The Radicalization of America

I too think that both terroristic and patriotic groups will be lumped together. There will be no difference to the ptb. Both groups will be trying to usurp authority away from those in control. The reasons will make little difference to those in control.

I also think that there will be some most interesting alliances. Where will the drug cartels side up? What of the skinheads or Nation of Islam? As I have previously posted we as a people must unite to overcome those in control and restore order so we can continue with our petty bickering.

I believe we are about to cross the cusp that we have been teetering on for so long. When the American people really start to see it in their wallet and realize that they have lost control then they may choose to do something. The current legislation pending, that gives the Sec of State complete control of the money supply is all bogus and we here know it. How long until the mainstream poulace find out and start to react?

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Let me choose my words carefully, with the T&C's in mind. The answer to your qeustion is obvious. When will the public, and the MSM catch on? The answer is...when it's too late. We should expect that Federal agencies will have their way for the next decade. It'll be easy to villify anyone who stands in their way.

The Good Banker’s Credo

Let no loans be made that are not secured beyond a reasonable contingency. Do nothing to encourage speculation. Give facilities only to legitimate and prudent transactions. Distribute your loans rather than concentrate them in a few hands. Large loans to a single individual or firm although sometimes proper and necessary, are generally injudicious and frequently unsafe.

Large borrowers are apt to control the bank. If you doubt the propriety of discounting an offering, give the bank the benefit of the doubt and decline it. If you have reason to distrust a customer, close his account. Never deal with a rascal under the impression you can prevent him from cheating you.

Pay your officers such salaries as will enable them to live comfortably and respectably without stealing; and require of them their entire services. If an officer lives beyond his income dismiss him even if his excess of expenditures can be explained consistently with his integrity, still dismiss him. Extravagance, if not a crime, very naturally leads to crime.

The capital of a bank should be reality, not a fiction and it should be owned by those who have money to lend and not by borrowers.

Pursue a straightforward, upright, legitimate banking business. Splendid financing is not legitimate banking and splendid financiers in banking are generally either humbugs or rascals.

A letter to ALL national banks, and signed by
H. McCulloch,
then Comptroller of the Currency and later,
Secretary of the Treasury.
December 1, 1863.

[edit on 10/2/2008 by donwhite]

Without a doubt the financial situation will play an important role in what is to transpire in the next decade. With regards to banking, only after the govt required of them to lend to those less likely to pay it back did we start to see them block off their debt and sell it to others. After the deregulation of the banking industry we saw things start to spread out financially.

People that are idle will resort to all kinds of mischief. When unemployment expands and people start to go hungry we will see a boom in insurrectionist crime. I believe we will see much of the old TVA type of work programs to not only provide jobs but to keep them from thinking too much. This will be provided from our friends at FEMA with relocation help via the National Guard all in the name of holding America up.

With regards to civil uprisings we have seen what cell groups coupled with guerrilla style fighting will cause a world of hurt, and while not necessarily providing a new or reformed type of government it will put a pinch on many services and instill if not fear at least anger from the administration. Can you say papers please?

We will see a larger more emergent black market economy. What will be the new currency? Drugs, people, commodities or even time? That is yet to be determined. One thing is sure. Those that are already involved will school the rest of us until we get it straight or they run everything but the government. We only have to look to Russia to see where we might be in the upcoming decades.

Can we the people do something about it? I don't think enough people will wake up in time to realize that it can be done. I also don't believe that we have enough representation in DC to make a difference. In my opinion it will get much worse before it gets better. We will see more and more repression from TPTB and less and less opportunity for the people to live as we have grown accustomed.

The key question is how far will we fall when it comes? Will we truly be as poor as the former Soviet Republic? I believe that we have been to free for too long to put up with much more. We are an ingenious people and we will overcome and rise out of the ashes. Will it be literal or figural I don't know.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Originally posted by reluctantpawn
The key question is how far will we fall when it comes? Will we truly be as poor as the former Soviet Republic? I believe that we have been to free for too long to put up with much more. We are an ingenious people and we will overcome and rise out of the ashes. Will it be literal or figural I don't know.

Americans have had almosteight full decades of unparalelled peace and unrivaled prosperity. The lessons of the Great Depression have been forgotten. This most recent bailout proves that. In many respects, this next downturn will be uncharted territory.

If its bad, we'll see a lot of radicalization. Most of that militancy will be aimed at social change. Some of it will be aimed at regime change, and that'll be group of radicals that our own government will fear and villify the most. This will also be the group htat gets used against us the most. that threat will be played up, and magnified.

It won't be in Uncle Sam's best interest to make the militant threat go away. They'll want ot keep it alive and breathing to some degree, so that we will always have something to be afraid of.

While this thread has a US focus many global problems also have some relevancy . Climate change regardless of its cause , food shortages and the resulting price hikes can only lead to conflict . Every region of the world expect for Antarctic currently is unstable , beset by problems or borders on a region that fits that picture . Still people aren't entirely clueless vegetable gardens have made a come back . I have no doubt that we are entering a period of increased global instability even without our current economic woes .

J/O posted above:
Americans have had almost eight full decades of unparalleled peace and unrivaled prosperity. In many respects, this next downturn will be uncharted territory. If it’s bad, we'll see a lot of radicalization. Some of it will be aimed at regime change, and that'll be a group of radicals that our own government will fear and vilify the most. This will also be the group that gets used against us the most. That threat will be played up, and magnified.

The Pullman strike? The Chicago Haymaket Bombing? Talk is cheap. Radical talk is even cheaper. The US Army is well prepared to fight an urban war. Block by block. House by house. That has become their specialty. And done with viscousness too.

Remember the wounded prisoner who was shot while on his back on the floor? Or the family that was killed because someone “thought” they saw a man with a gun? Or the 17 unarmed men, women and children killed by Blackwater? We’re pretty sure that was done purposely, ordered by higher ups to “send a message!”

The PTB - powers that be - have plenty of resources to do a rerun of the Chicago raid on the Black Panther’s apartment, several times a day, all around the country. We’ve backed ourselves into a corner. The ALL volunteer armed forces are propagandized every day. Plus, they are well informed that it is their absolute duty to obey ALL lawful orders. Hmm you ask, and just what is a “lawful order”? Well, it starts by being any order from a superior officer.

It won't be in Uncle Sam's best interest to make the militant threat go away. They'll want ot keep it alive and breathing to some degree, so that we will always have something to be afraid of.

Did not VP Cheney promise us a “perpetual” war on terror? Has not John McCain promised to wage such a war for “100 years?” Has not Bush43 repeatedly claimed we were in this War until we have defeated the “Forces of Evil?”

reply to post by xpert11

While this thread has a US focus many global problems also have some relevancy. Climate change regardless of its cause, food shortages and the resulting price hikes can only lead to conflict. Every region of the world except for the Antarctic currently is unstable, beset by problems or borders on a region that fits that picture. Still people aren't entirely clueless; vegetable gardens have made a come back. I have no doubt that we are entering a period of increased global instability even without our current economic woes.

Yes. I have warned people up here that we have lost touch with our armed forces. No matter how hard it is to accomplish, we do need to return to the conscript armed forces. That may mean we will have to WAGE PEACE instead of our more traditional WAGE WAR. Wouldn’t that be great?

I have maintained from teh start of this thread that american radicalizaiton will happen due more to economic factors than to political factors. At this point, I see no reason to change my mind. Economics will drive us in to a turbulant decade. The next ten years could very well see a rise in domestic terrorism.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


The bad news for any home grown wannabe terrorists/insurgents is that after over forty years the US military has finally learnt how to fight a counter insurgency war and win . Undoubtedly any wannabe terrorists/insurgents would face US troops who had successfully implemented the surge in Iraq .

reply to post by xpert11


xpert is correct. We now have, at Ft. Knox, a training ground for urban assault. originally it was to be used to train for skirmishes in the middle east. It can easily be adapted for use here.[actually I don't think it would require any adaptation.]

If it goes badly for us and we do not pull out of this financial mess, we well could see a homegrown threat from the citizens of the conus. Most of these I feel will be easily dealt with, as to be riots over food and or work. However there well may be groups of well organized and trained individuals that have stronger agendas than getting something to eat.

The implementation of martial law will arise with the increase of disorder. However dealing militarily with independent cell groups without a formal command structure will always be next to impossible to deal with. These groups will definitely be labeled as homegrown terrorist even if their claim is for the reimplementation of constitutional law.

I think Don may be correct as to the effectiveness of a conscripted military if this comes to pass.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

reply to post by Justin Oldham

I have maintained from the start of this thread that American radicalization will happen due more to economic factors than to political factors. At this point, I see no reason to change my mind. Economics will drive us in to a turbulent decade. The next ten years could very well see a rise in domestic terrorism.

reply to post by xpert11

The bad news for any home grown wannabe terrorists/insurgents is that after over forty years the US military has finally learnt how to fight a counter insurgency war and win . Undoubtedly any wannabe terrorists/insurgents would face US troops who had successfully implemented the surge in Iraq.

As we have learned (or should have learned) from Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and the Philippines, not to mention the Watts Riots or the Detroit Riots, the actual perpetrators of radicalism need the protection of a sympathetic civilian population. America has become a highly heterogenous country. At least in the cities. But for the usual black ghettoes. Which is why I say we must be nice to our colored people because they will be the ones on whom we will have to depend to regain our liberties.

History: Before I was born, people of African descent were often called “darkies.” And other equally pejorative terms. Then by my time, we upgraded them to “colored.” Post War 2, we called them Negroes and argued whether the word should be capitalized. Post 1968 we called them blacks. Now the millennium generation calls them African-Americans. Over here since 1619, they are certainly making PROGRESS! One more reason I’m voting for Barack Obama. I believe it will hasten the integration of our society. We will need 100% participation to compete against the Chinese and Indians.

I would suggest that a conscripted army is more likely to be used on us, ehre at home, than is an all volunteer force. I do fully expect the Democrats to push for nd get their way in this matter. A conscripted force is easier to control. Today's Republicans in power have lost touch with htat fact. I have no doubt that it'll be a Democratic President who will ask for the authority to use Federalized forces on domestic soil.

It's ironic to me that Democrats always assumed that this would be done by Reubplicans. From what I cna see, the trend has never indicated that. The GOP was never going to be in power long enough to face that temptaiton. It's true that President Bush has done qutie a bit to make this turn of events more likely, but the fact remains that the Democrats will have a historically unprecedented degree of control when they decide to use U.S. troops on American soil.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


The other way things could play out is that assuming a domestic insurgency breaks out after the US military has wound down operations in Iraq the likes of Blackwater could be used to combat the insurgency initially. Such a move and its accompanying civilian massacres would only play into the hands of the insurgents . Ultimately I think that it would be up to the US military to defeat the insurgency . How long and effective the insurgency depends on the decisions made by civilian leaders and how well the US military retains its combat veterans and urban warfare skills .

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by Justin Oldham

 

The other way things could play out is that assuming a domestic insurgency breaks out after the US military has wound down operations in Iraq the likes of Blackwater could be used to combat the insurgency initially. Such a move and its accompanying civilian massacres would only play into the hands of the insurgents . Ultimately I think that it would be up to the US military to defeat the insurgency . How long and effective the insurgency depends on the decisions made by civilian leaders and how well the US military retains its combat veterans and urban warfare skills .

I don't think the army will have a hard time retaining skill or knowledge unless it is deliberately downsized. Federal officials are still not sure if they want to shrink the army, or not. In the early years, domestic terror shold be easily contained by civilian law neforcement. Although we talk about it here, it is unliekly that any homegrown insurgency would actually grow in to a larger movement. Please bear in mind that we can't be any more specfic than this, due to T&C's.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

I would suggest that a conscripted army is more likely to be used on us, here at home, than is an all volunteer force. I do fully expect the Democrats to push for and get their way in this matter. A conscripted force is easier to control. Today's Republicans in power have lost touch with that fact.

It seems we have an either-or disagreement here. I think an army made up of draftees - conscripts - is LESS likely to be useful against Americans than a volunteer armed forces. J/O holds to the opposite point of view.

All armed forces are indoctrinated. That is, propagandized. I use the pejorative term because “indoctrination” is slanted towards preserving the status quo. Keeping “law and order.” Short on LAW but LONG on order. The armed forces are after all, run by the PTB even if not STAFFED by the scions of the PTB. . Powers that be. The R&Fs - aka PTB - keep their sons in the National Guard and Oxford, mostly out of harms way. Not at all like the Greatest Generation. Maybe those folks - children of the greatest - should better be called the Lousiest Generation?

I have no doubt that it'll be a Democratic President who will ask for the authority to use Federalized forces on domestic soil.

Well, the maximum employment of US Armed Forces on domestic soil was the 1861-1865 brouhaha under Republican Abraham Lincoln. And well-done, too. The serious labor unrest we had in the 1880s-1890s was harshly repressed under either Dem Cleveland or GOP Arthur, Harrison or McKinley. Both parties were cheerfully if not gleefully willing to SHOOT DOWN workers. (Dems later got “religion” but the GOP never have).

Hoover ordered the removal of the Veterans Bonus Marchers and several vets died in that escapade if memory serves. Eisenhower ordered the troops to Little Rock. Nixon encouraged the National Guard at Kent State in Ohio. The Alabama State Police copy-catted that crime 2 weeks later at Jackson State on a Chicago police style rampage.

It looks to me that more GOPs have invoked the use of force than have Dems. Domestically speaking.

[edit on 10/19/2008 by donwhite]

All of your historical evidence is valid. Even if we factor out Ruby Ridge and Waco, I still see dark times ahead. It's likely that our next two Presidents will be Democrats. As this next decade unfolds, I suspect that domestic unrest will be a larger factor than anyone now believes it could be. Given the Democratic party's taste for big government, I worry that future Democrats may take a cavalier attitude when it comes to the use of force.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


Speaking generally for a moment once an insurgency loses control of the local population it loses the war and is either forced into a political settlement or simply be defeated . Without control of the local population an insurgency cannot have access to manpower and other resources e.t.c . Note Insurgents and guerillas will often force people into joining there cause .
When combating an insurgency a mixture of good intel and tactics can dispute enemy operations and destroy enemy infrastructure at the regional level . Killing or capturing the key leaders of an insurgency is a much harder kettle of fish .

Any possible future leaders of unrest in the US may be based in Cuba in the same way the Taliban and al-Qaeda use the tribal regions of Pakistan . That is about as much as I can say while remaining with in the T&C .

Xpert once again brings about an interesting point. Will mercenary groups be turned loose against homegrown insurgent groups? They will be able to act more quickly and without chain of command issues. I feel we have a strong likelyhood of seeing something like this. Once again T&C prevent further study into this.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

reply to post by reluctantpawn

Xpert once again brings about an interesting point. Will mercenary groups be turned loose against homegrown insurgent groups? They will be able to act more quickly and without chain of command issues. I feel we have a strong likelyhood of seeing something like this.

The US is hiring mercenaries all around the world. I have a friend who went to Nigeria - protecting Shell Oil Co - under the employment of a contractor he "knew" was backed by the CIA but that was admittedly just scuttlebutt? $10,000 a month, 10 days on 5 days off. A plane to take you up to Majorca or Monaco. Easy come, easy go! My friend quit after this first 10 days. He would not kill old men, women and children Indiscriminately. Even for the bonus the company offered. We have hired guns in the Philippines. Possibly in Sri Lanka and Thailand. Maybe in Myanmar. Very likely in Georgia. And etc.

Blackwater. Don’t overlook the 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians murdered by Blackwater in Baghdad. Al Jazeera English claims the murders were ordered by Blackwater supervisors to send a message to all Iraqis! english.aljazeera.net...

Note: It is not claimed that those particular 17 Iraqis were designated, but that the staff was told to “blow away” the next “suspicious” group they encountered. To send a message! "If you **** with Blackwater you WILL get hurt!"

In our post Nine Eleven Event madness led by Bush43 and VP Cheney aka the White House pit bull, we have let a genie out of the bottle it may prove NEAR impossible to put back.

[edit on 10/20/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Even if we factor out Ruby Ridge and Waco . .

RUBY RIDGE. In January, 1991, ATF agents posed as broken-down motorists and arrested Randy and Vicki Weaver when they stopped their car to assist. Randy Weaver was told of the charges against him, released on bail and told his trial would begin on 19 February 1991.

Two weeks later, the trial date was changed to 20 February, but the US Probation Office sent out a letter which stated the date as 20 March. Weaver did not appear on the correct trial date and the judge issued a warrant for his arrest.

On 14 March a grand jury which the US Attorney's Office had not informed of the incorrect date in the letter, indicted Weaver for failing to appear on the correct trial date.

[THIS PRACTICE HAPPENS SO OFTEN IT IS REGARDED BY DEFENSE LAWYERS AS AN OLD PROSECUTOR’S TRICK!]

On August 21, 1992, six marshals were sent to scout the area to determine suitable places away from the cabin to ambush and arrest Weaver.

[RANDY WEAVER COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE TRAGIC AFTERMATH OF THIS SIEGE HAD HE ENDED IT ON THIS DAY BY SURRENDERING TO THE FBI.]

On August 22, the second day of the siege, an FBI sniper, Lon Horiuchi, shot and wounded Randy Weaver in the right arm, while he was lifting the latch on the shed to visit the body of his dead son. Then as Weaver, his 16-year-old daughter Sara and Harris ran back toward the house, Horiuchi took a second shot, which struck and wounded Harris, and killed Vicki Weaver. The stand-off was ultimately resolved by a negotiating team and Weaver and Harris surrendered and were arrested.

The surviving members of the Weaver family filed a wrongful death suit and Randy Weaver received a $100,000 settlement while his daughters received $1 million each. Kevin Harris received a $380,000 settlement. From Wikipedia.

WACO. The Waco Siege began on February 28, 1993 when the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian ranch at Mount Carmel, located nine miles east-northeast of Waco, Texas. The Siege was to end April 19, 1993, some 50 days after it began. Seventy-six people, including 21 children and two pregnant women, along with Davidian leader Vernon Wayne Howell, better known as David Koresh, died in the fire. From Wikipedia.


COMMENTARY. I regard those two events as anomalies. In the case of Ruby Ridge, Weaver made a mistake not uncommon when people set out to modify a shotgun barrel by shortening it. Federal law forbids making a rifle or shotgun barrel shorter than 18 inches. It’s easy to measure the end of the barrel, the problem is where to measure the beginning.

Due to lower internal pressures in a shotgun the firing chamber merges with the barrel in one smooth transition. You might say the chamber segues into the barrel. [The word segue (pronounced segway) is defined as "to transition smoothly from one state to another”].

The problem with shotguns is made all the more complex with the fact that many shotguns have a 3 inch chamber (for standard loads) while others have a 3.5 inch chamber (for high power loads). Note: It is flat-out illegal to alter or modify (say cut-down) the stock of either a rifle or shotgun in the US.

So Randy goofed. He measured wrong. He cut the shotgun barrels to 17.5 inches. A Federal no-no. Then add to that he also had a bad attitude. It was that bad attitude coupled with an overload of stupidity that cost the life of his son and his wife. So much for bad attitudes. And for stupidity. Randy was over "blessed" with plenty of stupidity and bad attitude.

Waco was a similar fiasco based on grievous misconceptions of what “law and order” means. Frequently demagogued by right wing anti-tax politicians and sometimes exploited by super ego leaders and misunderstood by their ignorant followers. What I have called the Nuremberg Syndrome and what others have labeled the Jim Jones phenomenon. After FIFTY (50) days of rejecting the authority of the United States District Court for Waco, Texas, an unintended event ended in the deaths of many who need not have died.

Somehow or other many right wing say NRA types have jumped onto these two events to advance their anti- cause. They seek to have every citizen over the age of 10 years armed and carrying! Which if you follow their demented rational will give you either the world’s safest country or the world’s largest collection of unrestrained lunatics!

Lest we are tempted to assign presidential “blame” equally, I should point out that Ruby Ridge occurred 3 years into the Bush41 term while Waco occurred a mere 89 days into Clinton’s first term.

Given the Democratic party's taste for big government, I worry that future Democrats may take a cavalier attitude when it comes to the use of force.

Well, you might say it takes a big government to run a big country. 3,600,000 square miles. No. 3 on the planet in area. Only the RF and PRC are larger. And 304,000,000 people and counting (any one know if the 12-20 million undocumented workers supposedly in the US are included?). Also number 3 on the planet, behind the PRC and India. Somehow I don’t think Switzerland’s 48,000 bureaucrats can get the job done here!

Let’s put it this way: Size should not be the OBJECTIVE; size is only the consequence of doing a good job of the tasks assigned to it! Let’s not cut the cart to fit a scrawny HORSE nor measure the LOAD by the size of the horse. We need a HORSE big enough to haul the LOAD we have to pull!

As for use of force, the Dems nave NOT struck a peaceful country preemptively on the shaky and unsupported premise they MIGHT someday POSSIBLY pose a RISK to the US. Nor have the Dems set up prisons outside the territorial limits of the US - hey I thought it was GOP mantra that the Canal Zone was - UH, THE UNITED STATES - so all the more would Guantanamo Bay be! It was not the Dems who began RENDITION of prisoners to places where they could be tortured legally? Or the Dems who no doubt authorized TORTURE on that “a million people will die in a minute if I don’t light this match to his foot” theory.

It was not the Dems who authorized DETENTION inside the US in violation of most of the First Ten Amendments. It was not the Dems who wrote the Patriot Act allowing warranted-less eavesdropping on US citizens inside the United States. This is just the short list but I recite it to allay any worries the Dems would follow the Republican's lead. The Dems say NO thanks to Bush43, to Alberto Gonzales, and to Newt Gingrich! That's your legacy!

We Dems are still Americans who BELIEVE in Law and Order, the US Constitution and in helping others. I am not so sure about Republicans.

[edit on 10/20/2008 by donwhite]