Morons Who Are A National Security Risk

[Jedi Knight]

These morons are a national security risk (http://www.actagainstwar.org/). They are advocating a call to action to shut entire US cities down in the event the United States goes to war with Iraq. They are also advocating destruction of property which could put lives at risk at home.

JK

[corplinx]

"What You Can Do If the Bombs Drop

Don’t go to work or school. "


This is a parody, right?

[susheel]

I don't understand...where did you get the 'destruction of property' angle? They seem quite vehement about the 'non-violence' bit.

What they seem to be advocating is a boycott as a sign of protest. It can be quite effective and I guess they are well within their rights to do it.

However, if they indulge in violence then that is wrong.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
"What You Can Do If the Bombs Drop

Don’t go to work or school. "


This is a parody, right?

No, these guys are subversive 100%. Check out the lingo they use. The use of "affinity group" is a communist subversive cell activity from the 1960's.

These guys are going to try and start violent action without claiming violent action precognitively. What will happen is if the war starts, they will try and get as many people in city locations as possible and then the mobs will form a life of their own and that is when the violence begins.

Never underestimate these people. The Worker's World Party and other communist organizations are most definitely involved with these guys too. They are the core activists behind the recent so-called peace marches in the United States.

When the lecturing starts, they will use domestic race and poverty agendas as the incendiary rods to trigger violent action. Their goal is to disrupt "capitalist flows". The way to do that is get a bunch of disgruntled people together and opportunists and then tell them it is the "right" thing to do to loot, burn and pillage. Just think of it as the Seattle anti-globalization movement multiplied x 1,000 times.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by susheel
I don't understand...where did you get the 'destruction of property' angle? They seem quite vehement about the 'non-violence' bit.

What they seem to be advocating is a boycott as a sign of protest. It can be quite effective and I guess they are well within their rights to do it.

However, if they indulge in violence then that is wrong.

Any disruptive planning using mass crowd activity to directly interfere with the normal business of the nation-state is a call to action which will include destruction of property. It simply has to.

If the intent is, as they describe, to "disrupt capitalism", property will be destroyed. There are thousands of potential examples as to how that will happen.

JK

[Bjorn]

Jedi,

Isn't it irritating when someone you disagree with exercises his Freedom of Speech? :p

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Jedi,

Isn't it irritating when someone you disagree with exercises his Freedom of Speech? :p

I don't have a problem with people exercising free speech. I rightly ponder the credibility of people forming stadium-sized rallies in lockstep.

Read Le Bon's "Psychology of Crowds". People lose themselves in crowds. When people are in crowds, you have to yell their name to bring them back.

That is not free speech and it is why Adolf Hitler mastered its use.

JK

[susheel]

Mass movements are what democracy is about. That is how changes are wrought.

If my government is upto something that a vast majority of us do not like we need to let our feelings be known A non-violent Boycott is quite an effective means of getting the message across.

Mass movements need not always lead to violence. I have been in some. I have seen students thrashed by police and without raising a finger. This is not to say that the opposite has not happened. Sometimes things have gotten out of hand.

I have also seen cases where violence was instigated by an outside group and has snowballed. Can you be fully confident that this does not occur in America JK?

But the recent mass Peace Rallies in your country has proved that peaceful demonstrations can take place.

As for the boycott. Let's face it...for a capitalist economy, a boycott can be an effective form of protest if it is conducted in a non-violent and organized manner.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I don't have a problem with people exercising free speech. I rightly ponder the credibility of people forming stadium-sized rallies in lockstep.

Read Le Bon's "Psychology of Crowds". People lose themselves in crowds. When people are in crowds, you have to yell their name to bring them back.

That is not free speech and it is why Adolf Hitler mastered its use.

JK What is not free speech? The situation here in the US, or something back in Hitler's time?

I think you have to show why people exercising their right to free speech are doing something illegal if/when they are forming 'stadium-sized rallies'.

The freedom of speech is just as important for groups as for individuals - even if the group is one you disagree with.

As long as they are not calling for illegal actions, they are definately on the right side of American laws about freedoms - the freedoms we are protecting when we fight wars. :p

[Crossbow]

To: JK

If some people are making protest plans in case the president orders a war with Iraq, then I say:

So what?

The US already has been working on detailed war plans for months in case the president orders a war with Iraq, therefore I see no problem with others drawing up protest plans in case the president actually does order a war with Iraq.

That is how democracy works. That is what you fought for in those battles you love to boast about.

Deal with it dude!

[crackmonkey]

As long as they don't block traffic or otherwise inconvenience me, they can protest away. I was in San Francisco when the first big protest occurred - there was minimal inconvenience to me, and it was greatly amusing to see the bleating sheep with their moronic placards.

[Advocate]

IMHO there is a big difference between exercising freedom of speech by holding a protest, and acting with the intent to shut down US cities. The latter is a hostile act against the nation itself and puts the lives of our troops at risk. Let people protest all they want, but draw the line when they start trying to shut down our cities. At that point it is no longer a speech issue. This is exactly what they state they want to do. Look at all the talk of blockades and occupations. This is not a protest. This is an attack on America's ability to fight. And these people (NOT all protestors, ONLY those who go beyond protesting and into trying to disrupt our cities) are enemies of the US.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow
To: JK

If some people are making protest plans in case the president orders a war with Iraq, then I say:

So what?

The US already has been working on detailed war plans for months in case the president orders a war with Iraq, therefore I see no problem with others drawing up protest plans in case the president actually does order a war with Iraq.

That is how democracy works. That is what you fought for in those battles you love to boast about.

Deal with it dude!

There is a fine line between "protesting" something and conducting subversive activity to harm the nation-state.

Here is how I see it. If the elected Senators of the district where the cities are protesting join them, then that adds credibility to the protests insofar that they will not be violent, or are not intended to be, and an elected representative(s) is willing to put their political capital on the line to stand with them. If the protests do not involve the elected from the originating regions, then that is a direct circumvention of the very system that every one of those protestors has a responsibility to embrace.

Each one of those folks can vote and their voices can be heard. In fact, leftists in San Francisco are some of the noisiest voices in the country. If they weren't running their chops, I would quickly run out of leftist criticisms to talk about because of how numerous they make them.

That said, if the Senators and Congresspersons do not show up for this "gathering", I "deal with the situation" by merely pointing out the fact that it is a subversive, anti-nation-state communist gathering seeking to harm and potentially destroy the United States.

JK

[rikzilla]

JK,

I see these types of protests every year. It's called the World Bank/IMF meetings. The use of "affinity groups" to avoid infiltration of police informants....the call to "shut down the city"... it's old hat. Been there, seen that. These guys are professional protestors and love their jobs. They don't care what it is they need to protest as long as it can be described as part of "the system". They're jazzed by the prospect of war because war is their favorite thing to bitch about. In absence of war it's "globalization", "capitalism", NAFTA, the environment, animal testing, GMO's, etc...etc....

They're impact in DC during the WB/IMF talks was minimal last year. They stated that they'd disrupt traffic...and when a bunch of bike riding affinity groups showed up to block traffic they were surrounded at Pershing park and all arrested. No problems with traffic that day! ;) Now, in 2001 and 2000 they did make a mess of traffic and did a lot of vandalism (banks and McDonald's mostly, "evil perps of globalization") :rolleyes:

Don't have a cow JK....these people are as courageous as your average Frenchman.

-zilla

[Tmy]

What protestests? These protests havent even happened yet. Whos knows if they will.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


There is a fine line between "protesting" something and conducting subversive activity to harm the nation-state.

Here is how I see it. If the elected Senators of the district where the cities are protesting join them, then that adds credibility to the protests insofar that they will not be violent, or are not intended to be, and an elected representative(s) is willing to put their political capital on the line to stand with them. If the protests do not involve the elected from the originating regions, then that is a direct circumvention of the very system that every one of those protestors has a responsibility to embrace.

Each one of those folks can vote and their voices can be heard. In fact, leftists in San Francisco are some of the noisiest voices in the country. If they weren't running their chops, I would quickly run out of leftist criticisms to talk about because of how numerous they make them.

That said, if the Senators and Congresspersons do not show up for this "gathering", I "deal with the situation" by merely pointing out the fact that it is a subversive, anti-nation-state communist gathering seeking to harm and potentially destroy the United States.

JK

Wrong!

There are no such requirements about the participation of elected officials needing to be personally involved with protests in order for the protests to be considered legal.

Such requirements would be grossly unworkable as they would all but forbid 4th of July Parades, Veterans Parades, St. Patrick's Day Parades, Christmas Parades, and so on.

[Richard G]

Sounds good to me. I'll be waiting on my front porch for them. I'd love a justified excuse to put some buckshot in their ass. Remington never met a violent, unrully mob it didn't like.
.

[Agammamon]

How horrible that the masses would think they have the right to not do a damn thing. They should be going to slave at their low paying jobs like the peons they are.

[headscratcher4]

I don't understand why Mormons are any greater national security risk than other cults, heck, I'd of thought that Moslems would have been higher up on the paranoid's charts...Oh, wait, you wrote MORONS...sorry, never mind....

[gnome]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
No, these guys are subversive 100%. Check out the lingo they use. The use of "affinity group" is a communist subversive cell activity from the 1960's.

Pardon us if we don't take your word about political lingo. You've had trouble with that before.

Basically, I think that these people should be free to protest. The kind of disruption that would actually constitute subversion mostly consists of actions that are already illegal. And you can arrest them as soon as they start engaging in illegal activity.

[The Fool]

Jedi.
Is it the marching/protesting that annoys you or the opinion the people are trying to push? You say that rallys calling for the US to obey the decisions of the UN are sedition? What about identical rally's for causes you support?

[Bjorn]

Hey Fool,

I'm sure you know the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? :confused:

Answer: One of them agrees with JK ....

Some undercover police officers were shot in New York yesterday, and the weapon dealers that shot them didn't just commit a crime, no:

the terrorist attack by dangerous domestic terrorists ... according to JK.

I suspect that everyone expressing opposition to the war is a leftist terrorist commie in his and many other's eyes. Freedom of speech ... sure, but not for commies! :(

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool
Jedi.
Is it the marching/protesting that annoys you or the opinion the people are trying to push? You say that rallys calling for the US to obey the decisions of the UN are sedition? What about identical rally's for causes you support?

The UN doesn't share US national security objectives. I don't have a problem with people protesting as long as it is not subversive activity designed to harm the national security interests of the United States.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Hey Fool,

I'm sure you know the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? :confused:

Answer: One of them agrees with JK ....

Some undercover police officers were shot in New York yesterday, and the weapon dealers that shot them didn't just commit a crime, no:

... according to JK.

I suspect that everyone expressing opposition to the war is a leftist terrorist commie in his and many other's eyes. Freedom of speech ... sure, but not for commies! :(

The United States is not a communist nation-state.

JK

[susheel]

What constitutes subversive activity. A mass rally to protest the war? Again, if they indulge in illegal acts then they must be charged.

However, my refusal to use a particular product or service is a perfectly legal boycotyt and I am within my rights to do it. I am also perfectly within my rights to make this opinion public in a peaceful manner and if others are interested they are perfectly within their rights to join me...again in a legal and poeaceful manner.

If you think my boycott is subversive then I am afraid you are trying to enforce a fascism which goes against the very grain of what America supposedly stands for.



The United States is not a communist nation-state.

No, but communism/socialism are valid points of view that the American constitution allows its citizens.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The United States is not a communist nation-state.

JK Correct.

And it is not a Muslim nation, or a Buddhist one, nor a Christian based democracy (like many European countries).

But what is your point? Isn't the freedom of speech for all, even for those who are muslims or buddhists or christians? Or even communists? :confused:

The freedom of speech is only important for those who disagree with the majority. The others could live very well without it.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The UN doesn't share US national security objectives. I don't have a problem with people protesting as long as it is not subversive activity designed to harm the national security interests of the United States.

JK
so what is subversive activity? Is marching down a street waving banners and chanting slogans subversive? Can anything chanted by a crowd in public be subversive? Is Protesting foreign policy decisions allowed in the USA? How about demanding that laws be changed?

Can you think of an example of a protest that is not subversive and how it differs from anti war protests?

[Crossbow]

What is subversive?

Anything that JK does not like!

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Correct.

And it is not a Muslim nation, or a Buddhist one, nor a Christian based democracy (like many European countries).

But what is your point? Isn't the freedom of speech for all, even for those who are muslims or buddhists or christians? Or even communists? :confused:

The freedom of speech is only important for those who disagree with the majority. The others could live very well without it. oops ....

How was it Jedi, was the freedom for all or just for those you agree with? :p

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The UN doesn't share US national security objectives. I don't have a problem with people protesting as long as it is not subversive activity designed to harm the national security interests of the United States.

JK
Its my nation, I get a voice in deciding what the US's national security interests are.