I love "what ifs"
Here's the "deal"..
According to a Southern Poverty Law Center report.. As Election Season Heats Up, Extremist Groups at Record Levels
"The American radical right grew explosively in 2011, a third consecutive year of extraordinary growth that has swelled the ranks of extremist groups to record levels, according to a report issued today by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The rise was led by a stunning expansion of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement."
"..the dramatic growth came in the Patriot movement, which is composed of armed militias and other conspiracy-minded organizations that see the federal government as their primary enemy. These groups saw their numbers skyrocket for the third straight year in 2011, this time by 55 percent - from 824 in 2010 to 1,274 groups last year. In 2008, just before the Patriot movement took off, there were 149 Patriot groups, a number that metastasized to 512 in 2009"
"With the recent growth of the radical right has come what most experts agree is a rash of domestic terrorism, much of it aimed at President Obama and other authorities. In the last year, several examples have cropped up. In Michigan, members of the Hutaree Militia are currently on trial for planning to murder a police officer and then attack the funeral with homemade bombs in an effort to spark a war against the government. In Georgia, four militia members are facing charges of conspiring to bomb federal buildings and attack cities with the deadly ricin toxin. And four members of the Alaska Peacemakers Militia are accused of planning to murder judges and law enforcement officials as part of a plan to overthrow the federal government."
"The FBI considers the sovereign movement dangerous enough that it issued a special bulletin to law enforcement officials last September describing it as “domestic terrorist”"
So yeah.. people are f'ing pissed off.. DUH!
However.. if we take these "reports" seriously where might that lead us?
"Hate groups" are “domestic terrorists” who plan to "spark a war against the government" and/or "overthrow the federal government"
(See: enemy combatant / unlawful combatant "In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of this term and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant under United States law.")
Crap like those below certainly don't make American citizens more at ease with the apparent plans of their own government..
(Also One of the provisions included in the 2012 NDAA is one that allows for American citizens "suspected of" terrorism to be indefinitely detained in military custody without charge or trial.)
Now, with that as a bit of a foreword, lets look at Syria..
John McCain (who also strongly supported 2012 NDAA) says.. "How many additional civilian lives would have to be lost in order to convince you that the military measures of this kind that we are proposing are necessary to end the killing?" asked Republican Senator John McCain, who has urged air strikes on Syria. "How many more have to die? Ten thousand more? Twenty thousand more?"
I often wonder out loud on twitter, how many more Muslim civilians must die before the United States of America, or perhaps another country, decides it is necessary to "end the killing?"
"How many more have to die? Ten thousand more? Twenty thousand more?" (Before WE stop the killing in the Middle East? Is the question I often ask of our own "leaders" (Not that they ever respond to the likes of me LMAO)
"Obama has urged Assad to halt the violence against his people and step aside to allow a democratic transition."
So, we have American "officials" calling Assad a "reformer" while at the same time labeling the American Patriot movement "Domestic Terrorists!?"
Clinton calls Syrian tyrant a ‘reformer' despite Assad's bloody record
Now Syria, and Assad, say what about their own rebels, protesters, seekers of democracy?
Faysal Mekdad, told reporters the bombings are proof of the government's longtime claims that terrorists are behind much of the violence linked to opposition protests.
"All who stand behind these criminals in Syria and defend and support these crimes are considered responsible for the terrorist acts," he said.
The Syrian government has defended its harsh crackdown on pro-democracy protesters by saying it is fighting "armed terrorists".
Now my question all along has been.. "When / if real violence breaks out in the good old US of A what might be the response of our own government?"
We have already witnessed the smearing of the Tea Party in this country, by politicians and media, as being "racists", "Nazis" and yes, even "terrorists"..
PROOF the TEABAGGERS are RACIST, VIOLENT, and DISGUSTING
We have also witnessed the use of, near military, force against dissenters as part of the OWS movement..
US ‘unreasonably cruel’ in OWS crackdown
CIA won’t disclose involvement in OWS crackdowns
My point in all this is that yes so-called "hate groups" (possibly anyone who disagrees with government or Federal Reserve Bank policys) are more prevalent than ever. That's because more people are plain old pissed off about "the way things are". A corrupt political system, a corrupt Central bank, a corrupt financial sector, corrupt multinational corporations and only ever increasing amounts of bullshit piled on the backs of the people.
So, personally, I believe things will continue to escalate to the point where violence WILL occur.
Perhaps triggered by a total economic collapse, the implementation of martial law, the outbreak of yet another middle eastern war, harsh austerity, whatever..
(Don't get me wrong here.. I do not plan on participating in violence and I do not and will not condone violence. By any party).
However, unfortunately, there are people in the United States of America who possibly, I say likely, will, in the event of some catastrophic societal upheaval, commit violent acts against the "system", the "status quo". In my humble opinion a violent revolution is a possibility.
It doesn't seem nearly as stupid if you look at it in a historical manner.. (The beginning of the Civil War)
Should this happen what would be the response of our own government?
Anyone in this country who plans and/or commits a violent act against the United States government will legally be considered a "terrorist" and now legally "indefinitely detained". I assume exactly what Assad is currently doing in Syria.
We already have a precedence set for military assassination of an American citizen as directed, and subsequently defended, by the highest offices of the United States.
Attorney general defends presidential assassinations of US citizens
Should this "thing" somehow become a revolutionary revolution of some sort.. Should a particular city state prove itself dangerous to the status quo in a violent manner then I suggest the situation in the United States could end up every bit as chaotic as the current situation in Syria. (Again.. this is based on historical observation, not wild conspiracy theories).
What if the demands of these revolutionary terrorists include the relinquishing of power by the status quo? What if the demands required the current government to hand over power to a new government? One selected by the people of the United States.
You can laugh all you want about the possibility of United States military action to control the population..
AMERICANS OWN LARGEST NUMBER OF FIREARMS IN WORLD
DeutschePresse via Bloomberg no url | 7/8/3
I ain't laughing..