Anon -- via Havenco.
Part of our problem in regard to U.S.-based domestic terrorism and militia groups has been our prosecutorial or military "snatch" mindset. We need to attack their strategy, rather than engage in actions that legitimize their world views, incite action, encourage radicalization and facilitate recruitment.
And who would be "we" ? And who are "they" ?
We - The People. They - Anybody that has expressed a sincere desire to blow "the people" up and has warranted a threat-rating. I am speaking in the context of U.S. domestic organizations with terrorist inclinations, not OBL and his like, of course.
You seem to have some conclusive evidence ... care to share with "us" ?
Some proposals fit into the apocalyptic visions of some groups. Shades of PROJECT MEGIDDO and so forth.
This is a WAR On Terrorism -- not a Keystone Cop chase. I believe that any
No, Ms. Propaganda, this is not war, this is bullshit.
In MANY respects, I agree with you. "Propaganda" can serve legitimate purposes and need not be deceitful. In a like vein, COINTELPRO need not involve infiltration, lying, black bag jobs, or the stifling of legitimate political dissent. Speaking of such things....private groups have been highly successful in criminalizing the ideology of opposing dissident groups that they deem contrary to their interests. They use the media to make repetitive unsubstantiated allegations until the public actually begins to associate a criminal mindset with the group or idea. My understanding is that the word "cypherpunk" made recent congressional testimony -???
It is (according to the past history) a natural path for the empire to gradually become a police state because of dissent (which the state, naturally, labels as "terrorism"). This progresses until internal pressure builds up to the point of disintegration. Nothing new here, except that US managed to do in 60 years what took others centuries.
While it is easy to understand why the feeble-minded gather around the official story (and flag-waving politicians) when they feel threatened by dark & hairy foreigners, it should be obvious that such grouping is the main long-term consequence of "terrorism", and that the state is the principal profiteer.
It is impossible for USG to "attack their strategy" while remaining USG.
Their strategy is psychology. And, yes, we can. You "attack their strategy" when there is somebody assigned to respond to inaccurate reporting, hoaxes, etc. You "attack their strategy" by encouraging dialogue. You "attack their strategy" by encouraging moderation (as opposed to inciting action). In many cases, it could be as simple as communication, and involve some ETHICAL Cold War skillsets.
And I can not see a single reason that would compell USG to do so.
Yes, common sense has historically been a poor argument to Congress. ~Aimee