> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Dwayne wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If I were attempting to overthrow that government or even merely trying
> > > > to engage in a propaganda war to destroy the hypothetical high trust
> > > > society of that hypothetical european country, I would expect such
> > > > measures as a matter of course.
> > >
> > > Erm, "propaganda war" ???
> > >
> > > You'd *execute people* because of what they said? Aren't you a fan of
> > > free speech?
> > Don't you even see the referents in the statement? In the scenario
> > above, *I* am not the government, I am the revolutionary attemting to
> > subvert the government. Under revolutionary doctrine, it is in my
> > interest to promote the repression of free speech *by the government*,
> > so as to bring more support to my side.
> That is in no way implied in the above quote.
What part of "If *I* were attempting to overthrow the government..."
dont' you seem to understand?
> > Yes, they do find them disturbing. The only scenario where the
> > terrorists win is if those who find them disturbing join the terrorists
> > in fighting against the government over this issue. It is a proven fact
> > that standard revolutionary insurgency doctrine does not work if a
> > sufficient majority of the population trusts the government enough to
> > allow it to engage in temporary, targeted, forms of repression that are
> > specifically focused on the sources of insurgency.
> Now, just sit back and read what you are saying.
> "temporary, targeted, forms of repression that are specifically focused"
> This is all well and good in a perfect society.
It is obviously the responsibility of the citizenry to see that it is
> But no such thing exists. So, are you going to trust *your* government
> to carry out such acts? In secret? I certainly wouldn't.
Are you claiming that our government is at all good at keeping secrets?
> > We see this occuring in the wake of 911 where you get 80%+ support from
> > the african-american community for the profiling of arab/muslim
> > individuals by law enforcement. So long as this sort of repression is
> > not broad based: i.e. profiling african americans as well, the
> > population will support the government actions.
> What is that Quote from Pastor Niemoller (I am writing this offline so I
> can't do a search) about "first they came for the communists, but I
> wasn't worried, I'm not a communist, then they came for the
> This is a really slippery slope which I don't think any government
> should even consider entering into. The only time such actions would be
> justified would be during an actual war, or an actual insurgency, which
> the United States certainly does not have at the moment. As it is, this
> sort of repression would almost certainly breed the sort of resentment
> which *creates* insurgencies.
The advantage that our system has over others is that we, the citizens,
are so well armed. When they come for me, I will be taking a good number
of them with me, as will many other law abiding citizens. Assuming I
don't get them first.
Focusing the repression, as light as it is, squarely on the muslim
community where it belongs, and how very limited the repression is (I
don't for instance, see any camps, no pogroms, nothing of the sort)
should make them consider where exactly the muslim community is wrong.
Specifically it is in the widespread acceptance of the excuses and lies
of writers like Edward Said that allows for the propaganda of people
like bin Laden to propagate.
> > In insurgency doctrine, the point of triggering massive government
> > repression with atrocities is to get the government to oppress enough of
> > the population to feed a large growth in participation in
> > anti-government activities, which leads to more atrocities by terrorists
> > and more repression by government.
> But at this point in time there is, as far as I am aware *no* active
> insurgency underway in the US, and so this totally over-the-top
> situation you are describing is irrelevant.
Uh, lets see: US owned airliners taking off from US airports hijacked
over US airspace and flown into US buildings by hijackers who have lived
here for years and received their training here, one of whome was
actually a naturalized US citizen. If that doesn't fit the definition of
"active insurgency underway in the US", I don't know what does.
> > The problem in this calculus of force is in predicting the balance
> > between the public perceptions about the atrocities committed by
> > terrorists and the proportionality or weightedness of the response by
> > government. If the government's repression following the atrocity is
> > seen as less severe than the atrocity itself, public support remains
> > with the government. A revolutionary needs the government to overreact,
> > and for media sources to widely sensationalize any overreaction.
> Sure. But if the government is going around oppressing an entire class
> of people, eventually you will alienate those people, as a group, and
> then your insurgency will begin. It just breeds itself.
Possibly, but every muslim american, and resident alien muslim here
already is given the choice: are you a muslim radical first, or an
> > For this reason, I look at the anthrax attacks with a suspicious view.
> Well, not to mention the possibility of it being other people than those
> who did the September 11 attack.
Which is what I was saying. However, if, say, the Iraqis are involved,
they are essentially the same people, since Ramzi Youssef is an Iraqi
intelligence operative who was instrumental in bin Ladens original
attack on the WTC in 1993.
My implication here is that some individual, possibly who had operated
as a weapons inspector in Iraq in the early 90's or who was in the
military in the Gulf War, got ahold of some Iraqi anthrax and brought it
into the country years ago. This person may or may not be a US
government operative, and may or may not be acting under orders.
> > By targeting members of the media, especially those who have records of
> > sensationalism and/or sentiment toward left wing anti-government
> > opinions, the media has specifically been turned into a tool of
> > sensationalism against government into one of its biggest supporters,
> > and thus they tend to downplay any repression the government does engage
> > in, since in their own biased editorial view, it is at least partially
> > justified, if not fully justified.
> Well, I guess it is hard to be objective when your life is at stake.
> Did they target members of the media who have such a background? Not
> being an American, I know very little about US media, other than the
> fact that CNN seems to be awash in Australian presenters, unless they
> employ regional presenters. I've been highly amused by various US
> conspiracy nuts sounding off at all of the "British" accents on CNN,
> smelling a plot. (We're after your ski fields. Ours suck).
Tom Brokaw has been a thorn in the side of hawks in the government since
the Vietnam War, where he was a reporter. The New York Times is the
bastion of antiwar left wingism/peacenikery. The tabloid company in
Florida can be trusted to hype, sensationalize, and basically beat to
death any story its editors want to focus on, and they are not
restrained by lack of facts.
As for CNN, its a fact that Ted Turner is a big proponent of One World
Government, as many interviews dating back to the 1970's can attest.
He's the guy who gave $1 billion to the UN in an attempt to save his
marriage to Jane Fonda. CNN has been caught issuing a memo to its staff
that no positive coverage of the pro-gun-rights point of view, or
positive coverage of the use of guns in self defense is to be made.
Outside of that, I think its just a matter of CNN wanting to be seen as
'international', both by non-Americans as well as the latte lefties who
live off of being 'sophisticated'. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News,
being a foreigner, obviously wants to be seen as more American than CNN,
so he hires all American anchors.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:22 MDT