U.S. begins to educate Americans about threat of unconventional attack

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This made for a great debate over on the Freepers forum, but nobody made the connection that this may be a way to make Y2K preps, call it DEFENSE, and SPIN it away.

In any event, it makes makes me wonder:




U.S. begins to educate Americans about threat of unconventional attack

News/Current Events Breaking News News Source: http://www.worldtribune.com/photo-tease-front-2.html Published: Thursday, July 29, 1999 Author: SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Posted on 07/29/1999 11:45:53 PDT by FISHHOG

WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration has launched an effort to warn Americans that they are susceptible to a biological or chemical weapons attack.

In an unusual move, Defense Secretary William Cohen wrote a long column for the Washington Post that warned that the United States could be unable to counter a nonconventional weapons attack.

article Monday, Defense Secretary William Cohen also warned of a possible attack.

"A chemical or biological strike on American soil could quickly surpass any community's ability to cope," Cohen wrote.

U.S. military officials said the Cohen article was part of a government effort to make Americans aware of the nonconventional weapons threat. They said the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies agree with a recent report by former Central Intelligence Agency director John Deutch that urged more cooperation between agencies and greater measures to prepare for a biological attack.

"I don't think anyone's claiming that there's ever going to be a 100 percent effective defense," Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral Craig Quigley said on Tuesday. "But education is perhaps our strongest weapon against this, and to raise the people's awareness that the possibility is out there, the technology is readily available, inexpensive and low tech, and this is something that, like I say, the American people have not had to really consider before, but it's very real and it's very much an awareness issue with the Secretary."

The former CIA head recommended the United States assign one government authority to coordinate the efforts by the 96 government agencies involved in security issues. In January, President Bill Clinton had promised to spend 2.85 billion dollars to deal with bio-terrorism.

According to a congressional study, a city with 500,000 inhabitants would have to spend around 1.3 million dollars to have the necessary equipment to respond to such an attack with dangerous chemicals.

The same-sized city would need some 12 million dollars to be "strongly prepared" for a chemical, biological or nuclear attack.

Quigley said the Pentagon found that its studies in assessing the damage from a nuclear attack do not apply to that of a biological weapons attack. "The movement of a biological agent in people, as people move from one part of the country to another, has nothing to do with weather conditions and that makes it pretty hard to model," he said. "I think that's another point that Secretary Cohen wanted to make was that the ability to spread rapidly in very unpredictable directions is a very real component of our concerns."

-- helium (heliumavid@yahoo.com), August 03, 1999


I think THEY are trying to make all of us think we could be wiped out at any moment and that no city or local or state government could prepare adquately to respond to it. I think THEY are laying a foundation or making a case for some requests that they are getting ready to make. SOOOOOOO, what THEY really seem to be saying is OK, SO, NOW WE HAVE SHOWN YOU THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY TAKE CARE OF--so give us alot of money, basically unlimited power and resources and we will promise to take care of it IF IT EVER HAPPENS!!!!???

Sounds like they want a grass roots movement of people asking them to establish this big, expensive, government function to protect against/recover from "terrorism". (my fear is what they might eventually label as terrorism.) Just like gun control--if you have enough state-sponsored terrorist attacks (as Columbine was rumored to be by pretty reputable folks) then the "people" will cry out for gun control. Typical elitist approach. Make the people ask for it then tighten the screws and turn it against them.

geesh, do i sound paranoid.

-- T (applpie@aol.com), August 03, 1999.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Ghoulishly capitalizing on the tragedy of a mass murder, the anti-gun forces are surging forward

with their plans for total gun confiscation. If law-abiding private citizens were disarmed, they

claim, criminals and crazies would be unable to kill and maim. That's an obvious lie -- criminals,

by definition, disobey laws, and madmen can kill with knives, cars or champagne bottles as

easily and as senselessly as they can with guns. The not-so- secret agenda of the State and its

apologists is clear: disarm peaceful citizens to render them powerless. Turn law-abiding

Americans into criminals with the stroke of a legislative pen. Anyone who refuses to surrender

his or her weapons would become an Enemy Of The State, much the same as any armed citizen

is right now in the Soviet Union, or Communist China, or Socialist Nicaragua, or Fascist

El Salvador, or Monarchist Great Britain. Gun confiscation is non- partisan -- it is always and

forever aimed at anyone disliked by the current gang in power.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

The American Revolution began in a dispute over gun control when British Redcoats marched

toward Lexington and Concord to disarm farmers there. London claimed to be the "legitimate"

government ruling America, just as Washington or Sacramento or Albany claims to be today.

And their attempt to disarm us stems from the same power lust that drove King George. We

must, therefore, hold on to our guns -- legally or illegally -- for the very same reason the colonists


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

The anti-gunners, certain that the role of government is to grant privileges and dictate behavior,

shout that citizens have no reason to be "allowed" to own assault rifles, which have "no

legitimate sporting use". The Constitution, though, says nothing about "a well-regulated hunting

club" being necessary. We do not own handguns, assault rifles, shotguns, and other powerful

weapons because we are hunters or plinkers or collectors. We do not even own guns because the

Constitution "allows" us to. The Constitution does not "grant" rights. It recognizes rights already

and irrevocably held forever by the people themselves (individuals), and forbids government from

trampling on them. We have a right to keep and bear arms regardless of whether the Second

Amendment exists or not! All Article Two guarantees is that we shouldn't have to defend that

right against "our" federal government.

We've seen that simple guarantee erode, though, haven't we? The real reason for gun ownership is

to protect the individual from the State, whether it is an invading State from across the seas or a

domestic State grown tyrannical and oppressive. The goal of total, repressive confiscation is clear

in the subtle, shifting arguments of the anti-gun forces. When handguns were the target, they

clamored for prohibition because handguns were not militia-type weapons protected by the

Second Amendment. Now they cry for assault rifle bans because "mere citizens" have no business

possessing "military-style" weapons! These eager confiscators rightly point out that assault rifles,

handguns, and indeed all "weapons" have only one purpose: to kill. Again they speak a truth, but

only partially. The unasked question is, "To kill whom? And under what circumstances?" The

answer is, "To kill any who attempt to rob, maim, rape, or kill us." Even that answer, though,

does not fully express the most important reason for gun ownership. Only a small number of

people are actually touched by criminal violence. The State, though, touches each and every one

of us every hour of every day. People in government seek to tax our earnings to pay for their

whims, to draft our children to fight in wars they start, to regulate and interfere with our lives out

of pure love of power and their desire to wield it. They have become as tyrannical as any Tory

redcoat, Soviet Commissar, or Nazi Gestapo. And they are coming to steal your last line of

defense against them.

Will you meekly obey?

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

When any law against guns is passed, how is it backed up? How will the State remove banned

weapons from private hands? How will agents of the State disarm the citizenry? Why, by the use

of guns, of course! This contradiction has never bothered statists. Why are handguns and assault

rifles evil and wicked in the hands of private citizens yet perfectly fine in the hands of employees

of the State? If this is truly "government by the people" why do we see the servants disarming

their masters by force? What do they fear from us, if theirs is a legitimate, benevolent

government? If the State does not seek to control us, why does it want us disarmed?

The usual answer -- stripped of equivocation -- is that "mere citizens" are like half-witted

children, incapable of safely handling "dangerous" commodities such as weapons or explosives or

medicines or information. And only when some half-witted children pass a civil-service exam or

are elected by other half-wits to work for the wise and benevolent State do they magically

become smart and honest enough to carry weapons and decide who shall be "allowed" to

possess guns and what sort of design, shape, or weight such weapons shall be.

Sounds pretty condescending and paternalistic, doesn't it? That's how they view us. Sheep for the

shearing at tax time, cannon fodder during war time, and dangerous idiots the rest of the time.

And they dare ask us to obey their desires?

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

What many gun owners refuse to face, usually by saying "it can't happen in America," is that the

government can and does create new classes of criminals with the mere stroke of a pen. In 1919,

Prohibition turned millions of people overnight from sociable Drinkers to Enemies Of The State.

The victimless crime of ingesting alcohol turned neighborly, peaceful people into fair game for

imprisonment, fines, and seizure of property. Some fought back, often with simple shotguns,

against "revenooers" armed with assault rifles (the Thompson sub- machine gun) in a modern

version of the Whiskey Revolution. The Prohibition Amendment created crime by definition.

If, tomorrow, smoking or drinking coffee or owning a book were declared illegal, the State

would suddenly point to a new "criminal underworld" of massive proportions. In the eyes of the

State they would become "a new breed of criminal" to be weeded out of society and thrown into

prisons. So it is with any prohibition of popular activities, including gun ownership.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Let's face it -- police respond faster to calls from Beverly Hills than they do to calls from Watts.

And the rich can afford armed guards, to boot! When so-called Saturday Night Specials are

banned, does it affect those who can spend hundreds on a fine pistol? No. Does it prevent

criminals from stealing whatever weapon they want or buying it on the black market? No. The

only people harmed by a "cheap handgun" ban are the honest poor who have hardly enough

money to feed their children, let alone defend themselves from inner- city marauders.

Any form of gun control disarms those least able to defend themselves. And what good is a 15

day waiting period to someone who is threatened by an armed criminal coming by tonight? When

one perceives a threat, one should be able to acquire protection immediately.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was rammed down the throats of the American public, blatantly

exploiting then-current fears of gun- toting black rioters by implying that the law would help to

disarm American Blacks, other minorities, and all dissenters at a time of civil upheaval. To

paraphrase a popular slogan, "If the government does not trust minorities with guns, minorities

cannot trust government." Ask any Native American.

In a mirror image case 20 years later, assault rifle bans are being ramrodded through legislatures

by appealing to fears that gun-toting white racists are on the loose. The real and only purpose of

gun control is to disarm the innocent and the peaceful, of whatever race, creed or social status.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

The same goes for women. Police and purported feminists urge women to resist rape with fists,

fingernails, keyrings and screams. But why should any woman allow an assailant to get within

arm's reach of her? Why don't Women's Rights activists in or out of government reveal the most

effective way for a woman to defend herself: to buy a gun and learn to use it? The truth is, they

want women to feel weak and perpetually threatened so that they will beg the State for

protection. A woman standing proud, armed, and fearless is the last thing most self-proclaimed

"feminists" want (since that would undermine their perverse longing for a huge paternalistic


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

How can people who work for or worship the State -- statists -- point to the murder of five

children in a schoolyard or twenty people in a restaurant and claim that as sufficient reason to

disarm tens of millions of Americans? Are they so presumptuous as to suggest that we are capable

of such violent madness? Perhaps there is a degree of psychological projection going on here:

statists feel within themselves the urge to kill and project it onto the people they fear the most --

us, the victims of the State. For while tens of millions of people own guns, only a minuscule

fraction ever use those guns to aggress against others. Every State, however, has guns and even

more powerful weapons in its clutches and every State has used them, will use them, and are

using them to murder hundreds, thousands and millions of innocent, unarmed people.

How can the insane mind of a Patrick Purdy even dream of matching the death toll of even the

most minor skirmish in the smallest of wars or "police actions"? The murder of five innocent

children is heart-rendingly tragic, but how many thousands of innocent children were roasted in

Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many unarmed, peaceful young people were slaughtered in Tien

An Men Square? How many women, children and old people have been shot by the bullets of

"their own" government in Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, India,

Afghanistan, Tibet, Argentina, Libya, Ireland, Russia, South Africa, Chile, Pakistan, Zimbabwe,

Iran, Yugoslavia, and on and on and on for every State you can name, even "our" United States?

For statists to use the "mass murder" of a few people as an excuse to disarm Americans when

the State is the largest, bloodiest, longest-lived institution of mass murder in all of history is

appallingly hypocritical. Do we owe allegiance to the apologists for such atrocities? NEVER!

Private ownership of weaponry is the last defense against tyranny, foreign and domestic. The

thought that there might come a time when the peaceable gun owners (even members of the

patriotic NRA) must take arms against an American Li Peng commanding the local police and the

US military is anathema to nearly everyone. The possibility, however, must be faced. A lot of

American colonists were horrified at the thought of defending themselves against "their" king's

army, too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Some say that the Constitution "granted" the right to keep and bear arms to provide for a

"well-regulated" militia. Since we have a standing army, the argument goes, civilians no longer

need to own guns. Yet that amendment was written precisely because the British used that exact

argument in their attempts (1768 to 1777) to disarm the colonists. Americans detested the

standing armies of the British government and knew that civilian- based defense was the ultimate,

perhaps the only, protection against any threat to liberty, whether from London, Moscow or

Washington D.C.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

When the day comes (and it will, if we don't raise our voices in protest now) that the Imperial

State commands its subjects (that's how they view you and me, regardless of what they say) to

turn in our weapons, what will you do? Make no mistake -- if people refuse to surrender or

destroy their weapons, they will be imprisoned, fined, perhaps even shot if they try to defend their

Constitutional -- nay, their human -- rights.

Of whom should we be more wary -- invading foreign troops whose rule we would never

sanction, or "our own" government, to which most of us grant some legitimacy and which is right

here, right now, all around us? Perhaps paraphrasing a parent's question will help provide an

answer: If the State passed a law telling you to jump off a cliff, would you? No fair answering that

"good pure, sober, honest politicians wouldn't let that happen". With guns, it is happening right


And when that friendly cop on the beat (whom most gun owners exalt as a good man just doing

his job and who may even be a fellow NRA member!) comes around to your house, he will come

armed with "good government" handguns and assault rifles. "Sorry pal," he'll say, "but the law is

the law."

That possibility is something many gun owners -- staunch defenders of law and order and

supporters of local police -- refuse to face. They blank out the fact that even -- perhaps especially

-- in America, they may have to choose between owning their guns and facing the full implications

of the Declaration of Independence:

"..that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the

people to alter or abolish it..."

Some would rather surrender meekly to the State, giving up their last shred of defense against

tyranny, rather than face that choice. But if they do surrender their firepower, the choice will have

been made. And it won't matter whether our new masters speak Russian, Chinese, Japanese,

English, or American Bureaucratese. They will be our masters nonetheless.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

First of all, keep your guns! Do not turn them in just because some law is passed ordering you to

do so. That's just what they want -- sheeplike compliance. You are not a criminal. Don't let the

State declare you one or treat you like one. The colonists who turned in their weapons to their

Tory town governments soon learned the folly of their actions. Any government that outlaws

gun ownership is an outlaw government! It is no more necessary to obey an oppressive,

tyrannical State than it is to obey any thief who demands that you turn over your property under

threat of death. We know the free person's answer to such a demand. So does the State. That is

why statists seek to browbeat us into disarming without a fight. They need the sanction of the

victim. They cannot hope to disarm us by force. That would tip their hand and guarantee a

revolution. But by stealth, instilled guilt, and appeals to our peaceful, law-abiding natures will

they attempt to expropriate our only defense against their continued and increasing predations.

Resist the urge to obey the edicts of self-proclaimed rulers. Don't walk timidly into a

concentration camp filled with once- free men and women. Decry with every fiber of your being

the trampling of our fundamental human rights!

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------



---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------



---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------



---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Every law restricting free, immediate access to firearms is a direct attack on individual freedom.

The course of action is up to you. Demand the repeal of all such laws or ignore them with

impunity. But never accept them as legitimate restraints upon your liberty. Nothing legitimate can

issue from the pen of tyrants.

(Permission is explicitly granted to reproduce this article by

Xerox(R), computer bulletin board, or any other method.)

- The Company of Freemen

distributed by

THE FORCE Box 94 Long Beach, CA 90801

-- freeman (freeman@cali.com), August 03, 1999.

Given some casual contacts I have in Alphabet agencies, and reserve medical units, i can tell you that, even without the possibility of a hidden agenda or 2, the feds are TRULY scared about Tango activities. One of the problems they have,and the GOOD ones agonize over it daily, is that this is a free and VERY OPEN and VULNERABLE society. Lots of things that they woiuld REALLY like to control, because they are the precursors chem weapons are available on the shelf, to anyone, because they are widely used in homes and industry.

Consider the uses of nerve agents. As a matter of fact, if you have a dog or cat and plan on spraying the yard for fleas, or if you plan on spraying for spiders, you have a nerve agent in your house, which, if misused will require dosages of atropine that start at about 5 times the maximum cardiac dose, just to start to help you.

that new bug repellent that needs to go on clothing and not skin?? Pyrethrins, NASTY nerve agent.


-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 03, 1999.

Amen, freeman.... God, guts, and guns... keep America free!!!

-- booann (cantsay@lovemyjob.edu), August 04, 1999.

I am in 3 Volunteer Fire DDepts just north of Washington Dc. Last winter our county started offering a class called Emergency Response to Terrorism. (first time offered) The whole class dealt with Fire/EMS response to a bio/chem attack. I asked why this came up and was this in any way related to the Executive Order signed by Bubba and was this related to a direct threat that someone has made. I got an answer that made no sense. The whole class was a waste of time and money. No Fire/EMS response will work if your hospitals do not have the same class and equipment (HAZMAT response and breathing apparatus). I asked if the hospitals were getting the same type of training and was told no. I also asked if there were enough breathing apparatus sets to equip every Volunteer in this county that would respond and was told no. I asked if Law Enforcement was getting this training and did they have breathing apparatus and was told no. I walked out of the class at that point and made sure to tell the instructor that this class was a farce.

-- Greg (skipy@whiners.com), August 04, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ