11 ms·

Who Are We at War With? That’s Classified

222 points by nodata 13y ago

hoggle 13y ago
Well this comes to mind, the US economical dependence on military and war: "This is a very significant power group. And it is a power group that is not just at the top of the White House. It is not just a few generals. Rather it is all the people connected to and profiting from that system. And that's about a third of the US population. So all the way from Chelsea Clinton down to the someone in the gutters of San Antonio whose brother is deployed in Iraq." http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html#1318 http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html...
coldcode 13y ago
Then I wonder if the knowledge of something being classified is itself classified? Would that not be an infinite recursion?
northwest 13y ago
War -> Creates new enemies -> More war needed to kill them (feed military budget) -> Creates new enemies -> More war needed to kill them (feed military budget) -> You get the idea... To keep the cash cow going, keep it all secret (or at least very nontransparent).
- ballard 13y ago
  I think there are two issues in this: 0. Where is the money going? 1. Are foreign and domestic policies using tactics that a civil society should use? Often, in positions of power where secrecy is used to hoard information as a form of job security, what happens is that any challenging argument becomes the secret-keeper protrarys themselves as having more intelligence than any critic, so the challenger always appears misinformed.
_hgt1 13y ago
I thought it was Eurasia?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  We've always been at war with Eastasia.
  - coldcode 13y ago
    Doubleplusgood.
jchimney 13y ago
very impressive how prescient george orwell was; impressive but of little consolation. I'm a big fan of technology; but i hope that technology wasn't the missing something that previous governments lacked to be able to enforce their authoritarianism.
- scoofy 13y ago
  This is Huxley's future not Orwell's. It's not that "the people" can't change society, they just don't want to think about it and would rather watch television, whether that be sports, sitcoms, or infotainment.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    That was true of Orwell's future as well - the Proles, which composed 80%+ of the population, weren't spied upon at nearly the same level as the Party members, they were just too poorly educated and content with the status quo as long as they were fed meaningless entertainment created by Party machines.
    - rbanffy 13y ago
      Huxley does not exclude Orwell. What we have is a Huxley layer over an Orwell core. People don't care enough to change, but, when they do, governments know and can act swiftly and forcefully.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        We have neither Huxley's world nor Orwell's. In Huxley's version we would exile free thinkers; the US government never exiles people (with so much invested in the prison industry, how could we?). In Orwell's version, free thinkers would be tortured until they either die or learn to love the system. The US government just marginalizes free thinkers, allowing them to continue to live and work in our society (with the exception of whistleblowers) but ensuring that they never find themselves in a position to change anything. The common theme in dystopia is that free thinkers are ignored by the rest of society, which is either apathetic or too brainwashed. We are certainly at that point, but neither Brave New World nor 1984 accurately describe what America is becoming.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
The AUMF needs to be sunsetted. Heck, if necessary, pass a resolution/law that congratulates everybody on a job well-done and declares victory. Whatever it takes. A state of war is a temporary thing in a democracy. It has to be. Otherwise the natural tendency of the executive to overreach will be completely unchecked. I suggest that the job we're doing now is much more like "global policeman", including using lethal SWAT forces, than being in a war. I think such a role is necessary, and I also think that there's no way in hell all the nations of the world are going to overtly agree to this. (Although I suspect a majority are very happy having the yanks clean up the nuts using Predators as long as the PR isn't too bad. Even better, they can support various strikes and options with their intelligence services while publicly railing against the Evil Empire. A lot of foreign political leaders have been playing this game long before 9-11.) That's a fine and dandy pickle for the world, and I have sympathy for the problem of crazy people wanting to come and hurt civilians in order to affect political change. The problem is, democracies can't be in a state of war for decades. Even assuming that all of the threats are clear and present. We need a way out of this, and pronto. This is a structural problem for the U.S. that is much worse than slavery ever was. Here's hoping the light will come on for the voting public and they'll start pressuring their elected representatives to do their damned jobs and stop spending so much time politically posturing and positioning their party for the next election.
- northwest 13y ago
  > We need a way out of this, and pronto. This is a structural problem for the U.S. that is much worse than slavery ever was. Absolutely. And to find a way out of this, you first need to completely take the money out of politics - radically, entirely. I see the corruption of Washington (and then: democracy) via money as the core problem, in the US.
  - DanielBMarkham 13y ago
    Politics is about votes, not money. You can get votes by promising free chickens in every pot. You can get votes by bringing a big defense contract into an area. Politicians get elected by votes, and the political system runs on votes. Yes, money is used to fight the battle. But focusing on the money is idiotic. Money is a completely secondary factor. It's main modern use (I speak of direct contributions, not the sweetheart deals to relatives that really is at the heart of corruption) is to attack the opponent's base and prevent them from turning out to vote. Also, political power is much more important than money. Being able to launch a Predator strike trumps any amount of campaign contributions. This focus on money has to stop. It's like saying businesses are all about making money. It's not that it's a false statement -- it's that it misses the point entirely of what's going on. Business provide value by giving folks stuff they want. Money is a secondary way to keep score. Political power is accumulated by votes. If you can gain a thousand votes by simply making a speech, much better than throwing money at folks. It's an easy win. Focusing on money ignores the entirety of what's really going on. You want a really corrupt system, start overengineering the money side.
zeteo 13y ago
My favorite analogy for US security policy during the past two decades is a huge allergic reaction. It seems quite likely that allergies are caused by the immune system lacking antagonists and instead latching onto factors that are not real threats [1]. Similarly, the early '90s saw serious reductions in objective threats that US security was organized to deal with, internal (a sustained decline in crime [2]) and external (the disappearance of a second superpower). The resulting reaction is... what else if not allergic? Police is more militarized than ever and drives tanks into the living rooms of nonviolent offenders. The military's budget is unprecedentedly large and it hunts down shepherds in the Afghan hills at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per kill. Any claim that such threats are comparable with those that were adequately met in the '80s (crack epidemic, nuclear-tipped ICBMs etc.) is nothing short of risible. Yet the response is, if anything, even more aggressive than it was back then. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crim...
- Sven7 13y ago
  It we accept this analogy, the question that arises is - if nature hasn't figured out how to eliminate allergies over millions of years of evolution, what magic do we expect a government to perform?
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    Well, an analogy can only take you so far.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    Not everyone is susceptible to allergic reactions. Without modern medicine, the people who are susceptible tend to die relatively quickly. Seems like the analogy leads to the decline of the united states and the rise of some other country that doesn't suffer from this particular affliction. They will probably have other problems though.
    - 13y ago
ihsw 13y ago
The problem with the US Government is that they try so hard to garner support from everybody, which leads to situations where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. With all the wheeling and dealing going on, allies turn to opponents where convenient (and vice versa). Today we're helping a certain group of people, tomorrow we're bombing the shit out of them. Why? > it would be difficult for the Congress to get involved in trying to track the designation of which are the affiliate forces Translation: when their usefulness ends then we stop supporting them, at which point they turn against us. This happens so frequently that monthly briefings would be a pointless formality. In their effort to control everybody, more spitefully slip through their fingers.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  >The problem with the US Government is that they try so hard to garner support from everybody Do they really?
  - br78 13y ago
    Yes. Through aid and arms deals, through influence and promises of corporate investment, through manipulation of political systems and propaganda.
conradfr 13y ago
Al Qaeda may not even exists anymore.
- aunty_helen 13y ago
  Al Qaeda may not even exist. FTFY
dictum 13y ago
"Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated." http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on-terror-speech_2.htm http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on... The War on Terror is a perpetual war by design.
- northwest 13y ago
  Best business model ever.
md224 13y ago
I think their reasoning for withholding a list of names of Al Qaeda affiliates is a bit weak, but I can still see how it might make sense. After all, we're fighting for transparency because we know information can be powerful, but that power is not always a positive force. Information can aid in organization, and we do have an interest in keeping our enemies disorganized. The real question is, do other comprehensive lists of Al Qaeda affiliates exist? If so, then releasing this list would probably not substantially increase the information currently out there.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >I can still see how it might make sense. Yeah, but as the good professor stated in the article, we are already dropping bombs on their heads, so they are pretty much aware that we know who they are (paraphrasing).
  - md224 13y ago
    Yes, members of the Al Qaeda affiliates know that we know who they are. But do potential sympathizers know who the Al Qaeda affiliates are?
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      I don't know that it matters. When you think about it, it's actually kind of a silly notion that we don't name them because we don't want to give them free advertising. Like there are a bunch of guys itching to participate in jihad and strap themselves up as suicide bombers, but just can't figure out where to sign up? I think that's unlikely. And, I would agree with the professor's other point that the bigger risk is these secret wars and the fact that Americans don't know what's being done in our names. That's extraordinarily detrimental to a democracy, to say the least.
stfu 13y ago
Guys come one. Have a little patience! Building up the China thing is going to take a few more years. Until then we need to keep the military complex busy with some extended theater of war games.
rb2e 13y ago
I thought congress had to make a formal "declaration of war", so how could it be classified? Perhaps I live in this fantasy land where little things like the law and constitution are ignored by those in power.
- nbouscal 13y ago
  That's only for wars, not "military actions". We've only actually declared war five times in the history of the country.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  Congressmen on select committees have clearance, but cannot tell you what they know. Basically, the Congress had ceded it's ability to approve/disapprove warlike action to the executive. They retain the power of the purse, but it is difficult to be in a position politically where you are "cutting off support" for "the troops". That's also a key reason why we had the "support the troops" propaganda. Even if you were against the war, how can you be against your neighbor's sons and daughters?
  - gizmo686 13y ago
    >Congressmen on select committees have clearance, but cannot tell you what they know. This isn't exactly true. Congressmen have an explicit Constitutional protection for anything they say in the House. This was most famauslly used by Senator Mike Gravel to leak the Pentagon Papers, and set the precedent of Gravel v. United States that doing so is legal. In reality, attempting to do so would cost significant political capitol, and will likely make it difficult for the Congressmen to get onto such committees in the future.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  The Posse Comitatus Act was repealed.
grannyg00se 13y ago
"the U.S. is at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.” So who exactly are those associated forces? It’s a secret. " It's not a secret at all. They've demonstrated it in the past. Based on observation, "associated forces" can be defined as "anybody who has some connection to". There is no definitive answer because it changes constantly and there is no need to provide justification anyway. War is being fought by the government, for the government. Your civilian inquiries are not welcome.
dschiptsov 13y ago
Eastasia or Oceania - just flip a coin.) In Russia we used to call them "the enemies of the people" and, of course, they were among us and everyone could be marked as such just by a gossip or finger-pointing by a neighbor.)
ballard 13y ago
Interviewer: Is the government winning the battle against terrorists? Helpmann: Ah, yes. We're fielding all their strokes, running all of them out. We're consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the game. Interviewer: But, Mr. Helpmann, the bombing campaign is now in its 13 th year. Helpmann: Beginners' luck.
visarga 13y ago
The associated forces are the internet activists probably. That's why they monitor our moves.
MichaelMoser123 13y ago
The list of the usual suspects in 'Round up the usual suspects'. This is not something that they would not like to specify further. It might have something to do with 'Continuity of governance' plans; those plans may have detailed lists of 'internal enemies'; those are supposed to be round up in times of emergencies (like supposed leaders of 'occupy' or something) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84
RyanMcGreal 13y ago
We are at war with [REDACTED]. We have always been at war with [REDACTED].
pcvarmint 13y ago
China: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/07/24/the-two-faux-democracies-threaten-life-on-earth-paul-craig-roberts/ http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/07/24/the-two-faux-demo...

222 points by nodata 13y ago

Well this comes to mind, the US economical dependence on military and war: "This is a very significant power group. And it is a power group that is not just at the top of the White House. It is not just a few generals. Rather it is all the people connected to and profiting from that system. And that's about a third of the US population. So all the way from Chelsea Clinton down to the someone in the gutters of San Antonio whose brother is deployed in Iraq." http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html#1318 http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html...

coldcode 13y ago

Then I wonder if the knowledge of something being classified is itself classified? Would that not be an infinite recursion?

northwest 13y ago

War -> Creates new enemies -> More war needed to kill them (feed military budget) -> Creates new enemies -> More war needed to kill them (feed military budget) -> You get the idea... To keep the cash cow going, keep it all secret (or at least very nontransparent).

ballard 13y ago
I think there are two issues in this: 0. Where is the money going? 1. Are foreign and domestic policies using tactics that a civil society should use? Often, in positions of power where secrecy is used to hoard information as a form of job security, what happens is that any challenging argument becomes the secret-keeper protrarys themselves as having more intelligence than any critic, so the challenger always appears misinformed.

_hgt1 13y ago

I thought it was Eurasia?

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
- coldcode 13y ago
  Doubleplusgood.

jchimney 13y ago

very impressive how prescient george orwell was; impressive but of little consolation. I'm a big fan of technology; but i hope that technology wasn't the missing something that previous governments lacked to be able to enforce their authoritarianism.

scoofy 13y ago
This is Huxley's future not Orwell's. It's not that "the people" can't change society, they just don't want to think about it and would rather watch television, whether that be sports, sitcoms, or infotainment.
- icebraining 13y ago
  That was true of Orwell's future as well - the Proles, which composed 80%+ of the population, weren't spied upon at nearly the same level as the Party members, they were just too poorly educated and content with the status quo as long as they were fed meaningless entertainment created by Party machines.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    Huxley does not exclude Orwell. What we have is a Huxley layer over an Orwell core. People don't care enough to change, but, when they do, governments know and can act swiftly and forcefully.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      We have neither Huxley's world nor Orwell's. In Huxley's version we would exile free thinkers; the US government never exiles people (with so much invested in the prison industry, how could we?). In Orwell's version, free thinkers would be tortured until they either die or learn to love the system. The US government just marginalizes free thinkers, allowing them to continue to live and work in our society (with the exception of whistleblowers) but ensuring that they never find themselves in a position to change anything. The common theme in dystopia is that free thinkers are ignored by the rest of society, which is either apathetic or too brainwashed. We are certainly at that point, but neither Brave New World nor 1984 accurately describe what America is becoming.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

The AUMF needs to be sunsetted. Heck, if necessary, pass a resolution/law that congratulates everybody on a job well-done and declares victory. Whatever it takes. A state of war is a temporary thing in a democracy. It has to be. Otherwise the natural tendency of the executive to overreach will be completely unchecked. I suggest that the job we're doing now is much more like "global policeman", including using lethal SWAT forces, than being in a war. I think such a role is necessary, and I also think that there's no way in hell all the nations of the world are going to overtly agree to this. (Although I suspect a majority are very happy having the yanks clean up the nuts using Predators as long as the PR isn't too bad. Even better, they can support various strikes and options with their intelligence services while publicly railing against the Evil Empire. A lot of foreign political leaders have been playing this game long before 9-11.) That's a fine and dandy pickle for the world, and I have sympathy for the problem of crazy people wanting to come and hurt civilians in order to affect political change. The problem is, democracies can't be in a state of war for decades. Even assuming that all of the threats are clear and present. We need a way out of this, and pronto. This is a structural problem for the U.S. that is much worse than slavery ever was. Here's hoping the light will come on for the voting public and they'll start pressuring their elected representatives to do their damned jobs and stop spending so much time politically posturing and positioning their party for the next election.

northwest 13y ago
> We need a way out of this, and pronto. This is a structural problem for the U.S. that is much worse than slavery ever was. Absolutely. And to find a way out of this, you first need to completely take the money out of politics - radically, entirely. I see the corruption of Washington (and then: democracy) via money as the core problem, in the US.
- DanielBMarkham 13y ago
  Politics is about votes, not money. You can get votes by promising free chickens in every pot. You can get votes by bringing a big defense contract into an area. Politicians get elected by votes, and the political system runs on votes. Yes, money is used to fight the battle. But focusing on the money is idiotic. Money is a completely secondary factor. It's main modern use (I speak of direct contributions, not the sweetheart deals to relatives that really is at the heart of corruption) is to attack the opponent's base and prevent them from turning out to vote. Also, political power is much more important than money. Being able to launch a Predator strike trumps any amount of campaign contributions. This focus on money has to stop. It's like saying businesses are all about making money. It's not that it's a false statement -- it's that it misses the point entirely of what's going on. Business provide value by giving folks stuff they want. Money is a secondary way to keep score. Political power is accumulated by votes. If you can gain a thousand votes by simply making a speech, much better than throwing money at folks. It's an easy win. Focusing on money ignores the entirety of what's really going on. You want a really corrupt system, start overengineering the money side.

zeteo 13y ago

My favorite analogy for US security policy during the past two decades is a huge allergic reaction. It seems quite likely that allergies are caused by the immune system lacking antagonists and instead latching onto factors that are not real threats [1]. Similarly, the early '90s saw serious reductions in objective threats that US security was organized to deal with, internal (a sustained decline in crime [2]) and external (the disappearance of a second superpower). The resulting reaction is... what else if not allergic? Police is more militarized than ever and drives tanks into the living rooms of nonviolent offenders. The military's budget is unprecedentedly large and it hunts down shepherds in the Afghan hills at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per kill. Any claim that such threats are comparable with those that were adequately met in the '80s (crack epidemic, nuclear-tipped ICBMs etc.) is nothing short of risible. Yet the response is, if anything, even more aggressive than it was back then. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crim...

Sven7 13y ago
It we accept this analogy, the question that arises is - if nature hasn't figured out how to eliminate allergies over millions of years of evolution, what magic do we expect a government to perform?
- macspoofing 13y ago
  Well, an analogy can only take you so far.
- Amadou 13y ago
  Not everyone is susceptible to allergic reactions. Without modern medicine, the people who are susceptible tend to die relatively quickly. Seems like the analogy leads to the decline of the united states and the rise of some other country that doesn't suffer from this particular affliction. They will probably have other problems though.
  - 13y ago

ihsw 13y ago

The problem with the US Government is that they try so hard to garner support from everybody, which leads to situations where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. With all the wheeling and dealing going on, allies turn to opponents where convenient (and vice versa). Today we're helping a certain group of people, tomorrow we're bombing the shit out of them. Why? > it would be difficult for the Congress to get involved in trying to track the designation of which are the affiliate forces Translation: when their usefulness ends then we stop supporting them, at which point they turn against us. This happens so frequently that monthly briefings would be a pointless formality. In their effort to control everybody, more spitefully slip through their fingers.

macspoofing 13y ago
>The problem with the US Government is that they try so hard to garner support from everybody Do they really?
- br78 13y ago
  Yes. Through aid and arms deals, through influence and promises of corporate investment, through manipulation of political systems and propaganda.

conradfr 13y ago

Al Qaeda may not even exists anymore.

aunty_helen 13y ago
Al Qaeda may not even exist. FTFY

dictum 13y ago

"Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated." http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on-terror-speech_2.htm http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on... The War on Terror is a perpetual war by design.

northwest 13y ago
Best business model ever.

md224 13y ago

I think their reasoning for withholding a list of names of Al Qaeda affiliates is a bit weak, but I can still see how it might make sense. After all, we're fighting for transparency because we know information can be powerful, but that power is not always a positive force. Information can aid in organization, and we do have an interest in keeping our enemies disorganized. The real question is, do other comprehensive lists of Al Qaeda affiliates exist? If so, then releasing this list would probably not substantially increase the information currently out there.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>I can still see how it might make sense. Yeah, but as the good professor stated in the article, we are already dropping bombs on their heads, so they are pretty much aware that we know who they are (paraphrasing).
- md224 13y ago
  Yes, members of the Al Qaeda affiliates know that we know who they are. But do potential sympathizers know who the Al Qaeda affiliates are?
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    I don't know that it matters. When you think about it, it's actually kind of a silly notion that we don't name them because we don't want to give them free advertising. Like there are a bunch of guys itching to participate in jihad and strap themselves up as suicide bombers, but just can't figure out where to sign up? I think that's unlikely. And, I would agree with the professor's other point that the bigger risk is these secret wars and the fact that Americans don't know what's being done in our names. That's extraordinarily detrimental to a democracy, to say the least.

stfu 13y ago

Guys come one. Have a little patience! Building up the China thing is going to take a few more years. Until then we need to keep the military complex busy with some extended theater of war games.

rb2e 13y ago

I thought congress had to make a formal "declaration of war", so how could it be classified? Perhaps I live in this fantasy land where little things like the law and constitution are ignored by those in power.

nbouscal 13y ago
That's only for wars, not "military actions". We've only actually declared war five times in the history of the country.
Spooky23 13y ago
Congressmen on select committees have clearance, but cannot tell you what they know. Basically, the Congress had ceded it's ability to approve/disapprove warlike action to the executive. They retain the power of the purse, but it is difficult to be in a position politically where you are "cutting off support" for "the troops". That's also a key reason why we had the "support the troops" propaganda. Even if you were against the war, how can you be against your neighbor's sons and daughters?
- gizmo686 13y ago
  >Congressmen on select committees have clearance, but cannot tell you what they know. This isn't exactly true. Congressmen have an explicit Constitutional protection for anything they say in the House. This was most famauslly used by Senator Mike Gravel to leak the Pentagon Papers, and set the precedent of Gravel v. United States that doing so is legal. In reality, attempting to do so would cost significant political capitol, and will likely make it difficult for the Congressmen to get onto such committees in the future.
Daniel_Newby 13y ago
The Posse Comitatus Act was repealed.

grannyg00se 13y ago

"the U.S. is at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.” So who exactly are those associated forces? It’s a secret. " It's not a secret at all. They've demonstrated it in the past. Based on observation, "associated forces" can be defined as "anybody who has some connection to". There is no definitive answer because it changes constantly and there is no need to provide justification anyway. War is being fought by the government, for the government. Your civilian inquiries are not welcome.

dschiptsov 13y ago

Eastasia or Oceania - just flip a coin.) In Russia we used to call them "the enemies of the people" and, of course, they were among us and everyone could be marked as such just by a gossip or finger-pointing by a neighbor.)

ballard 13y ago

Interviewer: Is the government winning the battle against terrorists? Helpmann: Ah, yes. We're fielding all their strokes, running all of them out. We're consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the game. Interviewer: But, Mr. Helpmann, the bombing campaign is now in its 13 th year. Helpmann: Beginners' luck.

visarga 13y ago

The associated forces are the internet activists probably. That's why they monitor our moves.

MichaelMoser123 13y ago

The list of the usual suspects in 'Round up the usual suspects'. This is not something that they would not like to specify further. It might have something to do with 'Continuity of governance' plans; those plans may have detailed lists of 'internal enemies'; those are supposed to be round up in times of emergencies (like supposed leaders of 'occupy' or something) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84

RyanMcGreal 13y ago

We are at war with [REDACTED]. We have always been at war with [REDACTED].

pcvarmint 13y ago

China: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/07/24/the-two-faux-democracies-threaten-life-on-earth-paul-craig-roberts/ http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/07/24/the-two-faux-demo...