| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Webber on 10/22/2001; 12:24 PM Many people forget that pre-Hitler Germany was a democracy with parallels to the modern day USA. Hitler was elected to office in virtually the same manner we elect our leaders. What went wrong then? How did the citizens of Germany fall into this trap? Why didn't they overthrow the evil lord once his madness was apparent to all? He was a master of human psychology that's why! Germany had fallen on terrible times. The destruction, debt, and humiliation left over from World War I was creating inflation and unemployment. The Germans were afraid for the future, feeling abused, and longed to remake their greatness. Adolf used all of this to his advantage to seize power and to hold it. Today, many Americans also believe in the greatness that America has to offer. They refuse to look at the warts of America's past, and see themselves as the reigning glory of the planet. America can do no wrong and wil continue to export American culture and know-how to the unfortunate people who don't live in this powerful country, they think. In fact similar to what occured in Germany, if someone suggests that we have erred people will say, "sssshh! Keep your mouth shut, you don't want to really piss anyone off do you!" I imagine this was repeated constantly in Germany when Jews started vanishing off of street corners. The master manipulator Hitler used fear to his advantage just as our freedom limiting leaders do now. "Look another school shooting!" they say. Of course the remedy is to limit your rights to home defense (which I think is the ONLY thing guns should be used for, as long as their safely out of reach of children). "Look the environment is becoming unlivable!" they repeat endlessly. The cure limits what we can do with private property, and what kind of music and movies we can listen to and watch. "Look terrorists make the world unsafe!" The antidote they wish to use would violate your right to privacy. Yes, fear does motivate humans. Our leaders are hoping that it motivates you to look to them for protection and stability so they can gather more and more power. In my eyes one ingredient is missing from this stewing problem and that is economic calamity. If the US were to enter into a huge economic downturn would the result be a move to a new Fascism? I think it would.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Richard Davidson on 4/21/2001; 1:07 PM What the hell are you talking about? Have you been listening to Hannity and Colmes again? Please wipe the foam from your mouth, and try and type something that makes sense. Gun Control is going to turn our country into Nazi Germany? I'm sorry, that seems a bit, ah, well, EXTREME to me! If you can type nonsense like this, then I'm quite sure you shouldn't have a GUN! You're rant is far too general, (that is, non-specific) as to the cause and effect of these problems. Try and limit your insane droolings to subjects you can actually explain. I've been listening to Right Wing idiots draw these same parallels for years, and I'm dying to know what's got YOU jumping on the bandwagon. I also have yet to hear anyone explain these concepts in a way that actually makes sense. Remember, Conservatism is about returning America to the values of yesterday, when people got rich by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. It had nothing to do with a bunch of white people exploiting the natural resources of a country that was already inhabited by indigenous societies that had to be MURDERED for the early settlers to "claim what was theirs." Pre-Nazi Germany was a broken nation, just waiting for a "Messiah." That's what made it so easy for Hitler, not concern for the environment. He restored "national pride," and that's what made him so popular. I see no need to continue the discussion until you enlighten us as to your position on Waco.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Mark Morgan on 4/21/2001; 2:24 PM Neutral corners! Let's try to keep our discussions civilized, without resorting to comments about foaming mouths or Right Wing nuthouses.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Webber on 4/21/2001; 2:31 PM Did you actually read the whole thing? I said taking away home defense which is the ONLY thing I think civilians should be allowed to have guns for. I reiterate, HOME DEFENSE! I also mentioned the Government, the Right in particular, taking away our 1st Amendment rights, which is my PRIMARY concern. Learn to read.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Richard Davidson on 4/21/2001; 3:01 PM Did you actually read the whole thing? I said taking away home defense which is the ONLY thing I think civilians should be allowed to have guns for. I reiterate, HOME DEFENSE! I also mentioned the Government, the Right in particular, taking away our 1st Amendment rights, which is my PRIMARY concern. Learn to read. When typing a rant, take a moment, and read it, before you publish it. Yours meanders, making it very difficult to understand. How we can dictate how people USE their guns is a mystery to me. It sounded like you were taking the typical pro-gun argument, and using alarmist tactics to do it. If that is not your intention, you need to clarify your position without jumping all over the place. And in no way did you make it clear that the Right taking away our 1st Amendment right was your prime concern. Learn to WRITE!
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Richard Davidson on 4/21/2001; 3:06 PM Let's try to keep our discussions civilized, without resorting to comments about foaming mouths or Right Wing nuthouses. Then by the same token, shouldn't we try to keep our POSTS civilized, without resorting to comparing everything we don't like to Nazi Germany, even though we haven't drawn any SPECIFIC conclusions? What are we, Freerepublic.com? I think requiring us to use a library card is just like Nazi Germany, because the Nazis made you have ID, too. There. Isn't that a useful post?
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Mark Morgan on 4/21/2001; 5:26 PM Okay, I want to make a couple of things clear here in my role as publisher. Firstly, I exercise no editorial control, and hence no quality control. That's not completely true, but as long as you don't post anything illegal, pornographic, or some kind of hate literature I'll publish it. Yes, I am thinking of ways of improving the quality of the writing on this site, because I want some kind of process to make myself a better writer, and I want whatever process I develop to be available to everyone. I'll have more to say on this subject, at length. But ultimately you post it, I print it. The urban legends posting probably crossed the line, as it wasn't really original creative work and I won't publish formally another. Secondly, Richard, I don't mind you objecting to Brian's ideas which are deliberately inflammatory. But I won't stand for attacks against an individual. The part of your post I thought was in poor judgement was telling Brian to wipe the foam from his mouth. I disagree with a lot of Brian's opinions, but I try to refrain from namecalling. I recommend you do the same. And now something from Mark as a reader: I do have to say, Brian, not a lot of work seems to go into your posts. I know you're capable of tighter writing than you've posted here so far.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/21/2001; 7:54 PM Richard wrote:
I do mean to be civil and not insult you Richard, but I've never understood how people can maintain that: a) Native Americans suffered genocide at the hands of settlers and that b) the idea that we need guns to defend ourselves from an oppressive government is a right wing conceit. I mean sure, Geronimo, Cochise and others lost their battle against Leviathan in the end, but at least they got to do something besides wait to be rounded up by the state. As for Waco, since Brian W. didn't want to bring it up, the Branch Davidians fired in self-defense. What's the big deal? On the other hand, I do think it is wrong to compare the United States to Nazi Germany. The United States is light years removed from Nazi Germany.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/21/2001; 8:50 PM Brian Webber wrote:
Home defense is important, but defense against an oppressive state is far more important. The Nazi comparison was a bit of a stretch, but it was on the right track. The sad thing is that only right wing nuts like myself seem interested in defending gun rights for the purpose of defending against an oppressive state anymore (which is not the same thing as running around looking for people to kill like that moron McVeigh -- killing people indiscriminately for no good reason should be left to the experts in the Pentagon). It wasn't so long ago, however, (34 years next month) when the Black Panthers scared the **** out of then-Gov. Ronald Reagan by marching on the California Capitol openly carrying weapons and Bobby Hutton, when a reporter asked "Who are you?", uttered what has to be one of the coolest defenses of the RKBA ever, "Were black people with guns. What about it? What about it, indeed. (Hutton, btw, was only 16 at the time).
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Mark Morgan on 4/21/2001; 11:37 PM +1 in The Game to Brian Webber. Forgot that in all the rush to clamp down on the namecalling. I don't know about the repressive government bit. If the government does ever decide to do something like declare martial war, I'm of the opinion they'll be so far past paying attention to the Constitution that their first act will be to disarm everybody, perhaps using troops. Waco's a perfect example of this--an armed encampment couldn't fend off federal troops, no matter how you think of the situation. Their defense failed. If the fire hadn't broken out the standoff still would have ended US 1, Branch Davidians 0. That said, I find I can't be a hypocrite and think in absolute terms of the first amendment, but not of the second amendment. This draws interesting parallels, with the same liberals demanding an absolute right to freedom of speech and an absolute right to freedom of the press and an absolute right to freedom of religion (and from religion)--but an absolute right to guns? Pshaw! The right to bear arms is a topic not to be taken lightly. The other argument I always hear about gun control is "when guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns." This plays very well in rural areas, where they are afraid of the Maniac in the Window. If a maniac with a gun shows up in your window, you are packing and ready to fire. But in urban areas, gunfire is indiscriminate. Gunfire lashes across an apartment complex, killing random people in the building. How would arming the people in the building have made them any safer? The thought of government regulation of anything makes my skin crawl. Quite frankly, if you give the government any kind of power they will use it to its fullest extent, and then some. A reasonable balanced gun control measure will quickly become an unreasonable mess. I think our society should try and find the middle path, between everybody huddled in their private armed encampments and a powerless citizenry. What that path finally will be, I don't know, but it's not going to happen when the country's dialogue is controlled by gun nuts like Charlton Heston (he really scares me) on the one hand, and liberal weenies who want a completely disarmed society on the other (no examples come to mind, I'm sure Carnell knows what kind of person I'm talking about here). I really hate the way public discourse in this country is dominated by the idiots.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Webber on 4/21/2001; 11:31 PM but I've never understood how people can maintain that: a) Native Americans suffered genocide at the hands of settlers Uh, because it happened? I am part Native American myself, and I have some of the oral and wrriten history at my disposal. White men brought thie rwhite diseaes, stole the land, raped the women, then killed the men. That's why I'm glad half the movies made about Gen. Custer didn't attmept to protray him in a positive light.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/22/2001; 12:21 AM At 12:47 AM 4/22/2001 -0400, Brian Webber wrote: >but I've never understood how people can maintain that: a) Native >Americans suffered genocide at the hands of settlers > >Uh, because it happened? I am part Native American myself, and I have some >of the oral and wrriten history at my disposal. White men brought thie >rwhite diseaes, stole the land, raped the women, then killed the men. >That's why I'm glad half the movies made about Gen. Custer didn't attmept >to protray him in a positive light. It would help a lot if you would read what I wrote more closely and not cut and paste so selectively (hint the word "and" was being used conjuctively to join two separate ideas.) The point is how can anybody believe *both* that a) Native Americans suffered genocide and that b) the belief that Americans need guns to protect themselves from a potentially oppressive government is a right wing conceit. I suppose the Native Americans were supposed to win the U.S. army over with peaceful nonviolence or something. OTOH, the Columbian exchange (the diseases) went both ways, and as for raping women and killing men I cited Cochise and Geronimo specifically because the Apache committed heinous crimes themselves, especially against Mexican nationals who they hated even worse than the white Americans. But putting that aside, my point was we don't need to posit some futuristic turn toward fascism in the United States to find plenty of examples of state-sanctioned murder by the U.S. government even within the bounds of the North American continent. (And don't say it can't happen again -- look how quickly the U.S. acted against Americans of Japanese and Italian descent after entering World War II).
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/22/2001; 12:43 AM Mark Morgan wrote: >I don't know about the repressive government bit. If the government does >ever decide to do something like declare martial war, I'm of the opinion >they'll be so far past paying attention to the Constitution that their >first act will be to disarm everybody, perhaps using troops. Waco's a >perfect example of this--an armed encampment couldn't fend off federal >troops, no matter how you think of the situation. Their defense failed. >If the fire hadn't broken out the standoff still would have ended US 1, >Branch Davidians 0. On the other hand, the Zapatistas have done a pretty good job of thwarting the Mexican government with guerilla tactics. Besides, although I think they fired in self defense, there's no denying the Branch Davidians weren't playing with a full deck. They were the sorts of people you *want* to move off by themselves into an isolated compound. >That said, I find I can't be a hypocrite and think in absolute terms of >the first amendment, but not of the second amendment. This draws >interesting parallels, with the same liberals demanding an absolute right >to freedom of speech and an absolute right to freedom of the press and an >absolute right to freedom of religion (and from religion)--but an absolute >right to guns? Pshaw! I think support for the Bill of Rights is declining in general -- the 2nd amendment led the pack because of demographic changes (urbanization specifically), but there doesn't seem to be any broad understanding of why those 10 amendments were so important to those who ratified the Constitution, much less any agreement with the set of political values embodied therein. >The right to bear arms is a topic not to be taken lightly. The other >argument I always hear about gun control is "when guns are criminalized, >only criminals will have guns." This plays very well in rural areas, >where they are afraid of the Maniac in the Window. If a maniac with a gun >shows up in your window, you are packing and ready to fire. This is kind of what I mean. I think the Founders feared the state a lot more than most contemporary Americans. Today maybe we still fear the state, but we're more afraid of our neighbors.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Richard Davidson on 4/22/2001; 2:49 PM I do mean to be civil and not insult you Richard, but I've never understood how people can maintain that: a) Native Americans suffered genocide at the hands of settlers and that b) the idea that we need guns to defend ourselves from an oppressive government is a right wing conceit. I mean sure, Geronimo, Cochise and others lost their battle against Leviathan in the end, but at least they got to do something besides wait to be rounded up by the state. OK, first of all, your guns won't defend you against a repressive government. How could they? If the government came down on you, they'd have alot more at their disposal than just guns. They would have tear gas, body armor, helicopters, BOMBS, MISSILES, and for all you know, friggin' laser beam cannons like out of H. G. Welles. So realistically the idea that we need guns to defend ourselves from an oppressive government is some kind of dream, that makes no sense of any kind. Only words can protect us from an oppressive government, so all the guns are good for is killing citizens, often INNOCENT citizens. And the only reason Geronimo, Cochise, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and other great warriors got to do something besides wait to be rounded up by the state is that they knew the land better than the white man, and they were great warriors. I'm pretty sure the state's idea WAS to round them up. Had those same great chiefs had the type of communication we have today, the US Government would have had a much harder time with the Native people. I don't see how you can be asking your question. The two things are not related, and guns didn't save the Indians. So why even compare the two? I call that a useless argument, when I get tired of using the word "pointless." As for Waco, since Brian W. didn't want to bring it up, the Branch Davidians fired in self-defense. What's the big deal? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but a lot of Right Wing Extremists are very obsessive on this particular item. One of them even blew up a building over it. You may have heard it on the news. The fact is, the Branch Davidians were a bunch of dangerous loonies, and Koresh was enslaving women and children, through brainwashing. HE endangered those children, and there's never been any doubt as to whose fault the whole thing was. HIS, and his alone. They fired in self-defense? I say, no they didn't, and you'll have to prove that one. Wasn't someone telling them to come out over a bullhorn? Didn't they have the option of giving themselves up peacefully? What kind of idiot do you take me for? Self defense. What a complete load. On the other hand, I do think it is wrong to compare the United States to Nazi Germany. The United States is light years removed from Nazi Germany. The most intelligent point you make. They may be trying to limit our speech, but in my case they certainly have not succeeded, and if this was Nazi Germany, Free Republic members would have all been rounded up and shot, as would the good people over at Bartcop, not to mention half the idiots on radio and TV.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/22/2001; 9:47 PM >OK, first of all, your guns won't defend you against a repressive >government. How could they? If the government came down on you, they'd >have alot more at their disposal than just guns.They would have tear gas, >body armor, helicopters, BOMBS, MISSILES, and for all you know, friggin' >laser beam cannons like out of H. G. Welles. This argument works largely by unjustifiably narrowing the possibilities and necessary outcome. Some sort of Brian vs. the United States government war that requires I single handedly take down the entire state with an AK-47 would fail miserably. However, guerilla movements organized in a cell structure have proven remarkably resilient at causing problems for even the most powerful of governments, especially if they have any sort of popular support. As Communist insurgents demonstrated in Vietnam, you don't have to be able to defeat the enemy in order to win a war. And even if a resistance effort is doomed, better to go down fighting. Resisters to Soviet collective farming were largely unsuccessful in their resistance, but surely the dozens of officials who got the anti-collectivization message courtesy of a few bullets is a good consolation prize. > So realistically the idea that we need guns to defend ourselves from an > oppressive government is some kind of dream, that makes no sense of any > kind. Only words can proteact us from n oppressive government, so all > the guns are good for is killing citizens, often INNOCENT citizens. Could please expand on how you get from "Only words can proteact us from n oppressive government" to the conclusion that "all the gunsa re good for is killing citizens, often INNOCENT citizens." After all, the only things the guns of police are useful for is the killing of citizens, often INNOCENT civilians. Would you support disarmament of police officers and the military as well? > And the only reason Geronimo, Cochise, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and > other great warriors got to do something besides wait to be rounded up by > the state is that they knew the land better than the white man, and they > were great warriors. I'm pretty sure the state's idea WAS to round them > up. Had those same great chiefs had the type of communication we have > today, the US Governme Exactly. There are any number of ways for an outgunned guerilla group to take on a much better armed >I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but a lot of Right Wing Extremists >are very obsessive on this particular item. Hmmm...paramalitary squads sent in for publicity stunt ends in dozens of dead people. I can't imagine why anybody would obbssess about that! > One of them even blew up a building over it. You may have heard it on > the news. > The fact is, the Branch Davidians were a bunch of dangerous loonies, and > Koresh was enslaving women and children, through brainwashing. They were probably even vermin who need to be exterminated. As for McVeigh, the amusing thing about that is that the world is so loony that McVeigh's recent comments actually make sense. He should have stayed in the military where they would have given him awards for the sort of thing he did in Oklahoma City. > HE endangered those children, and there's never been any doubt as to > whose fault the whole thing was. HIS, and his alone. They fired in > self-defense? I say, no they didn't, and you'll have to prove that > one. Wasn't someone telling them to come out over a bullhorn? Didn't > they have the option of giving themselves up peacefully? What kind of > idiot do you take me for? Self defense. What a complete load. In case you don't read the news, these poorly trained SWAT-style squads have a habit of busting in homes, putting a couple rounds in people, and then asking questions. And, of course, even today the good folks at the BATF and FBI have a hard time actually getting their stories straight about what happened at Waco. >On the other hand, I do think it is wrong to compare the United States to >Nazi Germany. The United States is light years removed from Nazi Germany. > >The most intelligent point you make. They may be trying to limit our >speech, but in my case they certainly have not succeeded, and if this was >Nazi Germany, Free Republic members would have all been rounded up and >shot, as would the good people over at Bartcop, not to mention half the >idiots on radio and TV. However, innocent people have paramilitary squads bust into their homes and shoot them dead on a regular basis in the United States. I love the Freepers--better to be extremists in defense of liberty rather than continue to watch our freedoms continued to be sucked away by the two headed hydra that currently runs the government.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Richard Davidson on 4/23/2001; 5:40 PM This argument works largely by unjustifiably narrowing the possibilities and necessary outcome. Some sort of Brian vs. the United States government war that requires I single handedly take down the entire state with an AK-47 would fail miserably. However, guerilla movements organized in a cell structure have proven remarkably resilient at causing problems for even the most powerful of governments, especially if they have any sort of popular support. Please give me an example of a guerilla movement causing problems of any consequence for a powerful government. Show me how that could work in say, the US, or China, you know, somebody BIG! This weak argument should encourage me that you should have a gun? Sorry, no sale here! As Communist insurgents demonstrated in Vietnam, you don't have to be able to defeat the enemy in order to win a war. And even if a resistance effort is doomed, better to go down fighting. Resisters to Soviet collective farming were largely unsuccessful in their resistance, but surely the dozens of officials who got the anti-collectivization message courtesy of a few bullets is a good consolation prize. I'm sorry, I don't agree with this way of thinking at all! Going down fighting is only assuring your death. I don't feel as an American, you have a right to do this, nor should you. That's not what freedom is about. Exactly what GOOD did those resisters to Soviet collective farming do? All they did was cause death, much like David Koresh. Could please expand on how you get from "Only words can proteact us from n oppressive government" to the conclusion that "all the gunsa re good for is killing citizens, often INNOCENT citizens." After all, the only things the guns of police are useful for is the killing of citizens, often INNOCENT civilians. Would you support disarmament of police officers and the military as well? I'm sorry, your question is of no value. What exactly are you trying to ask me? First I say one thing. "Only words can protect us from an oppressive Government." By that, I mean that in today's world, information is power, and that makes it harder to commit attrocities, (i.e. doing a story on racial profiling, so the voters know who's responsible, so they can vote AGAINST them, etc.) Then I say "all that guns are good for is killing citizens, often INNOCENT citizens," which means that since the gun is of no use against the government, the only possible use it has is to kill another citizen, who may or may not NEED shooting. A police officer is TRAINED and TRUSTED to make a responsible decision about that. He is tested for drug use, and has more controls on him than the average citizen. So our society has determined that he may use a gun to keep the peace, and protect citizens. As you and I both know, sometimes there's a "bad cop," or a mistake made by a good cop that results in improper use of force. So then we address that problem, whether it be in better training methods, more specific laws, and criminal charges against abuse. That is not the same as a drunk Freeper deciding we need less gays in the world some Saturday night. Exactly. There are any number of ways for an outgunned guerilla group to take on a much better armed Here you only use part of my quote, completely ignoring what I said about how mucy better the great Warrior Chiefs would have done if they had today's communication abilities, and then you didn't even finish your own sentence. This must be a new debate tactic I'm unaware of. Hmmm...paramalitary squads sent in for publicity stunt ends in dozens of dead people. I can't imagine why anybody would obbssess about that! How can you actually try and say it was a publicity stunt? How? That's absolutely ridiculous! A bunch of loonies are holed up with guns, in a building filled with BRAINWASHED women and children, and ordered to come out. Do they? NO! I ask you ONE simple question that will forever silence you on this issue: HOW LONG was the standoff? A few minutes? A few hours? A few DAYS? Why wouldn't Koresh come out? Could it be that he was a freakin' loony who had violated numerous laws, and who the cops had EVERY REASON to try and apprehend? Just answer that ONE question. DID the cops rush in and kill them right away, or was there a LONG STANDOFF first? They were probably even vermin who need to be exterminated. As for McVeigh, the amusing thing about that is that the world is so loony that McVeigh's recent comments actually make sense. He should have stayed in the military where they would have given him awards for the sort of thing he did in Oklahoma City. That whole paragraph gives me chills. McVeigh is a loony, and nothing he's ever said has made sense. He MURDERED American Citizens, some of them children, all because of the exact same rationale that you are using in your arguments against me. That is truly scary. In case you don't read the news, these poorly trained SWAT-style squads have a habit of busting in homes, putting a couple rounds in people, and then asking questions. And, of course, even today the good folks at the BATF and FBI have a hard time actually getting their stories straight about what happened at Waco. Again, I will ask you, "how long was the standoff before any shots were fired?" It seems to me, ONE VERY SICK AND SELFISH man was using a bunch of women and children as a human shield. KORESH is the only person responsible for Waco, no one else. However, innocent people have paramilitary squads bust into their homes and shoot them dead on a regular basis in the United States. I love the Freepers--better to be extremists in defense of liberty rather than continue to watch our freedoms continued to be sucked away by the two headed hydra that currently runs the government. I'm sorry, but you'll have to substantiate that statement, which I challenge as completely false. Give me some examples of INNOCENT people having paramilitary squads bust into their house and shoot them dead. Then tell me again how having guns would have saved them. Your argument just ain't gonna fly here. As for the Freepers, they are as loony as McVeigh, Koresh, or any of the other militized jackasses that think they're going to start a new country or something. And I, for one, don't want ONE of them to have a gun! Hell, if it were up to me, they wouldn't even be allowed to DRIVE! Even that is too much responsibility for such narrow minded bigots! The Freepers CAN be compared to the Nazis, for one reason, and one reason alone: They often say that the Jews are responsible for their problems. Don't tell me that's not true, or I'll be posting so many nasty freeper articles here it'll make your head spin! Oh yeah, they often say the gays are responsible for their problems, as well. See a pattern here?
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Webber on 4/23/2001; 5:54 PM I'm sorry, but you'll have to substantiate that statement, which I challenge as completely false. Give me some examples of INNOCENT people having paramilitary squads bust into their house and shoot them dead. It actually happened in my home state of Colorado. Ismael Mena's address was listed on a warrant for a no-knock raid. Turns out Mena was a street down from a crackhouse and a recently 'disciplined' clerk put the wrong address on the warrant. Mr Mena, a legal immigrant from Mexico with five children, heard the cops bust down the door without annoucning themselves, or wearing anything that would make it easy to recognize them as Police. Fearing for his life, believeing he was being robbed he grabbed his poistol, went down stairs, and ended up being gunned down by the SWAT dumb-asses. And in typical dirty cop form, they attempted to blame the victim. Now, the incident I'm going to metnion did not actually take place inside anyone's residence, but I'm sure your familiar with the recent incidents in New York? In one, a Haitian immigrant was sodomized with a broom stick by police oficers. And of course, Amidu Diallo(sp?). 41 shots. 12 of them went through THE SOLES OF HIS FEET. He was shot by police when he pulled out, get this, his WALLET! All the cops were white by the way. And the cops were aquited after a change of venue was made to Westchester, where a bad cop goes if he wnats to get away with a crime I guess. Then of course the young man in Cincinatti that sparked the tantrum (see my next article, entitled the L.A. and Cincinatti Tantrums) that we all heard about on the news.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/23/2001; 6:50 PM Brian Webber wrote: It actually happened in my home state of Colorado. Ismael Mena's address was listed on a warrant for a no-knock raid. Turns out Mena was a street down from a crackhouse and a recently 'disciplined' clerk put the wrong address on the warrant. Yep, and Mena is just the tip of the iceberg. There have been a number of similar shootings in other parts of the country, especially Los Angeles. The unbelievable thing is that the feds are really pushing the militarization of the police. One of the parts of Clinton's law enforcement bills was to essentially subsidize the purchase of military-style weaponary for police forces. Unfortunately, these folks are rarely properly trained and end up blowing innocent people's heads off. Fortunately some police agencies around the country are seeing the light and simply not going for these types of grants. I live in a very rough neighborhood (between the house next door and the house directly across the street live three felons convicted of violent crimes), and I'm much more afraid of the local drug cops with their state of the art weaponary than the drug dealers they're out to catch. There's a big lawsuit here at the moment because thanks to their poor training the paramilitary types ended up shooting the undercover cop they had on the inside of a crack house rather than the drug dealer they were actually after. And yet the city sent us a flyer the other day on how wonderful it is that they were just able to buy shiny new weapons for these folks.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/23/2001; 7:12 PM How can you actually try and say it was a publicity stunt? How? That's absolutely ridiculous! A bunch of loonies are holed up with guns, in a building filled with BRAINWASHED women and children, and ordered to come out. Loonies, Commies, right wing wackos, atheists, fascists, Nazis, enemies of the people, weirdos, anti-Americans -- thank goodness the state is out there eliminating these folks before they destroy the fabric of American culture! McVeigh is a loony, and nothing he's ever said has made sense. He MURDERED American Citizens, some of them children, all because of the exact same rationale that you are using in your arguments against me. That is truly scary. McVeigh is definitely not a loony. A mentally deficient moron perhaps (sorry for the ad hominem), but not a loony. You know I still can't figure out exactly why the federal government is going to fry his butt. Personally I think blowing up a building filled with civilians is a crime and won't miss McVeigh one bit, but from the point of view of the U.S. government killing civilians is not a crime -- the Pentagon does it all the time. In fact killing civilians was the stated policy of the Clinton administration during the Kosovo diaster, with civilian installations targeted in direct violation of numerous treaties. More children die every day from U.S. sanctions against Iraq than McVeigh managed to blow up. Tens of thousands were killed thanks to the U.S. indiscriminate bombing of Iraq during the Persian Gulf War. McVeigh should have stayed in the military -- he could have committed murder with impunity. All you have to do is look at March 16, 1968. On that day a U.S. platoon murdered as many as 500 Vietnamese civilians. William Calley ordered women and children into a ditch, and then fired 250-300 rounds into the ditch from above. He spent 5 years in a military prison. Based on that standard, McVeigh's getting a raw deal.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/23/2001; 7:40 PM Richard wrote: By that, I mean that in today's world, information is power, and that makes it harder to commit attrocities, (i.e. doing a story on racial profiling, so the voters know who's responsible, so they can vote AGAINST them, etc.) This is simply not correct. First, there are dozens of efforts to limit speech. Paul Wellstone wants to make ads like the one the NAACP ran against George Bush (the one featuring the racially motivated dragging death in Texas) illegal. Everybody in elected office wants to ban some form of speech or another. Second, racial profiling is not instituted by elected officials. You will not find a mayor or even a police chief issuing a memo saying, "It's time we started pulling over more blacks." Those are policies that operate at an institutional level of a police system that is horribly dysfunctional through much of the country.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Webber on 4/23/2001; 9:25 PM You got him there Brian. In an article I wrote for another website, which I now intend to re-print here titled The Ancient Art of Freedom, that whole ad thing is mentioned.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Mark Morgan on 4/23/2001; 10:55 PM I have very little to say here, except that if a determined guerilla group in the US wanted to camp out in the boondocks it'd take half the darn army to dig them out. Richard, I'm at a loss as to the reason for the sheer vehemence of your arguments here. Take a deep breath, man. It's just photons on glass. (He said, knowing he once contemplated horrific punishments over similar debates.)
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/24/2001; 7:43 AM At 12:11 AM 4/24/2001 -0400, Mark Morgan wrote: >I have very little to say here, except that if a determined guerilla group >in the US wanted to camp out in the boondocks it'd take half the darn army >to dig them out. Yep. Notice how much trouble the government has had catching another domestic terrorist, Eric Robert Rudolph (http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/rudolph.htm). Rudolph fled into the Nantahala National Forest where he has so far been able to evade an enormous man hunt. The upside, btw, is that clearly you would have to have some pretty severe tyranny before any freedom fighting guerillas would actually gain any support. Clearly there is no support except on this tiny outer fringe of American society for violent acts (just as there was little tolerance for this sort of thing when it was fringe leftists blowing up buildings and shooting police officers in the late 1960s). The thing I really find bizarre about McVeigh is that he seems to have really believed that he would rally some sort of political movement by blowing up a building. But the problem with Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc., was the indiscriminate and disproportional use of force by federal authorities -- blowing up buildings is an extremely bizarre way to protest excessive use of force by the government.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Richard Davidson on 4/24/2001; 6:52 PM It actually happened in my home state of Colorado. Ismael Mena's address was listed on a warrant for a no-knock raid. Turns out Mena was a street down from a crackhouse and a recently 'disciplined' clerk put the wrong address on the warrant. Mr Mena, a legal immigrant from Mexico with five children, heard the cops bust down the door without annoucning themselves, or wearing anything that would make it easy to recognize them as Police. Fearing for his life, believeing he was being robbed he grabbed his poistol, went down stairs, and ended up being gunned down by the SWAT dumb-asses. And in typical dirty cop form, they attempted to blame the victim. Okay, that's ONE example. However, in the only example you've provided of what I asked for, the guy HAD a gun, and that only resulted in his being gunned down. I can't say he WOULDN'T have been gunned down if he'd been unarmed, but I certainly can say he WAS gunned down, and he WAS armed. So, getting back to our original point, how did a gun protect him from an oppressive government? It didn't. Because it can't. Now, the incident I'm going to metnion did not actually take place inside anyone's residence, but I'm sure your familiar with the recent incidents in New York? In one, a Haitian immigrant was sodomized with a broom stick by police oficers. Documentation please. That's a pretty strong claim to make with no proof. And of course, Amidu Diallo(sp?). 41 shots. 12 of them went through THE SOLES OF HIS FEET. He was shot by police when he pulled out, get this, his WALLET! All the cops were white by the way. And the cops were aquited after a change of venue was made to Westchester, where a bad cop goes if he wnats to get away with a crime I guess. Then of course the young man in Cincinatti that sparked the tantrum (see my next article, entitled the L.A. and Cincinatti Tantrums) that we all heard about on the news. Now this is a good example of changes being needed in our police tactics. However it is NOT an example of the Government coming in to people's homes and shooting them. And again, there's no example here of how having a gun would have helped this man protect himself against an oppressive government. Yep, and Mena is just the tip of the iceberg. There have been a number of similar shootings in other parts of the country, especially Los Angeles. The unbelievable thing is that the feds are really pushing the militarization of the police. One of the parts of Clinton's law enforcement bills was to essentially subsidize the purchase of military-style weaponary for police forces. Unfortunately, these folks are rarely properly trained and end up blowing innocent people's heads off. So if cops can't be trusted to handle military-style weaponry, how can you possibly maintain that private citizens can? That's just not a sensible argument. Fortunately some police agencies around the country are seeing the light and simply not going for these types of grants. I live in a very rough neighborhood (between the house next door and the house directly across the street live three felons convicted of violent crimes), and I'm much more afraid of the local drug cops with their state of the art weaponary than the drug dealers they're out to catch. That's a personal choice. Drug dealers routinely have possession of both hard drugs and guns, and anyone who thinks that's not a deadly combination just plain doesn't know nothin'. That one's a little too obvious to debate. Yes, I agree that the war on drugs needs to stop. However, that does nothing to explain how having a gun can protect you from an oppressive government. I still maintain, and have not yet been disproven, that it can't. There's a big lawsuit here at the moment because thanks to their poor training the paramilitary types ended up shooting the undercover cop they had on the inside of a crack house rather than the drug dealer they were actually after. And yet the city sent us a flyer the other day on how wonderful it is that they were just able to buy shiny new weapons for these folks. You have made an excellent point that drug enforcement is dangerous work, and sometimes mistakes are made. And you have made the point that your city sends out flyers that are poorly conceived. You have still done nothing to disprove any of my arguments. Loonies, Commies, right wing wackos, atheists, fascists, Nazis, enemies of the people, weirdos, anti-Americans -- thank goodness the state is out there eliminating these folks before they destroy the fabric of American culture! Here you have taken a simple concept, (that Koresh and his followers were loonies,) and added a bunch of meaningless rhetoric. I in no way said, or even implied that the fact that they were loonies means we should eliminate them. But the fact remains that Koresh was guilty of actual CRIMES, and they ordered him to come out. Instead of coming out, he made bargains with children's lives, and used them as a human shield, so no one would just storm in and arrest him, which is what would have served JUSTICE. McVeigh is definitely not a loony. A mentally deficient moron perhaps (sorry for the ad hominem), but not a loony. Now, what difference does it make whether he's a loony or a mentally deficient moron? You were still using the same arguments as he was to make your point. You know I still can't figure out exactly why the federal government is going to fry his butt. Personally I think blowing up a building filled with civilians is a crime and won't miss McVeigh one bit, but from the point of view of the U.S. government killing civilians is not a crime -- the Pentagon does it all the time. In fact killing civilians was the stated policy of the Clinton administration during the Kosovo diaster, with civilian installations targeted in direct violation of numerous treaties. This entire paragraph is nothing more than Right Wing Extremist rhetoric. To say the point of view of the US Government is that killing civilians is NOT a crime is a statement you'd have to show me actual documents PROVING in order for me to even START to take it seriously. That is merely your OPINION, and you're not showing me any FACTS. More children die every day from U.S. sanctions against Iraq than McVeigh managed to blow up. Tens of thousands were killed thanks to the U.S. indiscriminate bombing of Iraq during the Persian Gulf War. So what? That doesn't justify his murder of those people in the Murrah building. That is a seperate issue, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our discussion, and a waste of my time. McVeigh should have stayed in the military -- he could have committed murder with impunity. All you have to do is look at March 16, 1968. On that day a U.S. platoon murdered as many as 500 Vietnamese civilians. William Calley ordered women and children into a ditch, and then fired 250-300 rounds into the ditch from above. He spent 5 years in a military prison. Based on that standard, McVeigh's getting a raw deal. I'm sorry, but McVeigh is NOT getting a raw deal. Vietnam? That was over thirty years ago! The administration responsible is NOT in power today. Your arguments are still weaker than English Tea. (By that, I mean that in today's world, information is power, and that makes it harder to commit attrocities, (i.e. doing a story on racial profiling, so the voters know who's responsible, so they can vote AGAINST them, etc.)) This is simply not correct. First, there are dozens of efforts to limit speech. Paul Wellstone wants to make ads like the one the NAACP ran against George Bush (the one featuring the racially motivated dragging death in Texas) illegal. Everybody in elected office wants to ban some form of speech or another. And if Wellstone succeeds in making political ads like that illegal, he has succeeded only in limiting the speech of people running for office, NOT ordinary citizens, and voters have the ability NOT to re-elect Mr. Wellstone, which would be the POWER of information. Second, racial profiling is not instituted by elected officials. You will not find a mayor or even a police chief issuing a memo saying, "It's time we started pulling over more blacks." Those are policies that operate at an institutional level of a police system that is horribly dysfunctional through much of the country. Again, you're just talking about the problems within police departments. The Mayor is an elected official, and we can demand results, and as a people, play up the significance of this intolerable act. Reporters can REPORT about it, and citizens have the FREEDOM to form organized protests of these police departments, much like they did in the civil right movement. You got him there Brian. In an article I wrote for another website, which I now intend to re-print here titled The Ancient Art of Freedom, that whole ad thing is mentioned. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Brian DIDN'T get me. What we were arguing about is whether words or guns are more effective in protecting us from an oppressive government. You still haven't even given me ONE example of guns protecting ANYBODY from a repressive government. Because they CAN'T! And none of you can produce something to prove me wrong! Because it's so damn obvious. A gun CANNOT protect ANYBODY from an oppressive government, nor can LOTS of guns. I have very little to say here, except that if a determined guerilla group in the US wanted to camp out in the boondocks it'd take half the darn army to dig them out. I'm sorry, but there is no way it would take "half the damn army." You're kidding yourself if you believe this, even for a second. ONE unit could find them, and either force them to surrender, or wipe them out. Hell, ONE missile could do the wiping out part. Get real! Have you even ONCE heard of this happening? In my opinion, the government was very merciful for that period of over a month when they didn't wipe out Koresh. They were trying NOT to kill everybody, or they would have just opened fire the first freakin' day, and been done with it. Richard, I'm at a loss as to the reason for the sheer vehemence of your arguments here. Take a deep breath, man. It's just photons on glass. (He said, knowing he once contemplated horrific punishments over similar debates.) I've asked for someone to provide me with ONE example, JUST ONE of guns protecting anyone from an oppressive government, and I mean a BIG government, like USA or China, not some third world country. And no one can do it, because it can't be done. So I'm sticking to my original position, just WAITING for someone to give me a logical reason why I'm wrong when I say, "guns CAN'T protect you from an oppressive government." And I'm STILL waiting. Yep. Notice how much trouble the government has had catching another domestic terrorist, Eric Robert Rudolph (http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/rudolph.htm). Rudolph fled into the Nantahala National Forest where he has so far been able to evade an enormous man hunt. This is ONE man! Yes, ONE man can hide pretty good in a National Forest, but he can accomplish nothing there, except to merely exist. He's not committing an terrorist acts as long as he's on the run, because he can't be a threat to an unpopulated area. So for now, he's his own prisoner, and as far as I know, is doing NOTHING to protect ANYONE from an oppressive government. He's just trying to find enough food to eat, as far as we know. The upside, btw, is that clearly you would have to have some pretty severe tyranny before any freedom fighting guerillas would actually gain any support. Clearly there is no support except on this tiny outer fringe of American society for violent acts (just as there was little tolerance for this sort of thing when it was fringe leftists blowing up buildings and shooting police officers in the late 1960s). You know how the kids made the biggest difference in the 60's? Some of them got shot, when carrying no weapons. They died for their cause, instead of killing others, and their parents stopped taking the government's side when they realized their kids would come home in body bags. Kent State effectively ended the "generation gap," thus putting the VOTING BLOCK into the same mindset as the radicals. It was this power that ended the violence, NOT people arming themselves. History has shown over and over that this is the modern way to get results, and that arming yourself only gets you killed. The thing I really find bizarre about McVeigh is that he seems to have really believed that he would rally some sort of political movement by blowing up a building. But the problem with Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc., was the indiscriminate and disproportional use of force by federal authorities -- blowing up buildings is an extremely bizarre way to protest excessive use of force by the government. That's why people like me say "McVeigh is a loony." See, he thinks lunatic thoughts, commits lunatic acts, and if it walks like a loony, it probably IS a loony. And again, THREE PEOPLE together can't come up with ONE example of how a gun, or collection of guns has EVER saved ANYONE from an oppressive government. Because it can't. And it never will. I could cause the government more trouble with a good hacking program than you could EVER cause with a gun. So what are guns for? Hunting, target practice, or KILLING citizens. The first two are quite acceptable by me. The third, is just plain crime. Now if you keep your gun at home, and would only use it in the case of someone BREAKING IN to your house, that's perfectly legal, and acceptable. But the SECOND you take it with you outside the house, you're looking for trouble. And if you think it can protect you from an oppressive government, you've just bought into rhetoric, since NO ONE can give me an example of this working.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Seth Dillingham on 4/24/2001; 7:36 PM On Tuesday, April 24, 2001 at 8:08 PM, Richard Davidson wrote: >Now, the incident I'm going to metnion did not actually take place inside >anyone's residence, but I'm sure your familiar with the recent incidents >in New York? In one, a Haitian immigrant was sodomized with a broom stick >by police oficers. > >Documentation please. That's a pretty strong claim to make with no proof. This is one I'm quite familiar with, as it was all over the news. Here's the official court papers on the trial of the cop that did it. That's a PDF file. If you'd rather just read Google's text-only version, go here. Seth
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/24/2001; 8:00 PM At 08:29 PM 4/24/2001 -0400, Seth wrote: >On Tuesday, April 24, 2001 at 8:08 PM, Richard Davidson wrote: > > >Now, the incident I'm going to metnion did not actually take place inside > >anyone's residence, but I'm sure your familiar with the recent incidents > >in New York? In one, a Haitian immigrant was sodomized with a broom stick > >by police oficers. > > > >Documentation please. That's a pretty strong claim to make with no proof. > >This is one I'm quite familiar with, as it was all over the news. > >Here's the official court papers on the trial of the cop that did it: Thank goodness for Google. The Volpe case was very bizarre. Typically in police corruption cases you see cops essentially acting like criminals. In Texas, for example, police were hiring themselves out as bodyguards/escorts for drug deals. Same thing with the corruption scandal in Los Angeles -- a few bad cops in a drug-infested district decide if they can't beat them, join them. But it is difficult to fathom the thought process that leads from a confrontational arrest to sodomy with a broomstick. OTOH, some police forces administer IQ tests to applicants and reject those who are too smart, on the theory that they will become bored with the job and leave after a few years, costing their employers valuable lost training dollars.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Mark Morgan on 4/24/2001; 8:10 PM Wow! Nothing like the second amendment to fire up the commentary! Definitely hating not having pagination in my BBS, but there's always the threaded view for those on slow connections. Such as myself...
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Richard Davidson on 4/25/2001; 2:08 AM By: Brian Carnell on 4/24/01; 9:00:44 PM At 08:29 PM 4/24/2001 -0400, Seth wrote: >On Tuesday, April 24, 2001 at 8:08 PM, Richard Davidson wrote: > > >Now, the incident I'm going to metnion did not actually take place inside > >anyone's residence, but I'm sure your familiar with the recent incidents > >in New York? In one, a Haitian immigrant was sodomized with a broom stick > >by police oficers. > > > >Documentation please. That's a pretty strong claim to make with no proof. > >This is one I'm quite familiar with, as it was all over the news. > >Here's the official court papers on the trial of the cop that did it: Thank goodness for Google. The Volpe case was very bizarre. Typically in police corruption cases you see cops essentially acting like criminals. In Texas, for example, police were hiring themselves out as bodyguards/escorts for drug deals. Same thing with the corruption scandal in Los Angeles -- a few bad cops in a drug-infested district decide if they can't beat them, join them. But it is difficult to fathom the thought process that leads from a confrontational arrest to sodomy with a broomstick. OTOH, some police forces administer IQ tests to applicants and reject those who are too smart, on the theory that they will become bored with the job and leave after a few years, costing their employers valuable lost training dollars. Well, I asked for some documentation, and you provided it. Now, please find a way to put this post in context with what we were originally talking about. All you have done here is talk about local police departments, and never ONCE talked about anything on a Federal level. I find it interesting that of all the points I took the time to carefully make, this is the only one that has been addressed. I am going to take this to mean that I have successfully made my point. Here in the USA, there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE for guns to protect ANYBODY from an oppressive government. I also take this to mean everyone sees the utter foolishness of trying to talk of McVeigh as having some "valid points," and the irrelevance of being "outraged" over Waco. The fact that you're even allowed to EXPRESS such viewpoints is proof of the fact that freedom, though always in grave danger, is alive and well in America RIGHT NOW, and serves as bona fide proof of my point that COMMUNICATION IS POWER, and THAT is the direction the world is evolving. You can't stop it, especially with arguments as weak as in the majority of this thread. I will close by re-iterating my primary argument one last time, in case someone else has something to add: Your guns are USELESS when it comes to protecting yourselves against oppressive government, here in the United States of America. That ship has sailed.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/25/2001; 9:01 AM At 03:24 AM 4/25/2001 -0400, Richard Davidson wrote: >Well, I asked for some documentation, and you provided it. Now, please >find a way to put this post in context with what we were originally >talking about. All you have done here is talk about local police >departments, and never ONCE talked about anything on a Federal level. > I find it interesting that of all the points I took the time to > carefully make, this is the only one that has been addressed. I am going > to take this to mean that I have successfully made my point. Here in the > USA, there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE for guns to protect ANYBODY from an > oppressive government. ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE is a pretty serious claim that would require some pretty thorough evidence that it was impossible. I have already pointed out numerous circumstances in which relatively undermanned and outgunned guerilla movements and, unfortunately, terrorists, have indeed been able to inflict serious casualties on exceedingly well armed armies which you haven't really addressed as far as I can tell. In a number of instances people *have* used guns to committ justifiable homicides against agents of the state (typically police officer). The funny thing is that there is preliminary evidence emerging that these supposedly well trained, trustworthy police officers you mention discharge their weapons illegally more often than do individuals who have obtained concealed carry permits in states that allow those. BTW, I don't mean to come off as anti-police. My brother's a part-time cop, my next door neighbor's a cop, and several of my best friends from high school became police officers. The sort of corruption we see today in police departments is a direct result of the sort of incentives put in place by the federal drug war and conflicting demands about the role that police are supposed to fill. You see this in popular culture a lot where the dirty, crooked cop is a common the, but so is the kick ass, take names, and blow away the suspects type officer. Americans seem really schizophrenic about what they want police officers to do -- outraged when police officers violate their rights but whining and moaning about criminals who get off on "technicalities." > I also take this to mean everyone sees the utter foolishness of trying > to talk of McVeigh as having some "valid points," and the irrelevance of > being "outraged" over Waco. The fact that you're even allowed to EXPRESS > such viewpoints is proof of the fact that freedom, though always in grave > danger, is alive and well in America RIGHT NOW, and serves as bona fide > proof of my point that COMMUNICATION IS POWER, and T Not really. I mean look at what will happen to this site because we've had a frank, if heated, discussion about domestic terrorism here. A number of web crawlers will scour this site and I guarantee you within 6 months it will be added to a list of sites unreachable by government-mandated filters in public schools and libraries. And, of course, if a lot of liberal and conservative legislators had had their way, a lot of the discussion here would have been in a very grey area, especially to the extent that children can access this site -- and you know, while I'm thinking about it, technically the inclusion of comic book-related materials on here might make be enough to make the FTC decide that VOU is targeted at children and so would have to comply with that nightmare known as the Children's Online Protection Act (extremely unlikely, but the point is not that they will, but that they could at any moment). Finally, on McVeigh, it is interesting precisely how unoriginal his whole plan was. Committ a terrorist act to foment political unrest? It turns out the Joint Chiefs of Staff were already all over that in the 1960s. From a review (see http://www.salon.com/books/review/2001/04/25/nsa/index.html) of James Bramford's new book, Body of Secrets: <blockquote>Among the more shocking things Bamford learned is that in 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff approved something called Operation Northwoods. Fortunately never implemented, it involved committing random acts of terror on Americans in the United States and then blaming them on Cuba. Most of the documents detailing this Bamford found in the National Archives, among the thousands of papers the Joint Chiefs of Staff released about the Cuban missile crisis.</blockquote> >I will close by re-iterating my primary argument one last time, in case >someone else has something to add: Your guns are USELESS when it comes to >protecting yourselves against oppressive government, here in the United >States of America. I don't actually own any guns (haven't even held one since I was 8), but guerilla warfare against a genuinely tyrannical U.S. gov't would be highly effective provided it had significant popular support. Such resistance would almost certainly quickly demoralize the armed forces and I suspect you would see something happen akin to what happened in the former USSR when the armed forces simply decided to stop serving a dictatorship.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/25/2001; 12:29 PM Speaking of killing civilians, it turns out that the Navy gave Sen. Bob Kerry a Bronze Star for killing civilians: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_div=3&u_hdg=0&u_sid=93127 (Kerry's explanation is a bit odd -- if he reported the incident accurately to his superiors didn't he ever wonder why he received a Bronze Star for that action?)
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Richard Davidson on 4/25/2001; 12:44 PM ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE is a pretty serious claim that would require some pretty thorough evidence that it was impossible. I have already pointed out numerous circumstances in which relatively undermanned and outgunned guerilla movements and, unfortunately, terrorists, have indeed been able to inflict serious casualties on exceedingly well armed armies which you haven't really addressed as far as I can tell. No, you haven't. At least, not on this thread. You haven't provided even ONE example of guerilla movements or terrorists being able to inflict serious casualties on exceedingly well armed armies. That is why I haven't addressed it. Links, please. In a number of instances people *have* used guns to committ justifiable homicides against agents of the state (typically police officer). Examples, please. The funny thing is that there is preliminary evidence emerging that these supposedly well trained, trustworthy police officers you mention discharge their weapons illegally more often than do individuals who have obtained concealed carry permits in states that allow those. And how many times have these same police officers discharged their weapons in situations where the general citizenry was endangered? What is the ratio of police abuses to police heroics? What about the conceal-carry people? What GOOD have any of them ever done society? BTW, I don't mean to come off as anti-police. My brother's a part-time cop, my next door neighbor's a cop, and several of my best friends from high school became police officers. The sort of corruption we see today in police departments is a direct result of the sort of incentives put in place by the federal drug war and conflicting demands about the role that police are supposed to fill. You see this in popular culture a lot where the dirty, crooked cop is a common the, but so is the kick ass, take names, and blow away the suspects type officer. Americans seem really schizophrenic about what they want police officers to do -- outraged when police officers violate their rights but whining and moaning about criminals who get off on "technicalities." What do YOU want police officers to do? I personally want them to uphold the law, nothing more. Not really. I mean look at what will happen to this site because we've had a frank, if heated, discussion about domestic terrorism here. A number of web crawlers will scour this site and I guarantee you within 6 months it will be added to a list of sites unreachable by government-mandated filters in public schools and libraries. And, of course, if a lot of liberal and conservative legislators had had their way, a lot of the discussion here would have been in a very grey area, especially to the extent that children can access this site -- and you know, while I'm thinking about it, technically the inclusion of comic book-related materials on here might make be enough to make the FTC decide that VOU is targeted at children and so would have to comply with that nightmare known as the Children's Online Protection Act (extremely unlikely, but the point is not that they will, but that they could at any moment). As far as I know, none of this has happened, so it is mere speculation. None of it is going to happen. You yourself concede that it is extremely unlikely. The point is NOT that they "could." The point is that they haven't, and won't. Finally, on McVeigh, it is interesting precisely how unoriginal his whole plan was. Committ a terrorist act to foment political unrest? It turns out the Joint Chiefs of Staff were already all over that in the 1960s. From a review (see http://www.salon.com/books/review/2001/04/25/nsa/index.html) of James Bramford's new book, Body of Secrets: Among the more shocking things Bamford learned is that in 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff approved something called Operation Northwoods. Fortunately never implemented, it involved committing random acts of terror on Americans in the United States and then blaming them on Cuba. Most of the documents detailing this Bamford found in the National Archives, among the thousands of papers the Joint Chiefs of Staff released about the Cuban missile crisis. I don't see what this has to do with the subject at hand. It in no way reputes my contention that McVeigh is a loony, and people who are still upset over Waco are dangerously like him. I don't actually own any guns (haven't even held one since I was 8), but guerilla warfare against a genuinely tyrannical U.S. gov't would be highly effective provided it had significant popular support. Such resistance would almost certainly quickly demoralize the armed forces and I suspect you would see something happen akin to what happened in the former USSR when the armed forces simply decided to stop serving a dictatorship. I'm sorry, you're WRONG! This whole paragraph is simply speculation, with no FACT of any kind to back it up. If you can't back your argument with specifics, the argument is pointless. I will stand by my words. No one has given me an example of guns protecting anyone from an oppressive government, and this thread has gone on for days. The fact is, a very LARGE number of people who are dedicated to less restriction on weapons are the very people restrictions are in effect for, because they are not psychologically stable enough to be trusted with something as powerful as a gun. I'm not trying to take guns out of the hands of responsible citizens. Just Right Wing loonies, criminals, and children. And how anyone can argue that is beyond me.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Carnell on 4/25/2001; 1:26 PM >The funny thing is that there is preliminary evidence emerging that these >supposedly well trained, trustworthy police officers you mention discharge >their weapons illegally more often than do individuals who have obtained >concealed carry permits in states that allow those. > >And how many times have these same police officers discharged their >weapons in situations where the general citizenry was endangered? What is >the ratio of police abuses to police heroics? What about the >conceal-carry people? What GOOD have any of them ever done society? It's too bad such data aren't available, they would be very worthwhile. Though there's a severe quality of data issue on how you would quantify justified vs. unjustified shootings. In many cities, for example, it is difficult to discipline non-lethal but unjustifiable shootings (Los Angeles, for example, has paid millions of dollars to settle lawsuits over police shootings in which the city retained the services of the police officer in question). Plus there's the problem with quantifying the value of guns that exists for both concealed carry folks and police officers -- how do you quantify instances in which merely brandishing a weapon is an effective deterrent? In both examples, the brandishing of guns is far more common to deter a threat than is the actual firing of weapons (and non-lethal incidents of discharging a weapon are more common than lethal dischargings of a weapon).
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 4/25/2001; 10:33 PM i like guns guns are good and we thank GOd for our food? on a seriouser note :-p when has govt control done what it was meant to? when has the govt been run by perfect people (other than peter's perfect people)? when has corruption not corrupted? hallo? prohibition. smoking. monopolies and trusts. British acts and taxes. i think if some people can get guns and not others... it is bad. yah? etc etc etc blah blah blah away with gun control! or else I shall take over. :D ok ok back to work
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 4/25/2001; 10:53 PM as far as we may be from nazi germany, think about this, if the stone keeps going halfway across the river, will it reach the other side? Yes, at infinitie time. I.E. all it takes is a constant dripping to empty the tank: keep conceding, keeplosing. moreover, simply because we are a long way from becoming does not mean we will not become. in the stone age it would have been a wild idea that people could put stuff really really high in the sky, or see things where they weren't. It doesnt mean we dont have that capability now. Anyway. We're all dying. It is not using guns to kill, nor having murderers live that is the problem. the problem bes that the same desire for power over other people, or to be known, or to get revenge still remains. Jeez, you'd think that school shootings kill more people than the US does in declaring war. Plus citizens of all sorts of countries die with that mark, i agree, middle road. government control is wack-o. we aren't nazi yet but we might as well try not to be. why dont we just go back to the days where it took 3 minutes for a professional shooter to load a musket that only went a few feet and could blow one person's head off. or how about stone daggers i wonder what people used in early america school stabings. um...? hehe that would be very interesting to learn about. and im rambling but so what people die, babies are born. we all die when we are meant to, and something good is always accomplished. we can't control our life as much as we want. the only place where there will not be all this chaos is heaven. the end.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Brian Webber on 4/25/2001; 11:28 PM I must say this essay has exceeding even my best expectations. The conversation has grown so much I can no longer even follow it.
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Joey Long on 12/29/2004; 5:58 PM I can't tell what side of the political spectrum you're on. You castigate the far right -- Hannity and Colmes -- as if they're for gun control then you come off like you're against it. What's up? In Jesus' Glorious and Holy name, Dean Berry -- REAL American
RE: Nazi Psychology At Work In America By: Shane Gibson on 4/12/2005; 1:49 PM It's real sipmle. Our right to own fire-arms is not a moral issue. It was set in place durring a time when revolution was a means to secure our freedom from an oppressive government. Our early America did have some law enforcement, and protecting your home was not the main, or intended justification to bare arms. Once again..it WAS intended to protect ourselves from corrupt government and law enforcement! If you feel you are to pansy to protect yourself from an oppressive regime, then bend over and take what you get! I for one would die for this country..but not to suppress other people in other lands who are defenseless, as it seems is our new foreign policy. I would die protecting our freedom from the enemy within. The anti-gun movement is based solely on ignorance. That kind of thinking would ahve us defending our rights with pitch-forks and rocks. Sure you have some consiquences with owning guns: Kids get shot, weapons are proliferated a little more easily.. but I would rather pay that price than the one Nazi Germany, and their victims paid. Please wake up people. "Today they took them away, and no one said anything, tomorrow when they take me away there will be no one left to say anything."
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|