Shared publicly  - 
 
Many of you may know that I am a strategic analyst. I often get asked to look at certain big problems in my professional life. I have taken my extensive resources and decided to see if I could come up with a solution to the political problems now facing our country. Specifically, I wanted to find a way to stop our out of control federal government and get back to a functioning democratic republic where the will of the people reigns supreme and free. And most importantly, my plan must not lead to bloodshed. I have been conducting the research for several months and I will be presenting the plan in a series of essays here on Google + starting with this one. Perhaps this will go nowhere. But it could become viral and maybe we could get our country back from the special interests and political parties that have managed to almost ruin us. Here goes my Hail Mary pass play.

How to legally take back the United States without getting killed or arrested

Part One: A New Spirit of Patriotism

“Old forms of government finally grow so oppressive that they must be thrown off even at the risk of reigns of terror.” - Herbert Spencer, 1851

Throughout our country’s history, at least until recently, free people would prefer to endure terrorism and anarchy, even at home, rather than sacrifice any amount of liberty or freedom. I guarantee that our forefathers had to deal with every aspect of terrorism, both global and domestic, that our modern society is faced with. And don't think for a minute that weapons of mass destruction did not exist. Military history is full of accounts of diseases like the plague being used in warfare and terrorism as far back as the Romans and ancient Greeks. And fire is the most primal weapon of mass destruction and terror ever discovered.

Bombs and explosives have been around and in use by terrorists for hundreds of years before our country was even founded. "Remember remember the fifth of November?” That was in 1605. The United States didn't even exist then and yet, that was the same type of plot as the attacks of 9/11. The Gunpowder Plot was a conspiracy to kill the King of England and as many other officials as possible when they tried to blow up the House of Lords, an official government building with innocent people and families inside. And that building represented the same sort of symbol to England as the Trade Centers represented to the U.S. – which is why they were chosen for terrorist targets. Even the concept of terrorism itself is nothing new. If you consider the psychological nature of terrorism’s roots, it probably goes back as far as the idea of warfare itself.

No aspect of this modern "global war on terrorism" is unique to our time and yet suddenly everyone acts like this is some new terrible threat. That's just not true. It is a provable fact that all throughout our history, there have been times and places where people have wanted to do harm to Americans, simply because they were Americans. From making a political statement, to kidnapping for money, to merely killing for sport, Americans have been at risk of death when traveling abroad since before our country was founded. And contrary to popular notion, 9/11 was not the first time a terrorist attack took place on American soil; nor was it the largest death toll from terrorism on American soil; nor was it the first time that a major U.S. city like New York was attacked by the same terrorist group multiple times; nor was it the first time a financial institution in New York was targeted or blown up by a terrorist group; nor was it the first time a non-state terrorist group attacked political and financial targets inside our country.

9/11 was a terrible attack. But it was nothing new.

Anyone who tells you that the modern terrorism threat posed to Americans by such groups as al-Qaeda is something that the world has never seen… is lying to you.

Anyone who tells you that the attacks of 9/11 were the worst and highest casualty terrorist attacks on American soil… is lying to you.

Anyone who tells you that a threat from home-grown or lone-wolf terrorists are something new and that you should sacrifice your freedom and liberties to fight that threat… is lying to you.

Anyone who tells you that a large American city like New York has never been targeted for political attack multiple times… is lying to you.

Anyone who tells you that a foreign non-government political extremist group has never attacked a major American financial symbol or political target on our soil… is lying to you.

Anyone who tells you that a foreign non-government political extremist group has never attacked or targeted high ranking U.S. Government officials for assassination on our soil… is lying to you.

And history proves it. (1)

More casualties than 9/11 and by individual acts of murder, not mass murder:

United States 1865-1877: Over 3000 Freedmen and their Republican Party allies were killed by a combination of the Ku Klux Klan and well-organized campaigns of violence by local whites in a campaign of terrorist violence that overthrew the reconstructionist governments in the American South and re-established segregation.

Home-grown and lone-wolf terrorists with multiple attacks for political ends:

United States 1910, 1 October: Los Angeles Times Bombing by a member of the International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers Union killed 21 people and injured an additional 100. It was part of a string of terrorist bombings and violence inflicted by both sides over labor disputes.

Foreign terrorist group attacks a building in the financial sector of New York:

United States 1920, 16 September: Wall Street Bombing killed 38 people and wounded 300 others. The bombing was carried out by Galleanists (Italian anarchists), a group responsible for a series of bombings the previous year that targeted high-ranking U.S. officials and influential businessmen including the U.S. Attorney General and John D. Rockefeller. They publicly despised the American way of life and attempted to deliver three dozen bombs to government officials during the May Day holiday celebration.

As you can tell, America has been the target of the same type of terrorist attacks and for much the same reasons as the current terrorism threat… at least for the last 150 years. If you consider the organized and foreign sponsored criminal activity that preyed on the citizens of the wild west and earlier times as a form of domestic terrorism and add in the killings and terrorism surrounding the major border disputes between the super-powers of the 15th through the 18th centuries on this continent, then the time frame for terrorism being a regular occurrence inside the borders of America is more like 500 or 600 years.

It’s time to get over it and stop being such whiny babies.

When did Americans become so afraid? Our country was founded by citizens who said, "Give me Liberty, or give me Death.” Today the average American is willing to sacrifice anything, including their freedom and liberty, to pretend they're safe from something they have less chance of experiencing than being struck by lightning. Significantly less chance, by the way. If we gave away as many freedoms as we have recently when terrorists attacked our country in the past, we still would not have prevented 9/11. All we would have done is make our country more like a police state and less like the home of the free. And all we have gained by allowing our freedoms to be usurped in the name of defense is a growing threat of violence from:

► our own government,
► our own police forces,
► our own military forces.

Now for some reality checks from a soldier.

1) Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. You cannot wage war on a tactic. It’s as much nonsense as saying we are going to have a war against sneaking around.

2) Terrorists are criminals. Criminals with political agendas or military targets are still criminals. Hunting down and killing criminals with soldiers may feel good, but it is not war.

3) War is not a political tool. War is the failure of political tools.

4) The only people who have earned the right to use the word “war” are soldiers, because everyone else seems to have forgotten what it means.

It is time to end this travesty that has usurped the true horrible meaning of “war” into a political jingo. It is time that America stopped all its “wars.” Cease the un-winnable and un-ending “War on Terror.” Stop the insane and expensive “War on Drugs.” Stop the police state tactics in the “War on Crime.” Stop the short-sighted and self-damaging “War on Illegal Immigration.” Put an end to the ridiculous oil-backed “War on Climate Science.” Put an end to the religious backed “War on Evolution and Science Education.” In fact, stop or put an end to all the stupid political rhetoric “wars” that have been generated by special interests, tossed around by the media, and then legislatively turned into profit streams for oil companies or, even worse, for the military supply chain or the religious fanatics of this country.

When someone says they are going to have a symbolic "War" on something, it means one of three things:

1) they are going to buy a lot of military equipment and throw it at the issue, or

2) they are just going to straight out throw money at the issue, or

3) they are losing a lot of money and want to stop it by making the issue a villain.

In any of these cases, it's not really "war" they’re talking about. And it always means that someone is either making a profit or protecting a profit.

American politicians need to stop using the word “war” for their silly little political or social conflicts. The only people who truly know what that word means have personally been in the real thing. And I guarantee you not one of them will tell you that the modern symbolic use of the word is accurate. War is not the same as making a stupid set of laws and then actively trying to catch those who break it. War is not any of the inane things that it has been applied to by the media or, worse yet, the moronic politicians who are pushing hidden agendas on top of false patriotism. The improper and foolhardy misuse of the word "war" has led to the reduction in the natural revulsion humans should have for the concept.

War is not cool. War should not be profitable for anybody. War should be avoided at all cost because when true war comes, it takes a toll and a cost on everyone in the society that is waging the war.

But that's not how it's done in this country anymore.

War is such a common concept these days, that Americans don't seem to mind that we are sending some of our finest young men and women away to foreign lands to be crippled, mentally vegetated or outright killed. We have become so desensitized to the idea of wholesale death and destruction at the hands of American forces that we ignore the actual deaths that are occurring on both sides.

This is close to becoming like that original Star Trek episode where two planets had sterilized the idea of war to the point that synchronized computers on both worlds would simulate an attack and counter-attack. Then the computers would calculate the casualties that each side should have suffered. And then the citizens on both planets voluntarily went to a termination chamber to die in order to keep the death accounting accurate and to avoid the ugliness of actual war.

The only people in this country who are suffering the effects of this current war are the families and friends of the soldiers who are fighting and dying. Everyone else is concerned about Whitney Houston, or how fat the cover-girl of Sports Illustrated should be, or whatever the current distraction of the day may be. The military officers waging the war at the top levels don’t want it to end because this is what they live for. The politicians don’t want to end the wars because it can be used to make them look weak on defense. And instead of the citizens of the country demanding that this madness and death stop, my friends and colleagues have been dying every week and every month since 9/11. And the number of them is now far greater than the innocents who died that horrible day.

I must be the only one willing to say this out loud, "enough is enough." This “eye for an eye” shit has to stop. We must end this madness now.

If you're tired of this crazy and dangerous path that our leaders have started us down, then prepare to vote out every single one of the politicians that currently hold office. Prepare to take back your country from the madmen and madwomen who are currently leading it down a road to absolute guaranteed destruction and ruin. No one who is in office now will be part of the solution. Neither is anyone who is currently running for office. They all must go. We must start fresh with completely new individuals who have agreed beforehand to behave differently. And we can’t wait until the next election. It has to happen now.

I boldly call on all Americans to come together in a new spirit of patriotism.

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth–whether about the President or anyone else.” - Theodore Roosevelt

Well, I’m going to tell you the truth. About the President and everyone else who is currently in office or running for office.

The truth is this: They do not care about you. Not one iota. They care only about the organization that is going to pay to get them elected or re-elected. And you are not part of that organization and you never will be. Accept it and get over it. Because it’s true.




I discuss what I mean by that in Part Two: (https://plus.google.com/103984595971776502972/posts/DzN2iyTe2Pz)




Follow the Freedom Contract Party at +Freedom Contract Party



(1) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents


#freedomcontract #occupy #wethepeople #wethe99percent #ndaa #stopthewar #stopthemadness #vote #sopa #acta #pipa #election2012 #philosophy #philosophyfriday
78
73
Jai Luthra's profile photoPaul M Edwards's profile photoH George Tavakoli's profile photoDarren “APFITEAM” Wood's profile photo
75 comments
 
One consideration: I find that logical, well reasoned stuff doesn't have much pull with those who respond viscerally to emotionally framed material. This is precisely how the whole 9/11 thing has been used to drag us way off course. It seems to me we need to turn those type of tools around to our benefit as well, as part of the overall strategy... The "whiny babies" section is a good start ;)
 
Thanks everyone. I have done the math on this plan. It can be done both legally and numerically. We may only have this one last chance to try. After the 2012 election, all bets are off.
 
Tragically most of the people you want to inspire will never manage to read all the way to the bottom of your post ;-)
 
Hell effing yeah. Unfortunately, I think you touched on a point that will prevent this. We have far too many "Soma"s in our age. People don't care what is going on outside of their sphere of social networking and buying the latest Apple products.
 
I remain an Obama enthusiast, and so I dread where this is going in part 2. Also I smelled that pervasive odor of tinfoil that's so common these days, too, in the opening paragraph. But this makes a lot more sense than the usual "pox on both their houses" rant.

I am convinced that if the democrats lined up more tightly behind Obama and the republicans weren't completely obstructionist and/or incoherent, we'd have moved further along toward resolving these problems. I think that the best thing to do in the next election is to damage the republicans enough that a responsible new opposition party can emerge. I think this won't happen, largely because of this "both parties equally guilty" stuff. But (without vouching for the specific evidence, which seems plausible but is outside my expertise) I agree with the diagnosis and think it's important to think about.
 
In full agreement so far. Of course, there's nothing in there that recommends any action yet, but you do need a full description of the problem before you can start presenting solutions.
 
Wow, fast and furious comments. That's awesome.

+Nobilis Reed You're right. I needed to establish a reference frame for the suggested solution.

+Michael Tobis I believe that third party idea is the right direction, too. But to make it work, you have to change the voter/elected-official relationship.

+Sean McBeth I'm counting on that phenomenon. I think we can make it work for us.
 
I do agree with you wholeheartedly. I've made it a point in the last decade to cast my votes for the most obscure candidate that I agreed with on the most part. If for no other reason, than to give them that ONE vote of encouragement that they weren't wasting their time being on the ballot.

In real life however, I have no rational way to convince people to not vote either Rep or Dem. Even when I point out the madness for doing so. Even when I point out that it is almost the definition of madness. That whole thing where you do the same thing, over and over, yet expect different results.

I attempted a similar series of essays on my blog, but lost interest after three installments. Mostly due to my complete amateur status regarding politics, sociology, etc. Everything I could think of ended in violence; which would not be the desired result, or means to an end.

So I explored that in a fourteen part series on my poetry/story blog as well. That made me sick to my stomach too, and I was glad to be done with it at the end.

Please, I hope you have some sane, rational ideas. I promise to be as supportive as I can, and try to implement good practical ideas if they are presented.

Thank you for putting your ideas out there like this.
 
Longing for Part Two!
 
I think "Class Warfare" is probably one of those false applications of the word "War" that Lucian was writing against. What we need is a way to bring people together over common ideals, instead of letting the established cronies distract us with inconsequential, partisan issues.
 
Thanks Lucian for some interesting thoughts!

The problem with "war" is that it is a way to create support. In a real war, there is a major outside threat. You usually get increased support when you declare war on that outside threat. It is an old trick for a ruler to find an outside enemy and declare war to save the popularity. It is frequently the base for conspiracy theories sometimes (I think that is how Hitler started the war against Poland?).

Unfortunately, the opposite is true also. If there is a threat, and the government does not show strong resolve (possibly because the price/reward is too high), they can quickly expect lost support. And this will immediately be used from the opposition to prove incompetence.

So maybe it is not a fault of our current leaders. It may be a fault in the system, which means a too low price/reward still has to be gone through with. I don't have any answer how such a deficiency in the democratic system.
 
Thank you for this +Lucian Randolph !!! My paranoia prevents me from making many posts publicly but I will proudly reshare this publicly!

Now, strategy question: How do we get this to show up in the What's Hot stream? Is it simply determined by number of comments and +1s? If so, then let's bump them numbers up!
 
Hey +John Bonsall thanks for your support. I'm not sure how to get the post onto the What's Hot stream. That's a good question, though. Maybe some of the G+ experts might know :)
 
Well, I'm sure that adding another comment won't hurt ;)
 
The new web (mobile) and social media is changing society. Individuals now must answer to the masses and quickly. Leveraging this correctly gives #wethepeople hope again. I look forward to your future posts.
 
I just have one very very minor criticism - wars have and always will be profitable for someone. They shouldn't be, but they are.
 
Hey +Catherine Maguire. I'll post a comment into this thread and it should send you a notification (if you have it set up to do that). Otherwise, I'll link to this article tomorrow.
 
Sorry, but how many died in the American revolution? Then ask how many die in a nuke attack. Do the math, you are wrong. Our forefathers faced terrorism, psychos and everything else, but technology today give those same people far more potential to destroy. We never lost as many people in a terrorist attack as we did on 9/11. Calling disease a terrorist act, when it was initiated by accident, doesn't work. Yes some people did spread disease in the conquest of America, but the damage was done as soon as europeans stepped off their boats. You underestimate the danger. We live in a far more peaceful time than in the past, yet the danger of technology means that could change with less than 4 nuclear weapons. The potential danger in today's world far put weighs that of our forefathers.
 
+Lucian Randolph
You say, "...we are sending some of our finest young men and women away to foreign lands to be crippled, mentally vegetated or outright killed." The military is all volunteer. Nobody is forcing poor, innocent kids to go anywhere. Military recruits know what they are getting into from day one.
 
Really +Jules Korngold? Tell that to Shoshone Johnson who THOUGHT she was just going to learn a trade. The blood of our children ought to be more precious than to waste on a lie.
 
+Heather Vandagriff What "trade" did your friend learn in the military? A little googling and time on facebook would have shown Shoshone the "trades" the military teaches. I bet she didn't have a computer, huh?
 
+Heather Vandagriff +Jules Korngold Volunteering to defend the country is a LOT different than being SENT to defend some other country. Ask a National Guard or Coast Guard volunteer if they intended on fighting over seas. Sent is the correct word. It's what we allow politicians to do in our name.
 
+Jules Korngold That's not the point; the point is that we shouldn't order them to do anything that's not worthy of that sacrifice, and playing petty revenge games, or jockeying over oil is NOT anywhere near worthy of what it's cost on either side. Seriously.
 
P.S. Suggest you wiki "Shoshone Johnson" before you pipe off half-cocked like some wanking kid on the internet.
 
+Kierk Ashmore-Sorensen How long have they been sending National Guard overseas? Since the first Gulf War?! I'd ask a fuckin National Guard why he expects to stay home at all. Best practice: Don't know? Don't join.
 
The horizon brings us AFRICOM squaring off aganist China, as evidenced by Kony2012 and other propaganda pieces... If the American public were to wake up to these lies, they could very well regain the admiration of the rest of the world.
 
+Heather Vandagriff Your Wikipedia article on Shoshana Johnson was enlightening. I learned her father was a retired army sergeant. All the more reason she should have known the army can assign you to any fuckin job they want to.
 
+Kierk Ashmore-Sorensen There's a reason infantry are called "bullet-sponges" - they are. I suggest you see "Platoon" and read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu.
 
+Jules Korngold I have Sun Tzu on my Droid, Platoon is a work of fiction and if you called my sister SSGT Grey a "bullet sponge" she would probably put you in traction. You describe yourself as "Improving the Human Condition One Post at a Time" please don't "improve" anything in my area I don't have boots tall enough.
 
+Kierk Ashmore-Sorensen Sorry dude, combat jobs are men only. If your sister is telling you she has a combat job, she better take a lie detector test. And remind your sister my taxes pay her salary - I'll call her anything I want, including "expendable".

As for the value of works of fiction about war, are you saying only combat veterans have a right to discuss war? What exactly is your problem with war fiction?

You don't think I'm contributing much to this conversation? Wait till +Lucian Randolph posts part 2 tomorrow and reveals how we can take part in his "patriotic" plan to "take back" America. I'm sure I'll have lots to say.
 
No, you haven't been contributing much to this convo at all. Lots of bluster, lots of hot air, nearly no substance whatsoever.

By the way, folks, this is one example of the sort of person that dry reason isn't going to reach.
 
+Cindy Brown Sorry if I don't join your flash mob in adoring the "patriotism" of +Lucian Randolph My real experience in the military has taught me to distrust anyone waving a flag and proclaiming themselves a "Patriot". We'll see what Lucian has to say soon. So far he strikes me as a Ron Paulbot. I hope I'm wrong.
 
This is so true! It's one of those posts that really need to go viral.
 
Hi +Jules Korngold, Saying "I hope I'm wrong" means you are open-minded and it's a reasonable comment. That's the most I could ask for. Thank you :)
 
+Lucian Randolph Nice meeting you, too. If you please, I have a question about your profile: You list "Mad-Scientist / Futurist Coerced Labor (97B), 1979 - 2012". Does the "97B" indicate a military MOS of counter-intelligence?
Nalla J
+
1
2
1
 
+Lucian Randolph absolutely spot on in regards to a 3rd Political Party!!!
There is no clear delineation of the 2 prevalent Parties...
We need to get back to Constitutional Law that we SHOULD hold dear... and NOT who can fund the best campaign with special interest monies...
Politicians SHOULD be working for the best interest of the PEOPLE and Country, NOT for themselves... Period...
 
OK dude, what your saying in theory is great, how about you running for office 2016
 
+William Rutherford That's flattering, but I'm not vettable in the normal sense. There are holes in my official background big enough to drive a truck through. Like a covert operative for the CIA (which I am not), people who do the things I've done, don't get to run for office.
 
Thanks +Ann McPherson. I think there are others who would serve better as elected officials. I don't need to be the quarterback.
 
Ok +Lucian Randolph I have finally taken a crack at reading this post. I tried to use the mp3's I made and while the concept was cool and interesting I felt that in this case it was better to simply read the words at my own pace. besides I noticed the text to speech website kinda missed a few words that made this confusing.

Now, about this first part. It seems that of all the things we need fixing in this nation, there seems to be one that has gotten very little focus and/or misplaced focus and I believe it's both the most important issue that needs addressing and also the one politicians would fear the most to do anything about. It's education.

Our education system is so lame it's said kids in China are smarter than our kids before they even graduate. Let's keep in mind if there is one country that seems to want to keep their people ignorant enough to avoid them from overthrowing the Gov't it's China. Just look at their Internet policies and the way they handle any kind of action that is considered an attack on the Gov't. And yet somehow our children's education pales in comparison? Seems to me the US has an even bigger agenda than China to keep the population so ignorant they couldn't tell the difference between communism and democracy and they blatantly strip our freedoms in our face and we are not only oblivious to it but actually believe what ever is done is for our benefit; as you stated above give up freedoms in the name of safety.

I believe one of the first things we need to do is focus on having an education system that teaches our children about our history, about how our Gov't works, how politics work and the responsibilities expected of them when they reach adulthood. This should be added to the current curriculum, a curriculum that can use some adjusting to make it easier for kids to learn by helping them and understanding them, not treating them like soldiers or criminals and penalize them for mistakes and difficulties in learning. After all not everyone learns at the same pace.

Education should be our first main concern because an uneducated population can easily be herded around by a few political ranchers to the slaughter house. If we want to take our country back we need to get educated first, this post is a good start.
 
+Jules Korngold I can understand your point. Don't want to get in the mess don't join. But I don't believe it's that simple. The people of this nation tend to have an expectancy of our Gov't to do what's right. Our military servicemen and women expect to sacrifice their lives in order to ensure the safety of the nation, what they don't expect is to have their lives used as expendable tools to satisfy a political agenda. As +Lucian Randolph stated some politicians will not end the wars not because our job has not been completed but because the idea could spell doom for their political careers and their legacy. No one wants to be knows at the guy who was in charge when something bad happened or something considered bad happened.

It should be common knowledge these days that joining the US Armed Forces means you gonna end up somewhere you probably said you would never set foot on, live in conditions you probably never even considered possible in your life, eat food you probably never even knew existed, knew was edible and/or would be your only choice in order to survive. But people who join don't expect to have to endure this just because someone wanted to help their buddy's company get that military contract to make millions, just because they could make a few millions in the process as well and just because it could ensure their re-election a few years down the road.
 
+Lucian Randolph, a friend sent me the link for this and asked me what I thought of it. I have to say, I did not even have a Google+ account but I made one specifically to address this post. As I told my friend, I do not disagree with your main premise about wanting to change the country in a peaceful way, but I do think you have framed your argument with a number of inaccurate and obfuscatory claims. If you were a CI analyst for the Army for 23 years, someone somewhere along the way should have told you that there are some basic things you have to do to maintain your credibility. One is that you must refrain from making emotionally charged statements if you want to be taken seriously, although I certainly agree that they are useful on certain occasions. Another is that you cannot make claims without backing them up with some kind of evidence. Doing these kinds of things damages your credibility with people who not only take the argument seriously, but who also take researching the argument seriously.

It is not enough to simply make a claim, call it a fact and offer no evidence whatsoever. Stating an opinion, which needs no justification as it's your opinion, is completely different from making the claim that something is a fact without citing evidence for it, especially when it flies in the face of what is commonly accepted as a fact. I could no more claim that the speed of light is no longer the speed limit of the universe without citing something (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html) to back it up, than you should.

For example, you stated, "Anyone who tells you that the attacks of 9/11 were the worst and highest casualty terrorist attacks on American soil… is lying to you."

Your evidence to support this claim, that 3000+ people dying on a single morning in NYC is: about same number of people were killed over a 12 year period following the Civil War. Well, my retort is, by this logic, car crashes, burning to death and falling down are all individually more deadly on a yearly basis than al-Qaeda (see the link below for my evidence). This does not mean al-Qaeda is not a threat to our way of life, and I will address that momentarily. I simply do not see how anyone could argue or accept the notion that there has ever been a tragedy on the order of 9/11 perpetrated successfully against United States citizens on our own soil by a terrorist group. I am more than willing to listen to a credible argument against that, but don't try to draw a comparison between airplanes full of civilians being purposely flown into buildings and slavers shooting or hanging escaped slaves and sympathizers.(http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/135_deaths_and_death_rates_from_accidents.html)

Another claim you make is

"As you can tell, America has been the target of the same type of terrorist attacks and for much the same reasons as the current terrorism threat… at least for the last 150 years"

I understand that you are saying the method by which attacks are carried out, chiefly via bombings, has changed very little, but your argument that the reasons for the attacks you cite being similar in any way to those of al-Qaeda is way off base. The War of 1812 is, quite possibly. the only one that comes close. The Civil War, although it threatened to break the country apart, did not seek to significantly alter the way in which we lived our lives. In fact, the contrary would be more accurate, it sought to maintain the status quo, although the status quo was a horribly tragic existence for black Americans. Even WWI and WWII, although terrible, were remote threats until the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, but the obvious argument here is these were not acts of "terrorism" as they were perpetrated by an attacking nation's military element and conducted against military targets. Now, if you want to re-define what is considered terrorism and what is considered a "legitimate war act," I would be willing to debate that, but that's for another time.

There is a WORLD of difference between the rebels in the Civil War and what they were trying to accomplish, (specifically to force the U.S. government to accept that the southern states wanted to continue to have slavery, or to break away) and the goals of the Islamic Jihadists, which are to establish a global caliphate and force the world to convert to Islam, or suffer the consequences. The consequences being your choice of taxation, as long as you live by the rules of Sharia Law, or death, if you choose not to. Don't take my word for it though, read and listen to what bin Laden said about the matter:

“Every Muslim the minute he can start differentiating, carries hate towards Americans, Jews and Christians, this is part of our ideology. Ever since I can recall, I felt at war with the Americans and had feelings of animosity and hate towards them,” said bin Laden in an interview with al-Jazeera Arab television in 1998.

I can find at least 25 more sources saying similar, and even worse, things about Americans, Jews and Christians. They do not hate us because "we attacked them," as Ron Paul likes to claim. They hate us because we exist. They do not want to coexist with us, they want us to convert or die. They do not believe in tolerance for anything that falls outside the rules of Sharia Law. Death is the punishment for almost every infraction, although some lesser infractions carry mere dismemberment as the penalty.

There has never been a threat to our way of life in the United States as serious or deadly as the Islamic terrorist threat, contrary to your statement "Anyone who tells you that the modern terrorism threat posed to Americans by such groups as al-Qaeda is something that the world has never seen… is lying to you." This is irresponsibly false. There has, in fact, never been a globally positioned, secretly funded and well-supported non-state actor that has had the capability to successfully conduct attacks on the scale with which al-Qaeda has in the past, and is actively planning in the future (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57408492/online-graphic-warns-of-al-qaeda-return-to-nyc/). All the other groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, were minor actors and annoyances at best prior to the arrival of al-Qaeda on the scene. You, and many others, are dismissing a group that is responsible for maintaining an ongoing 10 year old war for Iraq AND Afghanistan against the world's preeminent superpower, and is still managing to conduct attacks in every corner of the globe. Now, how is that possible if there is no credible threat from these guys?

Not only are they a credible threat, their ability to prevent our conclusion of OIF / OEF has emboldened other groups, which have, over the last ten years, and are, even now, percolating up from South America and Mexico to kill us in our own country. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/violent-mexican-drug-gang-expands-into-us/?page=all) More than 35,000 people have been killed in Mexico since 2008. That's not a distant land, it shares a border with 4 of our states. Most people are unaware that the Colombian government had, for a time, actually ceded a 16,000 sq km portion of their of their country to the FARC insurgency. Do you know what happened during that time? A terrorist convention, the likes of which only Dr. Evil could have frikkin' dreamed up. And nobody seems to care that Middle Eastern terrorists and South American terrorists got together to exchange ideas about funding (via kidnappings, drugs, robbery, etc.) and operations (beheading suddenly became very popular again, as did all manner of grisly, gruesome murders, like machete massacres and chainsawing). And still nobody takes the threat seriously in this country. Have we become so complacent since 9/11 that we honestly believe it was a fluke?

Here's a Washington Times article on bin Laden's statements leading up to 9/11, and guess what? Nobody took him seriously then either.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/truth-be-told/2011/may/11/why-did-osama-bin-laden-hate-americans-jews-and-ch/

Here's a UK Guardian article that is just the entire letter about why al-Qaeda attacked us, according to bin Laden:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

I know that some people will read this and get caught up in the idea that all his references to "attacks by the U.S." are, as he claims, unwarranted or unprovoked or even true. Some of them are, some are not, but all are useful justifications for a deranged sociopath to convince others that his cause is right and just and blessed by Allah.

I'm not saying I disagree with all your statements, but this key point you tried to make is just so outrageous that it is overshadowing any other significant point you might have otherwise made, which removes any credibility you may have otherwise had and seriously detracts from the veracity of the rest of your argument as it has been tainted by this false premise from the start.
I am going to read the rest of your posts, but I sincerely hope they do not follow this same style of framing some otherwise good arguments in a cluster of inaccurate and unfounded claims for which you offer no supporting documentation or evidence.

As a bit of an aside - something everyone needs to understand is that bin Laden BEGAN his career as a terrorist in the Muslim Brotherhood. You may recognize that group as the group that supported the overthrow of the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the Egyptian government last year. They are also the same group that now rules Egypt. They have spawned hundreds of smaller groups in many countries around the world, and all have been working toward similar goals of removing and replacing current governments with a more theocratic ruling authority. They have also called for the destruction of Israel since it was founded, as has al-Qaeda.

Part of analysis is taking the verifiable facts at hand and drawing a reasonable conclusion (usually called an assessment) based on those facts. That being said, it would be reasonable to assess that, if both bin Laden and the MB have called for the destruction of Israel, then either one of them got that ideology from the other, or they worked together because they had similar goals and ideals from the start. The next assessment is that it would be reasonable to conclude that the rest of the followers of al-Qaeda also subscribe to the idea that Israel must be destroyed, and that this may be the idea that brought bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda together to begin with. If those premises are true, then we must find the conclusion that al-Qaeda is more than a trivial threat to Israel, to be a reasonable one. Since al-Qaeda has said the same things about the United States, then it should be equally reasonable to apply this same conclusion for our situation. I do not understand the resistance to taking them at their word when they say they want to annihilate every last one of us.
 
If you believe the war on terror needs to continue, then you are not part of our group because we believe you are part of the problem.
 
The insularity and ignorance neccesary to state "They hate us because we exist" apalls me.
They hate you because for the last century you´ve used your foreign policy to your benefit while keeping a large percentage of the world poor. They hate you because you buy off politicians in poor countries so you can have access to their resources and enrich your corporations while impoverishing the citizens of said countries. They hate you for giving poor countries "aid" that is really just government subsidies for american weapons manufacturers.
They hate you for the hypocrisy that dictates your condemnation or approval of dictatorships worldwide, for the unrelenting bleating about democracy and freedom, when anyone who reads history or even watches the news can tell it´s only"democracy" when it´s the democracy you choose. In the (loosely quoted) words of you national hero Oliver North:
" A sonofabitch, but OUR sonofabitch"

This may have something to do with it
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Mr. Randolph is proposing a reevaluation of the way the US sees itself. I hope it may change the way the rest of the world sees you.
 
+Zac Parker I guess it just comes down to a matter of priorities, I consider the war on my constitutional rights more of a dire consequence than the war on terror. I don't believe you'll come to our side of thought, and I'm tired of living under yours.
 
I recommend you watch the BBC´s documentary "The Power of Nightmares".
It is an oversimplification, but it says things the rest of the world has known for decades, and which somehow have been kept out of the minds of the average American.
 
Dear +Zac Parker,

The problem is that you are attempting to sound reasonable and intelligent, but you made so many glaring logic errors (on top of some basic reading, math and comprehension mistakes) that no one here is willing to take you seriously. First on a matter of math. It's been 33 years since 1979. Using your logic, nothing you say afterward is going to have any credibility. But once I reached the part where you stated with certitude that individually pulling a white man out of his bed in the middle of the night and hanging him in his front yard in front of his five year old daughter because he was there to end segregation is not equivalent terrorism to the attacks of 9/11, I realized that we are not morally compatible. I knew the daughter as an old woman and I assure you she was terrorized. Multiply that times 3000 and tell me that's not terrorism.

From that point forward, none of your arguments were persuasive, much less logically sound.

If you are looking for a debate on why the war on terrorism should end, you are in the wrong place.

PS - You keep using the word 'credibility.'
I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
+Zac Parker Well said. Especially: "They hate us because we exist. They do not want to coexist with us, they want us to convert or die. They do not believe in tolerance for anything that falls outside the rules of Sharia Law." That's it in a nutshell.

What other flaws do you see in the planks of +Lucian Randolph and the Freedom Contract Party?

+Juan Ochoa So if we "improve" our behavior, jihadists will love us as Kafir (infidels)? My many years observing jihadists in chat rooms tells me this is horseshit.
 
Going slightly OT here. I think a major problem with terrorism and counter-terrorism is that each of them feeds on the other. Killing US citizens will generate a forceful response. And much action (Irak, Pakistan, Afghanistan) will damage a wider audience than the ones responsible for the first act. This will, in turn, provide a steady supply of people ready to sacrifice anything. Their life is already wasted, they might as well do something "good", as they see it. This usually results in attacks on civilians somewhere, also innocent.


I simply don't think this strategy will work in the long term. In worst case, it will end up as the Israel/Palestina situation, a complete deadlock.
I don't think religion is the root cause. It is people using religion as a tool. There is nothing special about the death sentences in Sharia laws. It is the same with the Bible, especially the old testament. You are actually encouraged to kill a person that did not rest on a Sunday. This is not an indication of an evil religion, it is a view into historical times. The evilness come from people trying to apply some of these outdated rules to the modern society.

My private opinion is that heavy investment to help build functioning infrastructures and encouraging democracy (easier said than done, I know) would give more "safety" than the same amount of money invested in the military. Encouraging democracy in a country is maybe a plan that need several decades, but the way the Internet and information availability is improving, I think such a task now has greater chances than ever.

Based on these thoughts, I support some of the planks.
 
+Michael Tobis how can you remain an obama enthusiast after he signed the NDAA? Also, if this isn't the place to discuss this, i'd be happy to hear your answer privately.
 
+Lucian Randolph Lucian... good for you for at least trying. G+ is not the place to discuss this, but would love to sit and have a discussion with you someday regarding this. Many of your ideas are similar to mine. I feel key to whatever form a new govt would take... that it's powers and scope be MUCH MUCH more limited, and never be allowed to grow into what it has today... where the people answer to and fear it, instead of the other way around.
 
Should be changed to "Uncle Simon" says.....
Add a comment...