NationStates Jolt Archive

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBBAF12IXD.html

The FBI raided a county commission meeting with guns and said they were taking hostages. They did all of this without bothering to tell the police or the peasents inside what they were doing. When the police responded to what they thought was a real hostage situation, the FBI let them know that the whole thing was a "drill."

I guess the real question is what the FBI is planning to do with its training, and when will they start storming government buildings for real? It's your police-state, I'm just living in it.

I guess the real question is what the FBI is planning to do with its training, and when will they start storming government buildings for real?

When some kind of giant reality-warping spazbomb is detonated and life becomes a season final episode of the X-Files?

I guess the real question is what the FBI is planning to do with its training?
They are training to come and GET YOU, Texastambul!!!!!!!!!

I wonder when these tin soldiers (http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/dnc_photos2.htm) will stop standing in place and march into the suburbs and innercities, rounding up all of our guns and giving us curfews...

You thought Red Dawn was a documentary, didn't you?

do they have Red Dawn on DVD yet? that has to be one of my favorite movies of all time.

I'm not the only one that seems to think Martial Law is on the way: (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml)

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Nice Appeal to Authority. It's too bad a General knows how to run an army and not a country, otherwise his entirely hypothetical opinion on an absolute worst-case scenario [which you're actually exaggarating anyway] as published in that great military / political journal Cigar Aficionado might actually count for something.

Talk about a poor source...

Nice Appeal to Authority. It's too bad a General knows how to run an army and not a country, otherwise his entirely hypothetical opinion on an absolute worst-case scenario

Ah yes, but this is the entirely hypothetical opinion of the General that lead the March to Kabul and Baghdad and served as the head of Centcom, answering only to the president. So, you can mock my views all you want, but it seems that they are shared by many others...

[which you're actually exaggarating anyway] as published in that great military / political journal Cigar Aficionado might actually count for something.
Talk about a poor source...

Why does it matter where he said it, and how does that change his message? Even if he said it in an interview with The New Yorker, High Times or Hustler Magazine it wouldn't change who he is or the importance of what he said.

Ah yes, but this is the entirely hypothetical opinion of the General that lead the March to Kabul and Baghdad and served as the head of Centcom, answering only to the president. So, you can mock my views all you want, but it seems that they are shared by many others...

Still, he was a military leader, serving as commander of a region which is fairly lacking in terms of personal freedoms. He has about as much grasp and understanding of the political situation in the US as I do. He is not an Intelligence officer, or a political specialist, he is a military commander, hell he doesn't even command inside the US, which would mean he probably has an understanding of what would happen post-WMD attack. All he has done is put on a uniform, successfully moved people from point A to point B under fire, and kept his troops from invading Syria or something, hell a Mcdonalds Manager does almost the same thing and probably the same level of political competence (if you don't think they want to invade Syria you've never worked in Mcdonalds).



Why does it matter where he said it, and how does that change his message? Even if he said it in an interview with The New Yorker, High Times or Hustler Magazine it wouldn't change who he is or the importance of what he said.

Well, he would probably be less open to Time or the Newsweek then Cigar Aficionado, which may have been milking his interview for a peice like that, and the people who run the magazine are less reliable to weigh that interview and it's merits than news magazines that run those kind of interviews.

Ah yes, but this is the entirely hypothetical opinion of the General that lead the March to Kabul and Baghdad and served as the head of Centcom, answering only to the president. So, you can mock my views all you want, but it seems that they are shared by many others...

Another appeal to his authority. It's the entirely hypothetical opinion of a man who would naturally see military authority as something people prefer because he's never had to apply it to an entire civilian population, just a group of volunteer soldiers. If he'd been the de facto ruler of the whole nation of Iraq his opinion would mean something, as it is it doesn't.

Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

Fully confirming it's just his personal opinion, not his opinion in any official capacity. The man knows military strategy, that doesn't make him a political analyist or a psychologist. His authority as a General is irrrelevant to the point he's making, he could be a mailman and his opinion on a population's reaction to a major terrorist attack would count for the same.

Still, he was a military leader, serving as commander of a region which is fairly lacking in terms of personal freedoms.

Yeah, so he would know all about usind the military as a police force... which makes it clear that he knows what he's talking about...

He has about as much grasp and understanding of the political situation in the US as I do.

don't flatter yourself...

He is not an Intelligence officer, or a political specialist, he is a military commander,

He lead Central-Command during both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom -- do you even know what Central-Command is?

hell he doesn't even command inside the US.

Gee... I wonder if that's because the military doesn't generally have wars inside the US...

Yeah, so he would know all about usind the military as a police force... which makes it clear that he knows what he's talking about...

In a situation that is drastically different than the United States, a first-world Superpower with over 200 years of a republican form of government and some curtails on freedom that do not compare to what he suggests could happen.



He lead Central-Command during both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom -- do you even know what Central-Command is?

Yes, I am perfectly aware of what Centcom is, how does this contradict him being a military commander, he is handed reports from intelligence officers and political officers, PR officers, and makes decisions based on them, how does this change anything?



Gee... I wonder if that's because the military doesn't generally have wars inside the US...

Strange, for some reason a huge amount of the US Military is in the US proper, what, you think they don't have leaders.

Another appeal to his authority

as opposed to your infinate wisdom, which trumps anything he might say...

The man knows military strategy, that doesn't make him a political analyist or a psychologist. His authority as a General is irrrelevant to the point he's making, he could be a mailman and his opinion on a population's reaction to a major terrorist attack would count for the same.

I know, I know... at the end of the day, the General who served as the leader of Central-Command is just some paranoid kooky conspirarcy nutcase who thinks Red Dawn was a documentary...

as opposed to your infinate wisdom, which trumps anything he might say...

'Appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy, look it up. Saying 'his opinion must be valid because he is a General' is worthless because he is speaking outside his field, it's like saying Hoyle's opinions on the probability of Evolution are valid because he's an astronomer. His opinion on the subject of a population's rection to a major terrorist attack on a scale nobody has ever witnessed isn't any more valid than mine. Were he a psychologist or a political analyst, it would be valid to take his opinion as that of an expert. He is not, so it is not.

I know, I know... at the end of the day, the General who served as the leader of Central-Command is just some paranoid kooky conspirarcy nutcase who thinks Red Dawn was a documentary...

Strawman. I said his authority was irrelevant to the point he was making and therefore his opinion is no more valid on the subject than anyone else's. I made no remark on the character of the General himself.

Let's see how great military commanders are at judging politics

Admiral Canaris, the leader of the Abewhr, the German Intelligence Arm, believed pushing the West over Czechoslovakia would lead to war, and even began planning a coup, hate to spoil it, but the West handed Germany Czechoslovakia. He further suspected the German civilians would not support the Polish War once France and the UK declared war, they did on September 3rd.... the Germans still supported the war.

General Charles De Gualle thought when he fled France and made his speech against Petain's government, he would be at the head of a large French Army in Exile in Britain, in fact he barely had enough people to man a command staff, he would have to strong arm other Free French later in the war, and be quite the politician around the Americans and British to gain his status as head of France, he grossly mis-judged the reaction the French would have to him in 1940.

Soviet military commanders believed they could hold the Soviet Union together by force as they had done in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. in the past few decades, their soldiers refused to fire, they could have cut their losses.

'Appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy, look it up.

Strawman.

please, tell me what else you've learned in your freshman Introduction to Logic class...

please, tell me what else you've learned in your freshman Introduction to Logic class...

Because sarcasm is all you have left?

'Appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy, look it up. Saying 'his opinion must be valid because he is a General' is worthless because he is speaking outside his field, it's like saying Hoyle's opinions on the probability of Evolution are valid because he's an astronomer. His opinion on the subject of a population's rection to a major terrorist attack on a scale nobody has ever witnessed isn't any more valid than mine. Were he a psychologist or a political analyst, it would be valid to take his opinion as that of an expert. He is not, so it is not.


What would constitute a psychologist? I'm not sure how much you know about the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Psychological Warfare played a major role. As the leader of Central Command during the invasion process and major military operations for both wars, I think that would put him a prime position to understanding how people react to "terror." Things like the Shock and Awe "lightning show," for instance, were designed create a sense of helplessness in the Iraqi military. Would this make him a psychologist? I don't know how to answer that question, but it does prove that he understands the psychological impression such events cause; after all, that was his job.

What criteria would he have to meet for you to consider him a political analyst? Was he considering the internal politics of Afghanistan when formed the Northern Allience with the tribal War Lords? Did he take advantage of a political rift in the power struggle they were having with the Taleban? I wonder if the United State's standing with Pakistan ever entered his mind when he planned just how close he would go to their border. Did the appearance of the war at home matter to him? Was there a political motive behind the decission to drop "humanitarian aid packages" from military bombers?

Perhaps you have already concluded that only persons with masters in psychology are psychologist and that only members of think-tanks are political analyst, but I happen to disagree.

Strawman. I said his authority was irrelevant to the point he was making and therefore his opinion is no more valid on the subject than anyone else's. I made no remark on the character of the General himself.

No, but you made those character attacks on me for sharing the same opinion as the General, so I assumed that your opinion was consistant and transferable.

Because sarcasm is all you have left?

no, it's because I'm wondering how many more irrelevent challanges you'll make... it's sort of like listening to a 3rd grader trying to explain to an Algebra teacher that is impossible to subtract 7 from 4.

please, tell me what else you've learned in your freshman Introduction to Logic class...
Is this where someone says "ad hominem"?

What would constitute a psychologist? I'm not sure how much you know about the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Psychological Warfare played a major role. As the leader of Central Command during the invasion process and major military operations for both wars, I think that would put him a prime position to understanding how people react to "terror." Things like the Shock and Awe "lightning show," for instance, were designed create a sense of helplessness in the Iraqi military. Would this make him a psychologist? I don't know how to answer that question, but it does prove that he understands the psychological impression such events cause; after all, that was his job.

Can you show me any evidence at all that he did these things on his own? You do know that psyops operations are planned by specialists in the field, right?

What criteria would he have to meet for you to consider him a political analyst? Was he considering the internal politics of Afghanistan when formed the Northern Allience with the tribal War Lords? Did he take advantage of a political rift in the power struggle they were having with the Taleban? I wonder if the United State's standing with Pakistan ever entered his mind when he planned just how close he would go to their border. Did the appearance of the war at home matter to him? Was there a political motive behind the decission to drop "humanitarian aid packages" from military bombers?

See above. Can you show any evidence he did all this of his own accord rather than taking advice from others? These lists of mighty deeds don't sound so good when you just credit everything that happened under his command to him personally as a matter of course.

No, but you made those character attacks on me for sharing the same opinion as the General, so I assumed that your opinion was consistant and transferable.

I must have missed the part where he wheeled off into paranoid NRA 'guns safeguard our freedom' propaganda. Oh wait, he didn't, only you did that.

Is this where someone says "ad hominem"?

dare I say it? Is that Latin -- it is -- it is!

Can you show me any evidence at all that he did these things on his own? You do know that psyops operations are planned by specialists in the field, right?

Are you trying to tell me that specialists in the field planned Shock and Awe?

See above. Can you show any evidence he did all this of his own accord rather than taking advice from others? These lists of mighty deeds don't sound so good when you just credit everything that happened under his command to him personally as a matter of course.

Evidence that he did it all on his own accord? No, he didn't plan in every detail the entire war all by himself on his laptop computer without input from anyone else; that's not the point... The point is that he was second only to the President in terms of power over the military and he organized and coordinated both bloody wars. You're trying to make it sound like he sat around with a dumb-look on his face while the war played itself out -- that's being intellectually dishonest. I say you give credit where credit is due.

I must have missed the part where he wheeled off into paranoid NRA 'guns safeguard our freedom' propaganda. Oh wait, he didn't, only you did that.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. ~ Thomas Jefferson (paranoid NRA propagandist)

Are you trying to tell me that specialists in the field planned Shock and Awe?

Are you trying to tell me that the doctorine of overwhelming application of force hasn't been around since the Blitzkrieg?

Evidence that he did it all on his own accord? No, he didn't plan in every detail the entire war all by himself on his laptop computer without input from anyone else; that's not the point... The point is that he was second only to the President in terms of power over the military and he organized and coordinated both bloody wars. You're trying to make it sound like he sat around with a dumb-look on his face while the war played itself out -- that's being intellectually dishonest. I say you give credit where credit is due.

But you're trying to give him credit for just about everything that happened in the entire campaign. Obviously he did something, but I should think he got his intel from actual analysts and think tanks and then acted on it. That's still a pretty damn difficult thing todoo, but it doesn't make a political analyst out of him and it certainly gives him no experience of what happens during a major terrorist attack rather than a declared war.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. ~ Thomas Jefferson (paranoid NRA propagandist)

It's great how, in the hundreds of years since he said that, society hasn't changed any, isn't it? Oh hold on, it has. And since when does Jefferson have anything to do with this?

But you're trying to give him credit for just about everything that happened in the entire campaign. Obviously he did something, but I should think he got his intel from actual analysts and think tanks and then acted on it.

It is imposible to act intelligently on information without first analyizing it. He is not an automoton that simply is feed punch-cards and moves in accordance -- he was the leader of centcom for a reason and there is no way around it.


That's still a pretty damn difficult thing todoo, but it doesn't make a political analyst out of him and it certainly gives him no experience of what happens during a major terrorist attack rather than a declared war.

Yes, I suppose the attacks on the World Trade Center do kinda pale in comparision to having tons and tons of bombs dropped on you country, followed up by a complete military invasion...

It's great how, in the hundreds of years since he said that, society hasn't changed any, isn't it? Oh hold on, it has. And since when does Jefferson have anything to do with this?

What does Tommy Franks have to do with it? I just brought up Thomas Jefferson the same as I brought up Tommy Franks to point out that I'm not alone in my views...

It is imposible to act intelligently on information without first analyizing it. He is not an automoton that simply is feed punch-cards and moves in accordance -- he was the leader of centcom for a reason and there is no way around it.

Acting on information given to you takes skill, but it is not the level or type of skill necessary to come up with that information in the first place. By your logic an assembly line worker should be able to build any of the individual components he puts together.

Yes, I suppose the attacks on the World Trade Center do kinda pale in comparision to having tons and tons of bombs dropped on you country, followed up by a complete military invasion...

He was talking about a nuclear-grade attack on a civilian target without warning, not downing two large buildings. Try reading your own source.

He was talking about a nuclear-grade attack on a civilian target without warning, not downing two large buildings. Try reading your own source.

I was responding to your comment about the psychological differences between a terrorist bombing and bombing during war. I know what he said: "if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties."

If you're interested in watching, he talks about the possibilty of "martial law" in this television interview (sorry it's on Hannity and Colmes and not Cigar Talk )

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128010,00.html