Perspectives: 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome' - A reason to carry firearms for self-defense

[foob]

Excellent reporting can occur with censorship.

Excellent self-defense can occur with ban on firearms. See what I did there, absolutely nothing.

This _is_ also a global war. State-sponsored terrorism can go anywhere. And it doesn't need to be even as high-tech as 9/11...

War isn't only for big countries with big armies anymore. With a budget in the low millions, and a well-trained cadre of 100 true believers (of any belief system, I might add...), I could basically shut the USA interstate system down. Or I could take 5,000 points off the Dow. And a large part of the opportunity is because, even while this is a free country, with freedom of movement, there is also next to ZERO situational awareness among the population.

Global war as in war between countries where mass destruction and complete subjugation of countries occur. Not small terrorist acts that can occur anywhere. If you think Germany or Japan with a million troops on US soil is somehow equal in scale to 9/11 think again.

Calling it a war on terror is really one of the worse exaggerations and fear-mongering I've seen.

Iraq is a local war. If you think the withdrawal of US troops will cause insurgents to pack their bags and fight on US soil, you are exaggerating their desire and capabilities. It's one thing for insurgents to cross from Iran and Syria into Iraq, another to send them to the US.

With millions and a 100 followers you could do something that takes some points off the Dow, but guess what, it will recover easily. If you think you can shut down the entire interstate system, good luck. You could shut parts off for a short short while, maybe a day. Guess what, it will recover easily.

Could you explain what you mean by zero situational awareness? I'm unaware of any terrorist attacks after 9/11, and definitely nothing that could have been prevented by more situational awareness of citizens.

Even before 9/11, what did you expect civilians to do? It isn't illegal for a muslim to learn how to fly a plane. Not yet at least.

 

[amprecon]

foob,
how you cannot "grasp" what I've written in english and in layman terms is, well, quite amazing to me

 

[QuestionEverything]

Excellent sport shooting can occur with strict gun control. It's not like you need those scary assault weapons to hunt deer, after all.

Journalists can scream "There's blood in the water!" all day long if they want to because it's their right. That's what America is all about. If the state muzzles or takes control of the press in any way, they might as well confiscate all guns, install telescreens in every home and implant citizens with RFID chips for all the Constitution will be worth.

Not that the media is doing that in the first place. I don't see where the press is "consistently acting against US national interests." If that means opposing the war to you, then why did the NY Times and dozens of other papers act the part of starry-eyed cheerleaders as Bush prepared to invade Iraq? The media is just now waking up to the fact that Iraq was a poorly planned disaster that's wasted thousands of American lives and made the country much more vulnerable to terrorism.

 

[foob]

foob,
how you cannot "grasp" what I've written in english and in layman terms is, well, quite amazing to me

I'll let others read my earlier comments about your post to decide whether the confusion lies in me or you heh.

 

[bogie]

You know, I wonder when we're just going to turn on Al Jazeera for our news...

As for orchestration of a guerilla war, you're thinking in terms of massed armies. That no longer works, and is not a viable concept, since with advances in travel and communication, one generally no longer has to worry about supply lines and communication to and from a central authority.

North Vietnam learned that "the war of the armies" is dead during the Tet offensive.

I guess that we shouldn't learn from the past tho - After all, it was the past, and we're FAR more enlightened today.

Guerilla warfare does not have the instant payoff that "scorched earth assault" has, but it is CHEAP. And if a small third-world nation has patience, it can essentially hold the world hostage.

 

[Desertdog]

I'm interested to know more info about censorship in WW2.

Born in 1935 makes me to yougn to have served, but old enough to remember.

Letters to home, from the troops, often had either blacked out words, or words and sentences that were neatly cut out. Any mention of where the troops were, was deleated. Yes, I saw them with my own eyes.

One story from WWII is of a General that got tired of the press corps sending news back home of "possible" up coming troop deployments. His cure to keep quiet an up coming deployment was to invite all news people in the area to a news conference,

He then outlined the complete battle plans, and when it was over made the anouncement "Gentlemen, everything we discussed is military secrets. Anyone divuging any of the information will be subject to facing the firing squad for treason."

 

[bogie]

The quiet derision of academics and theoreticians will be our doom. But they'll be as doomed as the rest.

It is far better to be slightly paranoid than it is to be completely oblivious. Because the slightly paranoid might call in a report about a truck parked outside a gymnasium, or notice the license plate of a car cruising by a playground bus stop. They'll notice a nervous guy sitting outside a bank or a liquor store with his engine running.

Guys, this is a world of grey areas. Not all muslims are bad. Some are bad. Not all christians are bad. Some are bad. Not all people are bad. Some are bad. We must learn to both face reality, and to differentiate, on a practical sense, good from wrong.

 

[Kaylee]

bogie - I agree on your two main points.

1. Our present media situation is a serious problem.
(Yes Virginia, FDR clamped down hard on the media back in WWII. At least then though more folks knew the meaning of the word "responsibility.")

Thanks to several generations now of journalists coming up through the ranks thinking their Mission In Life it to be the next Bob Woodward, any CiC is rowing upstream these days to sustain a military engagement - and yes, it's twice as hard if they're a Republican. Add in Congressional power mongers on both sides ("wag the dog" anyone?) - to tell the God's honest truth, I'm not convinced we can ever fight a war requiring sustained effort effectively anymore.

Any war.

At this point, if Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all rose from the grave to land ten freaking divisions on Myrtle Beach, I'd lay even money half of Congress would be working on impeachment proceedings, the other half would be squabbling over which part of the country to give away first, and the New York Times would start posting US troop locations and suggested invasion routes.


More seriously though.. when the next BIG attack comes, I don't think we're going to see another 9/12 "we're all Americans" feeling sweep the nation with flags flying everywhere. I don't think we're going to see any productive action in Washington.

I think we're going to see blame politics and canabalistic fury in Washington, and neighbor against neighbor out here in flyover country.

And yes.. that's exactly what binLaden predicted ten years ago.
Sadly, we seem to be trying like hell to prove him right.

So yeah, I think it's a problem.

As already mentioned though, given the vastly expanded media outlets of today, Even if there was the will, I don't know as there's much the gov't could do to effectively control it as they did in FDR's day.

At the very least though, we could stop using tax money to pay folks to slander our soldiers.

2. To your next point - Global War.

Yes, it's happening. It's slow, but it's happening. Right now we're seeing a gathering of strength behind smiles abroad, and comfortable illusions at home.


At least we get to live in interesting times. The next fifteen years are gonna be a heck of a show.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yes Virginia, FDR clamped down hard on the media back in WWII. At least then though more folks knew the meaning of the word "responsibility.

Even more than that, most of the time he didn't HAVE to clamp down. Reporters had the good sense to know when to sit on a story.

No chance that would ever happen now.

 

[Kaylee]

No chance that would ever happen now.

I've heard of a few occasions of it happening.

I just don't think our present generation of journalists understand however that morale and public support is every bit as necessary for a sustained conflict as keeping a given unit's GPS coordinates under wraps for 24 hours.

You can't spend an hour every night dredging up every allegation of torture however nebulous, screaming about every alleged rape in the ranks, make a hero of every AWOL case, and constantly scream "My Lai" without destroying any shred of will at home. That's the worst of the worst. Most just seem to think phoning in body counts from the green zone counts as journalism.


At least, I'd like to think it's just ignorance and hubris behind that "quiet derision" bogie speaks so well of.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

At least, I'd like to think it's just ignorance and hubris behind that "quiet derision" bogie speaks so well of.

I have my doubts that it's just ignorance and hubris with the press, Kaylee. I think it's deliberate agenda driven bias. But, that's just me.

Woody


How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood

 

[bogie]

I think it is actually a belief system - akin in some facets to a religious belief system. Not organized, and not acknowledged, but a belief system nonetheless.

Several main tenets: (and I do not use that term loosely)

1) War, all war, is bad.

2) Peace, at any price, is good.

3) The rich are intrinsically evil, and require punishment.

4) The poor are intrinsically noble, but require guidance.

5) Those in positions of power are required to use their positions to further the above.

6) Intelligent people adhere to this belief system - everyone who doesn't is not intelligent.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It's either that or conquest, bogie.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Oh, and give me freedom over peace any time. I can defend freedom. Peace is usually way too costly.

Woody


Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

 

[wooderson]

any CiC is rowing upstream these days to sustain a military engagement - and yes, it's twice as hard if they're a Republican.

Why is this a bad thing? Between LBJ/Tonkin, Tricky Dick/Cambodia, Clinton/aspirin plant (I lack even the desire to mention Reagan's foibles), one would think that we would all prefer a healthy public sphere cynicism in terms of military adventurism.

(nb: The media was, in fact, completely complicit in the exagerrations and fearmongering that led up to the disaster in Iraq. That they report some bad news today should be a reflection of their original position.)

At this point, if Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all rose from the grave to land ten freaking divisions on Myrtle Beach, I'd lay even money half of Congress would be working on impeachment proceedings, the other half would be squabbling over which part of the country to give away first, and the New York Times would start posting US troop locations and suggested invasion routes.

This is simply absurd. You're extrapolating a perceived view of attitudes toward Iraq (which is subject to question) to 'any and all wars' and casting aspersions on the media.

Doing so helps you justify the abject disaster that is the War on Terror - it's not that the case for Iraq was weaker than a sandcastle, and it's not that the occupation was run badly from day one, it's not that reconstruction was a joke (croney capitalism at its finest) and it's not that Iraq is rapidly descending into Civil War and it's not that turning our attention to an unnecessary war weakened what was potentially a necessary war and it's not Dubya's fault, God no - it's the media's fault. They're just being hard on the President. Unfair.

One need only look at Desert Storm to see that the corporate media (and Democrats in Congress) have no qualms with a popular war. Or at least a war that we appear to be winning.

 

[wooderson]

Reporters had the good sense to know when to sit on a story.

When should a story be shuffled to the back?

Should I not hear about Abu Ghraib?
Should I not hear about Haditha?
Should I not hear about mistakes made by American soldiers?
Should I not hear about possible war crimes committed by American soldiers?
Should I not hear about corruption among war profiteers? Contractors, I mean.
Should I not hear about the government's disreputable policy toward injured vets?
Should I not hear about Blackwater mercenaries beholden to no law but their own?

What aspects of my government's War on Terra should I not be privy to?

 

[bogie]

When it harms the US war effort.

When a soldier commits a crime, he goes to jail - happens all the time in the US, Europe, Korea, anywhere there are soldiers. But if the soldier commits the same crime in Iraq, it's time for CNN... Why?

When Al Quaeda folks kill hostages, that's good for an hour or so of coverage. When we humiliate prisoners (that was NOT torture - if you'd like, I'm sure we could get someone to demonstrate the difference), that's good for month after month of coverage... Why?

War contractors are supplying stuff that our scaled-down military no longer does for itself. I don't think the army runs its own mess halls anymore. I don't think it runs any of the ancillary facilties. It doesn't do its own computer support -it can't keep the people once they've been trained; they go to the private sector. So the military goes to the private sector for this. Why? And while we're at it, have you seen anything on the news about the approximately 1,000 Halliburton/KBR employees who've been killed? Or about the Blackwater casualties? These guys are doing things that the military cannot/will not do - the US army is not tasked, for instance, with providing security for a construction firm that is building a hotel - but that does not mean that its people will not be possible targets.

The governments' policies toward injured vets has always sucked. But it also always keeps getting better.

If people are shooting at you, you shoot back. If you know that the US Army isn't going to send tanks and helicopters to come bail you out, you shoot a LOT more vigorously.

You may now return to Democratic Underground.

 

[Art Eatman]

And we've wandered a good long way from SJS.

Art