HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » DoD Training Manual: Prot...

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 02:49 PM

 

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

...yeah, but I'm not worried about the NDAA...

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

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."

The Training introduction reads as follows:

"Anti-terrorism (AT) and Force Protection (FP) are two facets of the Department of Defense (DoD) Mission Assurance Program. It is DoD policy, as found in DoDI 2000.16, that the DoD Components and the DoD elements and personnel shall be protected from terrorist acts through a high pirority, comprehensive, AT program. The DoD's AT program shall be all encompassing using an integrated systems approach."

The first question of the Terrorism Threat Factors, "Knowledge Check 1" section reads as follows:

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

Select the correct answer and then click Check Your Answer.

O Attacking the Pentagon

O IEDs

O Hate crimes against racial groups

O Protests

***

The "correct" answer is Protests.

The rest: http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_loo/2009/06/14/dod_training_manual_protests_are_low-level_terrorism

50 replies, 11682 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 50 replies Author Time Post
Reply DoD Training Manual: Protests are "Low-Level Terrorism" (Original post)
WilliamPitt Dec 2011 OP
Newest Reality Dec 2011 #1
nilram Dec 2011 #30
dixiegrrrrl Dec 2011 #34
jwirr Dec 2011 #42
BeHereNow Dec 2011 #2
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #3
L0oniX Dec 2011 #23
Lunacee2012 Dec 2011 #44
T S Justly Dec 2011 #4
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #5
BeHereNow Dec 2011 #6
quakerboy Dec 2011 #7
TBF Dec 2011 #11
BeHereNow Dec 2011 #12
themadstork Dec 2011 #16
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #22
Odin2005 Dec 2011 #47
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #49
dixiegrrrrl Dec 2011 #35
quakerboy Dec 2011 #40
BeHereNow Dec 2011 #8
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #9
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2011 #15
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #17
Hell Hath No Fury Dec 2011 #10
dixiegrrrrl Dec 2011 #39
mike_c Dec 2011 #13
hifiguy Dec 2011 #21
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2011 #14
indepat Dec 2011 #18
Betty Karlson Dec 2011 #19
sad sally Dec 2011 #20
L0oniX Dec 2011 #24
G_j Dec 2011 #27
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #25
meow2u3 Dec 2011 #26
Aerows Dec 2011 #28
NavyDem Dec 2011 #29
Blue_In_AK Dec 2011 #31
AntiFascist Dec 2011 #32
TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #37
mick063 Dec 2011 #33
TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #38
lunatica Dec 2011 #36
WillyT Dec 2011 #41
scentopine Dec 2011 #43
Jim_Shorts Dec 2011 #45
Odin2005 Dec 2011 #46
MsPithy Dec 2011 #48
treestar Dec 2011 #50

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 02:52 PM

1. Less need for conjecture ...

What is underneath the mask is revealed as it is slowly peeled off.

Revealing. Shocking? Well, not if you find yourself connecting the dots. The system is poising itself to protect itself from us, not to necessarily protect us as we had assumed.

That's my POV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newest Reality (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 03:04 AM

30. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newest Reality (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 11:08 AM

34. Yes. Becoming more and more obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newest Reality (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 12:21 PM

42. Yes, but I am not feeling any safer because it is becoming transparent. In fact I feel more

threatened. Wish I could channel some of those old pre-WWII Germans and ask it they felt the way we do now. Did they see themselves being place in the role of enemy when what they really were was good citizens?

This also goes a long way in explaining why the police are treating Occupy the way they are. The 99% are the enemy. That is us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 02:53 PM

2. NO WAY!

Protests over hate crimes?
BHN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 02:57 PM

3. See Kent State for how that "force protection" from "terrorists" works.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 07:25 PM

23. +99

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 01:46 PM

44. LOL,

also I'm blind in one eye and that bug in your posts always gets me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 02:58 PM

4. Get ready. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:03 PM

5. The only terrorism I see is the Law Enforcement kind.

 

Keeping the people terrified and cowed into submission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:13 PM

6. "Low level terrorism?" Who thought that term up? Is it like being sort of pregnant?

Sounds to me like they are weaving the net to reach as
far and wide as they want, when they want, to include who ever they want.

BHN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:18 PM

7. To be entirely fair

That does have some aspect of truth.

What was the goal of the Tea party gatherings where they brought and proudly displayed guns?

Even here on DU, as we talk about OWS, how often does someone say something about the 1% quaking in their boots?

Causing fear(low level terror) in the opponent.

Low level terrorism. Same as, for instance, a boycott of Target due to their anti-gay political donations. We hope to bring the fear that enough customers will leave to effect their bottom line. Truth is even if every DU member quit going there, it would hardly effect their bottom line, and certainly not the CEO's compensation. But if we can show strength they will fear that more might leave them, and change their ways.

That said, the suppression of nonviolent protest would go far past "low level terrorism". The way OWS has been treated, the way the Convention protestors were treated before them, that would go right to mid-level terrorism in my opinion(progression- nonviolent to harming someone, with people being killed as high level). The way that it has been handled by law enforcement officers has clearly been set out to intimidate, with the hope of terrorizing citizens into not exercising their rights to speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:43 PM

11. Interestingly at those Tea party gatherings

I don't recall seeing pepper spray being utilized ...


Well except for this one:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:49 PM

12. LOL- thanks for the laugh! n/t

bhn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:01 PM

16. Hardly any of that involves actual terror

Political discord, boycotts, or suggesting that the wealthy elites may be worried about the security of their financial position in the midst of economic discontent - has the integrity our public discourse degraded such that we actually associate such acts with real terrorism?

I was talking to a couple of conservatives once that thought DDoS attacks could be construed as acts of terror. It got to the point that I began to think they might construe me looking at them in the wrong way as an act of terror.

'Terrorism' is used in a way nowadays that the term is almost completely disconnected from the way a serious historian, political scientist, or sociologist might use it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 07:23 PM

22. All your verbal gymnastics demonstrate is that one person's terrorist is

 

another person's freedom fighter.

Put another way, there's a damned good reason why the hottest selling t-shirt in Karachi in 2002-03 had a picture of Osama bin Laden on it. Hint: it wasn't that Karachi youth were on board with the Bush Junta's campaign.

I kid you not, if you look at U.S. government communciations from 1955-75, you will find them referring to the National Liberation Front (aka 'Viet Cong') as 'terrorists'.

And, to show I'm even-handed, the British referred to Jewish resistance like the Irgun Zwai Lum in Palestine pre-1947 as, you guessed it, 'terrorists'.

If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (Samuel Johnson), why then terrorism is that refuge's anteroom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 02:29 PM

47. Back in the 1790s the Federalists called Democratic-Republican activists "Terrorists".

One of the high-level Federalists actually used the word "terrorism" to describe the activism of the D-Rs and their sympathy for the French Revolution, paving the way for the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 04:54 PM

49. Wow, I had no idea. Thanks. Actually, a thorough etymology of the word and its

 

rhetorical deployment throughout history might go a long way to demystifying some of the mystical power it seems to possess.

Although I have my doubts. People (among them David Ray Griffin) have noted that 9-11 now has a 'sacred' quality to it that defies demystification. Even knowing that the coup that deposed Allende in Chile happened on September 11, 1973 does not dispel the sacred aura that has infused 9-11-2001. Oh well, we can only keep trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 11:12 AM

35. the key word they are using is "terrorism"

which is the word used in dozens of pieces of legislation which justifies indefinite detention and very forceful response by the militarized police.
The use of "terrorism" to define protesters is a way of indoctrinating police/military that citizens are the "enemy".
And a way to totally neutralize any concept of the right to protest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 11:37 AM

40. True

and unfortunate.

They seem to have done a darn good job of indoctrinating the police that citizens are the enemy. Seeing as they are universally willing to treat us as such. Or at least there has not, to my knowledge, been a single case of any member of the police gang refusing to move on an occupy group, nor of a police officer stepping in to prevent a police officer assault on and occupier, nor of a police officer moving to arrest a police assaulter of an occupier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:31 PM

8. Clearly, the first three choices would be classified as terrorism, however,

I do not see boycotts, the right to peaceful public assemblies to exercise free speech as anything even close to terrorism.

That's why I asked the question: "Who thought up that term to apply to protestors?"

Sorry, but I think this is another slip down the slippery slope, manufactured
by same folks who brought us the Patriot Acts. Designed to protect them-
not us.

BHN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:39 PM

9. I wasn't born in the U.S.

And I wasn't always interested in politics, economics, and all that which affects us so much. However, even before I got interested in any of that, I did notice one thing about this country:

LOITERING LAWS.

Even before I was aware enough to see something wrong with these, I felt that the sole purpose of these was to allow law enforcement to keep people from congregating and protesting.

Now that I know better, I know I was right. This country's laws are designed to disallow people from protesting. They're designed to keep the system intact, and unchangeable. This is why the Occupy Movement is so important. America's people are so used to thinking of protests as illegal, that they actually get scared when they see protests. Even on DU I've read statements from Democrats who are afraid of such things.

We've got to get people realizing that the Constitution allows congregation and protest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:00 PM

15. Divide and conquer, quite right.

 

Isolate, Alienate, Deprive. Tools of deep negativity, of the predatory, of Bad Intelligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:09 PM

17. Exactly! Meant to scare people into complying, conforming, and not uttering a peep.

That's why Occupy is so important to me. It does SO MANY things!

One of those things Occupy does, but which no one ever brings up, is that it gets Americans accustomed to the concept that protest is healthy, good, positive, not illegal, and is NECESSARY! It makes Americans aware of their rights. It makes people realize that this country belongs to them and they have the right to defend and protect it in real ways (not in fake ways, such as doing regime change around the globe). Occupy is vitally important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:40 PM

10. I am a low-level terrorist.

 

In fact, I have been one half my life.

I think I need a t-shirt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 11:35 AM

39. Put this on it:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:54 PM

13. my name is mike_c and I am a terrorist....

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 07:10 PM

21. Me too

 

I must be because I have a "We are the 99%" sticker in my car window.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:58 PM

14. the implications of t his are indeed chilling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:38 PM

18. You're either with us or a'gin' us: any one having the temerity to question any policy or

action by any administration is "a'gin' us (those in power), hence is labeled the enemy and hence, a terrorist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 06:41 PM

19. It's official: the USA are becoming their own worst enemy

 

Hang on, all ye meek people. You WILL inherit the earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 06:48 PM

20. Earth = America's Battlefield against whoever "they" say is a terrorist

At what point do those luminaries start equating al-Qaeda supporters with, say, radical anti-capitalists in the Occupy movement? What exactly is the difference between such groups in the minds (excuse me, in what passes for the minds) of the people who run this country?

That difference seems to be getting smaller and smaller all the time, and such niceties as American citizenship and the legal tradition of due process seem to be less and less meaningful to the people who run things in America.

What does seem real to them is this “battlefield earth” vision of the world, in which they are behind one set of lines and an increasingly enormous group of other people is on the other side.

Here’s another way to ask the question: On which side of the societal fence do you think the McCains and Grahams would put, say, an unemployed American plumber who refused an eviction order from Bank of America and holed up with his family in his Florida house, refusing to move? Would Graham/McCain consider that person to have the same rights as Lloyd Blankfein, or is that plumber closer, in their eyes, to being like the young Muslim who throws a rock at a U.S. embassy in Yemen?



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/indefinite-detention-of-american-citizens-coming-soon-to-battlefield-u-s-a-20111209#ixzz1gNzWqycm?du

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 07:27 PM

24. DoD IS a terrorist organization.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 12:24 AM

27. & the largest nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 11:34 PM

25. I want to protest about that definition!

...oh shit ...

So, as a new 'low-level terrorist', do I now get thrown in Guantanamo's basement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 11:48 PM

26. Peaceful protesting is not a crime

Someone needs to tell the DOD that protesting is a First Amendment right until it becomes violent. The only terrorism I see is state (or municipal) terrorism committed against peaceful protesters exercising their rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 12:59 AM

28. Peaceful assembly

 

and exercising one's first amendment rights is "low-level" terrorism?

Next they will be telling us that if we are the slightest bit critical of our government and our politicians that we are guilty of "low-level terrorism". Oh there is something here that is "low-level" alright, but it isn't the people protesting and it isn't "terrorism".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 02:15 AM

29. I agree that when applied to peaceful protests in the US

The term low-level terrorism is absurd. That being said, in an overseas port a protest can be used as a distraction for nafarious means. Very little of the Force Protection training that I went through on active duty had any kind of focus on US soil. It was all geared toward countries where we did not have a direct military presence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 03:23 AM

31. Well, call me a low-level terrorist then.

This is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 03:29 AM

32. As we have seen, there is low-level terrorism....perpetrated by the police. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 11:22 AM

37. No, that is the regular kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 03:46 AM

33. Look at Syria

 

When it became apparent that the armed forces were conducting total warfare upon the populace, defections from the military grew at an increasing rate. This from a populace that has never known freedom.

When our military and police are called upon to violently quell the movement, a large percentage will not stand for open warfare upon the populace. I am a veteran. I swore to defend our constitution from all enemys foreign and domestic. I can't see it happening on a large scale. Our young fighting men and women will choose wisely. Most will ultimately be on "our" side.

I have faith that a small number of power brokers will not be able to turn our military upon the people.

What does scare me......we are the most armed nation on earth and those that warship the second amendment as a deity are those that are most likely to be coopted by the power brokers. These "militias" are the scary ones. Fox news will harness their anger. They will murder in the name of Christ and feel ordained to do so.

When we see the Confederate banner flown again in battle, the second civil war will have begun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mick063 (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 11:33 AM

38. Xe and the like will do as they are paid to as will the vast majority of law enforcement

which is why they are being militarized.

I'm personally concerned the populace isn't well armed enough, I'd like to see a law passed that any hardware that can be sold to any foreign country be legal for citizens to own as well. The populace should be a check on the military otherwise none can exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 11:13 AM

36. When you only have a hammer the entire world looks like nails

DoD ------->

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 12:15 PM

41. Yep... K & R !!!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 01:32 PM

43. When iron curtain came down- DoD scrambled to find new threats to justify

 

their existence. Let there be no mistake - 99% of us are now considered the enemy of the state. And the state is run by Wall Street Politburo.

The tax payers are buying the tools being used to suppress them.

Democrats are every bit as guilty as republicans in this regard.

Torture - "it's just a quaint idea, like the Geneva Conventions, so let's decriminalize it."

AT&T spying on Americans with NSA and CIA at their side - "yawn, what's on TV?"

Presidential orders to execute Americans - "only fringe loonie left thinks this is bad idea"

Pot Smoking? - "they are breaking the law, they get what they deserve"

These are the principals of the new democratic party.

LOL! what are you going to do vote for President Gingrich?

Millions of us who choke back the vomit of democratic endorsements of these principals, need an alternative political leadership to support.

Until then, we won't shut the fuck up about it. I guess that makes us all terrorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 01:50 PM

45. Protests shouldn't even be in the purview of the DoD

I think the line between police and military is being erased as we speak - Homeland Security, The Patriot Act - getting an eerie feeling about where all this is headed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 02:22 PM

46. Hey Agent Mike, kiss my pasty white Occupier ass!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 02:40 PM

48. Guess who has been named "the number one domestic terrorist threat."

The Animal Rights Movement, which they have lumped together with eco-terrorists.

Not only that, in the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, AETA 2006, terrorism includes NON-VIOLENT interfering with CORPORATE PROFITS.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aeta-analysis-109th/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 05:19 PM

50. I wouldn't worry too much about internal government bureaucratic documents

They may as well label it with numbers.

Take any government bureaucracy and you'll see phrases used that mean some specific thing or concept but have little to do with the regular use of the words. Only people in the department and lawyers know what they are talking about.

For many purposes, the criminal code uses a term "crime of violence." It is defined as certain sections. It does not mean "crime of violence" so much as it means the crimes described in the sections it refers to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread