> If an agency like the NSA were to do as Lyle claims,
> you have no idea what a firestorm will erupt as a result. I personally
> know of at least a few thousand people within a 30 mile radius of my
> house that would shoot to kill any federal agent if such a state of
> affairs were to occur.
Do these people know each other? Are they organized? Do they know
who the federal agents are in that area, and where they live? Do your
revolutionaries know more about the agents than the agents know about
them?
If you shoot one federal agent, you have to fight them all. Is the
reverse true? If an FBI agent shoots one of your people, with the others
come to his defense? Did anyone come to Randy Weaver's defense?
> All it takes is enough people's oxes to get gored by the government
> bully to really start something.
No, that's not all it takes. Far from it.
David Musick writes,
> The Second American Civil War is already well under way.
Calling the War on Drugs a "Civil War" is merely a figure of speech,
and I don't think it helps us to understand what's going on. This "war"
is totally one-sided. The drug dealers and growers aren't fighting back.
Nor will they ever fight back; nor would the public rally to their cause
if they tried.
> The war is one waged upon peaceful, innocent civilians by
> powerlusting warmongers.
My experience of drug dealers, including pot dealers, has been rather
poor. I think they are treated like criminals because most of them
act like criminals. Their neighbors (and even their customers) don't
generally regard them as "peaceful, innocent civilians." There are
exceptions to this, of course.
There is no organized body of men in America capable of conducting
a civil war. Nor is there any ideology (or "meme") capable of creating
an organized fighting force. As long as the economy remains strong,
I don't think this situation will change.
> The profound insanity of the War on Drugs is becoming more
> apparant every day, and I believe it is only a matter of time until
> the majority of Americans come to a full realization of the atrocities
> committed in their own neighborhoods and begin to adamantly refuse
> to finance such violence with their taxes. It is in our interest to
> inform others of the real situation, so that a quick end is brought to
> the nightmare we call 'The War on Drugs'.
Ok, I agree with that. But first we have to understand what the
real situation is. When we use the term "Civil War" in this context
we merely confuse ourselves.
One step (among many) toward understanding the real situation is to
stop using the term "War." That's their word, not ours. It isn't a war,
it's something else. The expression "War on Drugs" was coined by
Lyndon LaRouche in the 1970s. He published a magazine with that
title for a couple of years. Then the Reagan administration adopted the
term, and it has been a national obsession ever since.
Words like "insanity," "atrocities," and "nightmare" are accurate as far
as they go, but such words don't tell us much about the nature and
etiology of the War on Drugs. As with most things, you can't get a
handle on this until you understand it in terms of cause and effect.
Rhetoric is not helpful.
Lyle