DoD Training Manual: Protests are "Low-Level Terrorism"

[GeezerMan]

Link


The Department of Defense is training all of its personnel in its current Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course that political protest is "low-level terrorism."

Well. I protested a few years back. Does that make me a low level terrorist?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Link


The Department of Defense is training all of its personnel in its current Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course that political protest is "low-level terrorism."

Well. I protested a few years back. Does that make me a low level terrorist?

Depends on who's president.

 

[Kirby]

Nobody actually reads that training anyway.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Link


The Department of Defense is training all of its personnel in its current Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course that political protest is "low-level terrorism."

Well. I protested a few years back. Does that make me a low level terrorist?

Was anyone terrified?

Like if you marched, perhaps stepped on some ants?

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Link


The Department of Defense is training all of its personnel in its current Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course that political protest is "low-level terrorism."

Well. I protested a few years back. Does that make me a low level terrorist?

Was anyone terrified?

Like if you marched, perhaps stepped on some ants?

Careful there comrade. I have high powered connections to the Taliban now. I can make you disappear with a single phone call to the VFW hall. 😀

 

[Craig234]

As described, this is outrageous and should result in discipline for whoever approved it.

The only thing between democracy and the constitution being 'just a piece of paper' are the policies on things like this, the training for the security personnel.

Their role *should* be to keep the peace and protect the citizens in and around the protest.

But look at these pictures of wounds on protestors.

Then watch this video of the security force laughing in private about injuring a protestor.

Normally, the public would never see that sort of video.

We need to protect our political rights of citiziens.

 

[BoberFett]

Craig, in another fine show of hypocrisy, just recently called another forum member a terrorist because he disagrees with him politically. Now Craig says that protesting (in other words, disagreeing with current government policy) should be protected.

So, as usual, Craig says that those who agree with him politically should be protected and all others should be destroyed. Typical.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Craig234
As described, this is outrageous and should result in discipline for whoever approved it.

The only thing between democracy and the constitution being 'just a piece of paper' are the policies on things like this, the training for the security personnel.

Their role *should* be to keep the peace and protect the citizens in and around the protest.

But look at these pictures of wounds on protestors.

Then watch this video of the security force laughing in private about injuring a protestor.

Normally, the public would never see that sort of video.

We need to protect our political rights of citiziens.

We certainly do need to protect rights of our citizens. However, when a citizen is committing an illegal act, some action must be taken. Those "anti-free trade" protestors have shown their violence in other cities and as such are not peaceful protesters.

BTW, thanks for the video. It was hilarious especially when that rubber bullet went right thru her sign. What a dumkoff thinking that would help.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Are protesters terrorists?

If it turns into a riot and the protesters proceed to turn over cars, burn buildings and hurl rocks / Molotov Cocktails at people, they start having the same impact. But, we should only deal with that if it comes to that extreme, legal / peaceful demonstrations are important freedoms.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Craig, in another fine show of hypocrisy, just recently called another forum member a terrorist because he disagrees with him politically. Now Craig says that protesting (in other words, disagreeing with current government policy) should be protected.

So, as usual, Craig says that those who agree with him politically should be protected and all others should be destroyed. Typical.

You lie.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Are protesters terrorists?

If it turns into a riot and the protesters proceed to turn over cars, burn buildings and hurl rocks / Molotov Cocktails at people, they start having the same impact. But, we should only deal with that if it comes to that extreme, legal / peaceful demonstrations are important freedoms.

like in iran? Is that unacceptable at all times? Should people just be roped into their "free speech zones" and be done with it?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Craig234
As described, this is outrageous and should result in discipline for whoever approved it.

The only thing between democracy and the constitution being 'just a piece of paper' are the policies on things like this, the training for the security personnel.

Their role *should* be to keep the peace and protect the citizens in and around the protest.

But look at these pictures of wounds on protestors.

Then watch this video of the security force laughing in private about injuring a protestor.

Normally, the public would never see that sort of video.

We need to protect our political rights of citiziens.

We certainly do need to protect rights of our citizens. However, when a citizen is committing an illegal act, some action must be taken. Those "anti-free trade" protestors have shown their violence in other cities and as such are not peaceful protesters.

BTW, thanks for the video. It was hilarious especially when that rubber bullet went right thru her sign. What a dumkoff thinking that would help.

Some protestors acting illegally don't make all the protestors criminals. You show a serious lack of understanding of and appreciation for democratic values.

Indeed, you're easy to manipulate - one of the basic techniques a government can use to justify violence against a legitimate protest, is to put a few undercover instigators in the crowd who throw a rock or break a window so that the security forces can then justify using violence against the 'rioters'.

If you think a woman who is out being a good citizen by standing up for her values is 'funny' to see her injured for doing so, I think you are a scumbag.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Craig234
As described, this is outrageous and should result in discipline for whoever approved it.

The only thing between democracy and the constitution being 'just a piece of paper' are the policies on things like this, the training for the security personnel.

Their role *should* be to keep the peace and protect the citizens in and around the protest.

But look at these pictures of wounds on protestors.

Then watch this video of the security force laughing in private about injuring a protestor.

Normally, the public would never see that sort of video.

We need to protect our political rights of citiziens.

We certainly do need to protect rights of our citizens. However, when a citizen is committing an illegal act, some action must be taken. Those "anti-free trade" protestors have shown their violence in other cities and as such are not peaceful protesters.

BTW, thanks for the video. It was hilarious especially when that rubber bullet went right thru her sign. What a dumkoff thinking that would help.

Some protestors acting illegally don't make all the protestors criminals. You show a serious lack of understanding of and appreciation for democratic values.

Indeed, you're easy to manipulate - one of the basic techniques a government can use to justify violence against a legitimate protest, is to put a few undercover instigators in the crowd who throw a rock or break a window so that the security forces can then justify using violence against the 'rioters'.

If you think a woman who is out being a good citizen by standing up for her values is 'funny' to see her injured for doing so, I think you are a scumbag.

Blocking people from going to work is not a legitimate protest.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Craig234
As described, this is outrageous and should result in discipline for whoever approved it.

The only thing between democracy and the constitution being 'just a piece of paper' are the policies on things like this, the training for the security personnel.

Their role *should* be to keep the peace and protect the citizens in and around the protest.

But look at these pictures of wounds on protestors.

Then watch this video of the security force laughing in private about injuring a protestor.

Normally, the public would never see that sort of video.

We need to protect our political rights of citiziens.

We certainly do need to protect rights of our citizens. However, when a citizen is committing an illegal act, some action must be taken. Those "anti-free trade" protestors have shown their violence in other cities and as such are not peaceful protesters.

BTW, thanks for the video. It was hilarious especially when that rubber bullet went right thru her sign. What a dumkoff thinking that would help.

Some protestors acting illegally don't make all the protestors criminals. You show a serious lack of understanding of and appreciation for democratic values.

Indeed, you're easy to manipulate - one of the basic techniques a government can use to justify violence against a legitimate protest, is to put a few undercover instigators in the crowd who throw a rock or break a window so that the security forces can then justify using violence against the 'rioters'.

If you think a woman who is out being a good citizen by standing up for her values is 'funny' to see her injured for doing so, I think you are a scumbag.

Blocking people from going to work is not a legitimate protest.

It crosses to civil disobedience. There's still an apporoprirate and an inappropriate amount of force to use to deal with it.

The example in this thread said "protests" are terrorism - not illegal protests, not civil disobedience, protests. Which includes legal protests.

Now, while the obvious point is that legal protests are democracy we need to protect, not terrorism, I also disagree that peaceful civil disobedience is 'terrorism'.

The word 'terrorism' is designed to describe when people try to *terrorize* people into doing what they don't want to do - which typically means serious violence.

Using the word for people who 'block traffic' non-violently is simply trying to use its serious meaning to justify excessive violence against the protestors.

It'd be like lumping in a shoplifter with felons, lumping in a guy who looks at a girl with adulterers, it's a dishonest abuse of the language for wrongful purposes against democracy.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Blocking people from going to work is not a legitimate protest.

Absolutely wrong. If the cause is just, it IS a legitimate protest. Blacks who staged sit-ins in the 50s-60s were not terrorists, despite the fact that their activities were technically illegal.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Blocking people from going to work is not a legitimate protest.

Absolutely wrong. If the cause is just, it IS a legitimate protest. Blacks who staged sit-ins in the 50s-60s were not terrorists, despite the fact that their activities were technically illegal.

Rosa Parks, low-level terrorist.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Craig234
As described, this is outrageous and should result in discipline for whoever approved it.

The only thing between democracy and the constitution being 'just a piece of paper' are the policies on things like this, the training for the security personnel.

Their role *should* be to keep the peace and protect the citizens in and around the protest.

But look at these pictures of wounds on protestors.

Then watch this video of the security force laughing in private about injuring a protestor.

Normally, the public would never see that sort of video.

We need to protect our political rights of citiziens.

We certainly do need to protect rights of our citizens. However, when a citizen is committing an illegal act, some action must be taken. Those "anti-free trade" protestors have shown their violence in other cities and as such are not peaceful protesters.

BTW, thanks for the video. It was hilarious especially when that rubber bullet went right thru her sign. What a dumkoff thinking that would help.

Some protestors acting illegally don't make all the protestors criminals. You show a serious lack of understanding of and appreciation for democratic values.

Indeed, you're easy to manipulate - one of the basic techniques a government can use to justify violence against a legitimate protest, is to put a few undercover instigators in the crowd who throw a rock or break a window so that the security forces can then justify using violence against the 'rioters'.

If you think a woman who is out being a good citizen by standing up for her values is 'funny' to see her injured for doing so, I think you are a scumbag.

:laugh:

 

[alphatarget1]

Protests usually don't work until some sort of violence and escalation is involved.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Link


The Department of Defense is training all of its personnel in its current Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course that political protest is "low-level terrorism."

Well. I protested a few years back. Does that make me a low level terrorist?

Maybe. 😉 What were you protesting and what group (if any) were you part of?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Craig234
As described, this is outrageous and should result in discipline for whoever approved it.

The only thing between democracy and the constitution being 'just a piece of paper' are the policies on things like this, the training for the security personnel.

Their role *should* be to keep the peace and protect the citizens in and around the protest.

But look at these pictures of wounds on protestors.

Then watch this video of the security force laughing in private about injuring a protestor.

Normally, the public would never see that sort of video.

We need to protect our political rights of citiziens.

We certainly do need to protect rights of our citizens. However, when a citizen is committing an illegal act, some action must be taken. Those "anti-free trade" protestors have shown their violence in other cities and as such are not peaceful protesters.

BTW, thanks for the video. It was hilarious especially when that rubber bullet went right thru her sign. What a dumkoff thinking that would help.

Some protestors acting illegally don't make all the protestors criminals. You show a serious lack of understanding of and appreciation for democratic values.

Indeed, you're easy to manipulate - one of the basic techniques a government can use to justify violence against a legitimate protest, is to put a few undercover instigators in the crowd who throw a rock or break a window so that the security forces can then justify using violence against the 'rioters'.

If you think a woman who is out being a good citizen by standing up for her values is 'funny' to see her injured for doing so, I think you are a scumbag.

:laugh:

😕

 

[techs]

Is anyone freakin' surprised?
For years there have been signs.
Between the Bushies and Fox News, fascism is back, baby!

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Blocking people from going to work is not a legitimate protest.

Absolutely wrong. If the cause is just, it IS a legitimate protest. Blacks who staged sit-ins in the 50s-60s were not terrorists, despite the fact that their activities were technically illegal.

Rosa Parks, low-level terrorist.

I never said it was terrorism. I'm just saying blocking someone from getting into their work isn't a good way to go about it. Legitimate? Ok, probably is. So I should have used a different word. But expect to get your ass beat by the employees or the police, take your pick.

When you mess with peoples livelihoods, they tend to get a bit bent out of shape, regardless of reason.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Blocking people from going to work is not a legitimate protest.

Absolutely wrong. If the cause is just, it IS a legitimate protest. Blacks who staged sit-ins in the 50s-60s were not terrorists, despite the fact that their activities were technically illegal.

Rosa Parks, low-level terrorist.

I never said it was terrorism. I'm just saying blocking someone from getting into their work isn't a good way to go about it. Legitimate? Ok, probably is. So I should have used a different word. But expect to get your ass beat by the employees or the police, take your pick.

When you mess with peoples livelihoods, they tend to get a bit bent out of shape, regardless of reason.

Yes, my post was not aimed at you, but at the use of the word 'terrorism' for protests as in the OP. It was expanding on the point made by dainthomas.

 

[Fern]

A question: Since is from the Dod does it have anything to do with domestic protests?

I wasn't aware the Army etc was brought in for protests on USA soil (yeah, I remember Kent State but was a long time ago etc.)

Fern

 

[shrumpage]

I'm wondering if they are thinking along the lines of what happend in Seattle with the WTO protests there.