Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Low Level Terrorism

Just to add to the many monikers I've accumulated by being a firearms rights activist, I can now add this one:

A written exam administered by the Pentagon labels "protests" as a form of “low-level terrorism” — enraging civil liberties advocates and activist groups who say it shows blatant disregard of the First Amendment.

The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:

“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”

— Attacking the Pentagon

— IEDs

— Hate crimes against racial groups

— Protests

The correct answer, according to the exam, is "Protests."


Let's count how many Gov't agencies we can be stereotyped by.

9 comments:

Don Gwinn said...

I guess that makes you and I "low level terrorists," big guy. We even engaged in low level terrorism at the state capitol in March . . . and the Springfield Police Department aided and abetted by enforcing our parade permit.

Wait . . . parade permits for low-level terrorists . . . how high does this thing go?

kaveman said...

"Wait . . . parade permits for low-level terrorists . . . how high does this thing go?"

Now that's funny.

I imagine the police presence was there to make sure noone infringed on the Constitutional Rights of low-level terrorists.

God I need a drink, Oh look, there's one!

Brad K. said...

You might be just a bit sensitive, here.

I recall a political National Convention in Chicago, upon a time, that was organized and prepped - and expected to use violence to intimidate candidates to the convention. That sounds like terrorism to me.

Reports of the Republican convention in the last election cycle report that some of the intended violence - terrorism - was detected and defused. But some of the organizers intended to use violence and confrontation to intimidate candidates to the convention. That sounds like terrorism to me.

I would also mention some union strikes tend toward violence intended to intimidate law-abiding citizens. De Nile - not just a river in Egypt.

While much protest is peaceful in intent and in execution - we have seen examples (like the anti-Israel demonstrations in California) that were right up there with the hate and aggression of . . . terrorists.

Besides, the point of the question might have been less that protests might be low-level terrorism (imagine, the military tolerating protests!) than other options aren't - such as raising taxes, firing CEO's of legitimate corporations, turning manufacturers over to labor unions, organizing voters that aren't entitled to vote, or that are intended to vote as instructed - or punishing people for acting according to laws about owning firearms, automobiles, tobacco, or making a living.

Thirdpower said...

I may be 'sensitive' to the subject but the implications are there.

Did you read the question ? It said nothing about union riots. It said 'protests'. No qualifiers.

There's also a nice little selection of bills denying rights to people put on hidden 'terrorist watch lists' if you haven't been paying attention along w/ a bunch of reports designating varied individuals such as veterans, bloggers, and Bob Barr supporters to be 'extremists'.

You trust on the good will of the Gov't. I won't.

Molon Labe said...

Sorry Brad,

At face value, "Protests" are not low-level terrorism. There needs to be some kind of qualifier like premeditated intent on violence, or an ex post facto determination that the protest itself stepped over the line into the realm of terrorism.

This whole "Domestic Terrorist" bullshit is just a ploy to attack those who can actually smell methane gas from the farting Unicorns instead of the marshmallows as the Lightbringer promised.

Roberta X said...

So, Brad K, did you notice what the other options on the test actually were while you were indulging in your own denial?

This is about an effort to control language; "protest" has been used as a term that includes peaceable assembly for a loooong time. Now, either it suddenly doesn't or dissent has become something other than "the highest form of patriiotism," like the Lefities -- whups, "Progressives" -- kept telling me during President Bush's time in office.

You're the smart fella, which is it?

kaveman said...

News reports coming out now that the question has gone down the memory hole.

Don Gwinn said...

As predicted . . . .

be603 said...

but I thought protest was the highest form of patriotism?