1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Protests = Terrorism, says the Pentagon

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Flyboy, Jun 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Flyboy

    Flyboy Well-Known Member

    Gun nexus: the Second Amendment Rally, among other things.
  2. rick2497

    rick2497 Member

    And some people still wonder why we need the 2nd amendment.
  3. JohnBT

    JohnBT Well-Known Member

    "Martin said getting information on the extent of the FBI and National Security Agency’s surveillance programs is nearly impossible."

    Well duh. Just duh.

  4. Flyboy

    Flyboy Well-Known Member

    So...in light of this, does anybody want to come out and defend the idea of denying firearms to those on the "terrorism watch list?"

    C'mon, I know there are a few of you out there....
  5. 2RCO

    2RCO Well-Known Member

    Somebody please tell me this is incorrect somehow????????????

    I really hope that protesting is not considered terrorism(low level or whatever, in the USA) This has to be taken out of context or something. If not this needs to be on every News network all day long and the Outrage should cause a lot of protesting.

    Someone please clarify this before my head explodes!:cuss:
  6. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    No, it was not taken out of context, that's word for word what the DoD exam said.

    The ACLU pitched a fit and the DoD has since removed that question and answer from their exams and sent emails to everyone who took the test clarifying that the question was intended to refer to violent protests.

    But the original question did in fact simply say "protests are terrorism".

    Honest mistake? Maybe, but if so I have to then question who would let someone that dumb write exam questions.
  7. 2RCO

    2RCO Well-Known Member

    I would hope the Left, Right, and Center could all get behind this.

    Every once in awhile the ACLU does something right.
  8. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Yes, I was saying to someone earlier it's a shame the ACLU doesn't believe in the Second Amendment.

    They would be a powerful ally.
  9. DHJenkins

    DHJenkins Well-Known Member

    I thought this test was for americans serving overseas...

    I could almost swear I saw the same question in that DoD Anti-terrorism Level 1 test that was posted here a while back - and all of those questions were geared towards overseas service.
  10. catspaw

    catspaw Member

    JMHO, without protest, we would still be a colony.
  11. Flyboy

    Flyboy Well-Known Member

    Even if it were for overseas personnel, most of those people make it back stateside at one point or another, and they don't receive attitude transplants upon crossing the border.
  12. LemmyCaution

    LemmyCaution Well-Known Member

    What does overseas have to do with it? You mean, like, when we send our troops to someone else's country, the natives have no right to protest anything and should be seen as terrorists, if they get uppity? I thought the big reason we were sending troops overseas was to spread our democratic values and freedom.
  13. Flyboy

    Flyboy Well-Known Member

    Outstanding question, Lemmy. Mr. Jenkins, would you care to answer?
  14. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    That's originally the same excuse that was given by DoD however they backed down quickly given 2 items:

    1) it's still not terrorism and there are plenty of countries besides ours that allow peaceful protests and

    2) eventually these people will return to the US and if they are taught initially that protest=terrorism you can't exactly unring that bell when they return to the US.

    So, trying to excuse it for ANY reason just makes it more disgusting.
  15. DHJenkins

    DHJenkins Well-Known Member

    Well, most Americans serving overseas are not well liked. Heck, most Americans just being overseas are not well liked (anyone visit a foreign country lately not related to gov. service?).

    In fact, the majority of Americans we have currently overseas are in countries where they're not only "not well liked" but shot at on a regular basis.

    As most overseas protests these days seem to be anti-American, or have some anti-capitalism slant, it would behoove most Americans to steer clear of them as they may be singled out for violence.

    There are many forms of terrorism and terrorist. The words means "to cause terror or someone who causes terror", not necessarily "to bomb the $#!@ out of something".

    And I don't believe that "the bell can't be unrung". It's been postulated many times here that American soldiers would never agree to disarm their fellow Americans, so it seems they can obviously tell the difference between someone protesting American embargos vs. protesting high prices on chicken quarters.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2009
  16. LemmyCaution

    LemmyCaution Well-Known Member

    And that is exactly the problem. There is no difference between the two protests, as far as the 1st amendment is concerned, but you politically believe so, thus would not have a problem with the military making the distinction and acting on it.

    Again, utterly irrelevant. Being anti-American or anti-capitalist =/= terrorist. Speech is speech. Violence is violence. Saying that some political speech is terrorism and some political violence is not, depending on which side of an issue is in political power opens up a nasty relativistic can of worms that makes it just fine for the opposing party to go tit for tat when they gain power. Preventing this is why constitutional republics exist.

    Your definition of terrorism is laughably broad. Its the same definition antis use against us- "Ooh, the scary man with the gun frightened me, therefore he must be made illegal, because I am scared!"

    Here's a better, but still lacking, definition of terrorism:

    The Wikipedia article goes on to say:

    Which seems utterly à propos this thread. In fact, the DOD is deliberately attempting to broaden the definition of terrorism to deligitimize their peaceful political opponents.
  17. ztnedman1

    ztnedman1 Active Member

    I agree that its terrorism. Not terrorism to America but to the Governement! It is supposed to BE!!

    The government of the United States is supposed to FEAR the people not the other way around. We are supposed to be in control of them but no longer are.

    This is why we have the constitution and why we have the 2nd ammendment as our last ditch option to correct the situation.
  18. 33-805

    33-805 Well-Known Member

    Left leaning liberalism=a desire for more govt interference to "take care of us"=this sort of elitist belief in the ranks of govt functionaries that they know what is best for us. If protest inconveniences our keepers while they are looking out for us, then it is terrorism.

    Dangerous and slippery slope to start down. I wish the liberal left would think of this this stuff before it hits the first amendment. I wish they understood that this sort of thing isn't a possibility for a disarmed populace, it is an inevitability. The first amendment is a wonderful thing in all its five freedoms. The second keeps it in place and working. The left needs to realize that you cannot have one without the other. At least not in a functioning way.
  19. DHJenkins

    DHJenkins Well-Known Member

    I meant to say "protesting American embargos overseas" vs "protesting chicken...domestically". I wasn't aware the 1st amendment extened to foreign countries - thanks for clearing that up.

    Your absolutely right. I guess if the protests I constantly see in anti-american countries weren't full people toting AK-47's, I'd consider their protests to be only about "free speech" and not connected to violence. Plus, I'm not referring to constitutional republics.

    My broad definition of terrorism is no more laughable than you quoting Wikipedia. In fact, if you google "define:terrorism" you'll find 3 down that it used to be defined (on wikipedia) as "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" - and that is also how it is defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary, which I would argue is a tad more legitimate when it comes to the definitions of words.

    My argument is that American servicepeople can tell the difference between a domestic peaceful protest and a violent anti-American protest overseas; and a single, poorly worded question in a DoD test isn't going to change that perception unless they're extraordinarily weak minded. The 1st amendment applies here, not there.
  20. LemmyCaution

    LemmyCaution Well-Known Member

    The left does realize this. It's the statist center that doesn't. The center wants to preserve the status quo (which is unjust, but benefits them nicely), and removing the tools of others to change the status quo is the first step. And this applies to the entire bill of rights, not just the 1A and 2A.

    But enough off topic political nonsense. This valuable thread should not get shut down over it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page