Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: "The frog has boiled: Pentagon says protests are acts of "Low-level terrorism" "

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 21, 2013, 1:05 p.m. EST by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"A written exam administered by the Pentagon labels "protests" as a form of "low-level terrorism""

"First, the government responds to the September 11th attack by passing the Patriot Act, which is purportedly designed to protect us from foreign terrorists. Most of America cheers it on, never realizing that within the act is a broad definition for something categorized as domestic terrorism, or "activities that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

Second, they pass the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows them, under the definitions for domestic terrorism set forth by the Patriot Act, to detain someone without trial and forever if they appear to be subverting the newly established status quo.

Third, they declare all federal property, or property being used for political events where Secret Service protection is present, as "events of national significance" through the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act. Undesirable demonstrators operating counter to the official narrative in these areas are herded into court approved free speech zones.

Finally, once the new laws are in place, the government security apparatus begins the re-education of its minions by labeling as "terrorists" anyone who dares speak out or disagrees with their new policy initiatives.

This last step is and has been happening for some time.

Even the very act of assembling with other like minded people to influence policy by petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances can land you on the domestic terrorism list." http://www.sott.net/article/256720-The-frog-has-boiled-Pentagon-says-protests-are-acts-of-Low-level-terrorism



Read the Rules


[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 5 years ago

and a face,..............obama

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

I don't think so, I believe Obama is simply an employee of the Pentagon Fake Democracy psyop office. They run fake democracies overseas, why wouldn't they do it here?

The Pentagon, in its arrogance, is here stepping out of the shadows and displaying its true nature as an enemy of America and American values.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

I hope everyone sees where this is going.

Arresting protesters. Passing things that destroy our rights. Huge corporations and banks getting bigger by the year.

Welcome to the New America.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

I hope they do. It could lead to much worse.

Any military (and here I mean the Pentagon, not the grunts) that loses its moral underpinnings and turns to terror campaigns such as drone bombings and night raids (both done with no proof of enemy activity, just someone 'dropping a dime' on the target) becomes a threat to the home territory too.

The Patiot Act, NDAA, other acts and now this. The Pentagon has become an unAmerican institution of anti-patriots.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 5 years ago

That is absolute insanity, wow.

However, I believe change can happen in the courts of law. I believe I have life changing arguments that could change credit card companies ability to ensnare consumers into life long debt, then sue in court and win when all the debtor asked for was debt suspension.

Perhaps the case can be made that people who cannot assemble their best arguments and present them in court BEFORE protesting are actually low level terrorists who should know better.

[-] 3 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

We should attack on all nonviolent fronts, both in the courts and the court of public opinion.

[-] 2 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 5 years ago

I see people clinging to guns who envision themselves as saviors of america. What I don't see are paralegals and attorneys searching for the best, winnable arguments to protect consumers against the banks.

There are many successful arguments that have yet to be argued in court.

There is no justice in the USA if you can't afford an attorney's retainer fee because attorneys are trained to shut up the client within 10 seconds if that client cannot afford to pay a retainer.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Hmmm, singing a different tune to 2011.

(quote/)The White House continued its embrace of the Occupy Wall Street protests on Sunday, using the strongest terms yet to identify President Barack Obama with the growing movement.

In a call previewing Obama’s upcoming bus tour through North Carolina and Virginia, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama “will continue to acknowledge the frustration that he himself shares,” about Washington’s laggard response to the financial crisis. Earnest added that while on the trip, Obama will make it clear that he is fighting to make certain that the “interests of 99 percent of Americans are well represented” — the first time the White House has used the term to differentiate the vast majority of Americans from the wealthy. (unquote)


[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 5 years ago

On the surface, the calling of occupiers as low grade terrorists seems fascist or whatever other bad term one wants to apply. However, until one has truly exhausted court options, their assessment is really not as bad as it sounds.

I would suggest that paralegals who feel hamstrung into silence because they are not attorneys, and attorneys who are interested in winning cases rather than helping humanity may be our biggest threat.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Class actions are the only viable option.

You have the numbers. Just need to convince people that they are not alone.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 5 years ago

Unfortunately, Class actions are not an option. Class Actions rarely bring in the actual cost of the item or service that was damaged or defective, let alone damages on top of that.

As for having the numbers, not necessarily true either because for every victim, there is a potential beneficiary, thereby negating the potential for empathy.

But I see your point in the spiritual way it could be applied.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 5 years ago

If protest is not overtly done in defense of the constitution this is what happens. OWS gave them the excuse they needed.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

The social engineer, David Graeber, and his consensus protocols prevented any lists of demands.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 5 years ago

Yep. I saw that with indymedia groups from ucsb in 2002. Complete railroading potential or effect unconsciously ignored. Weird shit.

A devaluation of specific principles limiting government and assumption that socialist democratic action can do better than a list of principles.

I saw a group trance associated with the "human microphone" and chanting on marches.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

In my experience, consensus decision making always degrades into a dictatorship by an ingroup.

They all claim they want to avoid conflict, but the vote itself is a conflict resolution device.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 5 years ago

Well stated. Consensus under principle might be an improvement.