legit software users. If you are talking about media like movies and songs, even the RIAA won't really panic. Well, they are making loads of noises now because they want to scare P2P users from sharing. But the fact of the matter is, millions of people are already downloading and sharing music. Yet, you don't see any singer out in the streets, begging for charity. Why is that? The truth is no matter how bad piracy is to the company's bottomline, they are still making tons of money. Even as the level piracy currently stands, there are still enough people who believe in paying for legit media to sustain the industry. As the industry evolves into a cheaper and more future-friendly model like Apple's iTunes, the industry will be able to maintain its profitability, no matter what they keep screaming about now. So, it really doesn't matter what Al Qaeda can do as pirates. True commercial pirates are already doing it. All Al Qaeda can do is supplant them at most. They can hardly do better than what people who are doing it for the money can do. IMHO, death and destruction sells. So far, we have seen disasters and terrorist acts adorning the front page of newspapers. But I have yet to see software or media piracy making it to the front page. Actually, bombing using hijacked commercial airlines has been a scenario used by writers, time and time again. What's so shocking about the WTC is not the fact that they both fell down. What's shocking is not that terrorists used airplanes to destroy them. What's really shocking to the American population, IMHO, is the fact that it happened on their soil. Remember, no foreign terrorist organization has EVER attacked America on such a scale in America itself. Now, I don't quite believe people will ever get over another bomb or terrorist act. Everytime there's another terrorist act, it always comes up in the news. Why? If not because there's death and destruction, then it's because it's not that common. Software and media piracy is not only common, it's a way of life for most of the world. News editors will just skip past such mundane news. At most, it will be printed in the World News section. Most likely, it will get a byline in the Tech section. After all, for such a feared terrorist organization like Al Qaeda, pirating software and media would hardly be newsworthy. If they are capable of killing people, what's pirating software and media? In fact, it would probably be a frivolous waste of their limited resources. Haha.. I think it's a good, intellectual discourse. Entertaining, of course.
