DoD Training Manual: Protests are "Low-Level Terrorism" (Tea Parties? Christian fascists?)

Salon ^ | 6/14/09 | Dennis Loo

[Clintonfatigued]

THIS IS TERRORISM? They don’t even leave litter behind!!!

[penelopesire]

OMG PING!!

More proof that Obama and his marxist minions are FASCISTS!!

[metmom]

ping

[a fool in paradise]

Democrats plotted to firebomb the RNC convention in 2008 (and were CONVICTED before election day) as well as plotted to kidnap delegates.

The media covers up Left Wing hate group extremism and calls them “protesters” embracing America’s “greatest legacy, Free Speech” (except it isn’t ‘speech’ and it stifles the RIGHTS of Republicans to peacefully assemble and nominate a candidate).

[penelopesire]

We need to find out which Obama appointee in the Defense Department wrote this crap!

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

This is getting more surreal by the moment.

[cripplecreek]

They’ll claim it was a mistake.....again.

[EternalVigilance]

This is coming from Salon? Wow. You know the Obamites are over-reaching when they even offend the sensibilities of the Left. Read the first few comments there and most of them sounded downright sensible. Have we entered the Twilight Zone?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Dissent isn’t patriotic any more?

[divine_moment_of_facts]

This is getting more surreal by the moment.

Downright scary.. MAObama is the most dangerous man alive.

[xzins]

Since the purpose of the course is “Force Protection”, then I agree that “protests” are a means of low-level terrorism. They are a front for terrorist activity that can be used against the force sent to respond to them. Many times they harbor individuals looking for opportunity to harm the force.

Manuals in the army operate under the assumption that they are training for missions that are part of an Army area of interest. (For example, there is recognition that the Army is not part of our internal police force.) Also, recognize that manuals take a long period of time to be produced, so these most likely aren’t a product of the Obama administration.

If your child is in the Army in Iraq, and they are confronted in the town of Ali Baba with a mass Shi’ite protest, please select the right answer below:

a. I’m totally unconcerned.
b. These folks are just out on a romp in the city streets.
c. Gay pride parades are also big in Iraq.
d. I’d worry that a terrorist might be in the crowd looking for an opportunity that could injure my child.

[LomanBill]

The Soviets had a "DoD" too.

 

Individual members of the military industrial complex should bear in mind the purpose of American government is "To secure these rights".

 

Whether the DoD's character is American or Soviet will depend explicitly upon the decisions those Individuals choose to make.

[LomanBill]

>>They are a front for terrorist activity that can be
>>used against the force sent to respond to them.

 

Thus terrorists are effectively useful idiots in the service of those who despise the 1st amendment right to free discourse.

 

No wonder comrade ZBigniew Brzezinski thinks his creation of Al Queda under Jimmuh Carter was a wonderful trade off.

 

And guess who's a foreign policy advisor of Comrade Chairman Obama?

 

Ah what a wicked web...

[GOPJ]

Are you saying you think Bush’s people wrote it?

[penelopesire]

uhhhhh...no. I suspect it was an Obama appointment or democrat somewhere along the line. What made you think that?

[neverdem]

thanks, bfl

[Tzimisce]

...meanwhile, radical Islamists, Code Pink, and liberal nutcases can continue to shriek anti-American statements publically...

[editor-surveyor]

Remember those ‘terrorists’ that signed the Declaration of Independance? (a terrorist manifesto if I ever saw one)

[editor-surveyor]

"I wonder how many in the military know and think that it's just plain WRONG to harm or kill average American's who are just exercising their US Constitutional rights....?"

Probably all of those Midshipmen that were prohibited from wearing their swords at their commencement, for starters.

[xzins]

It is of 2001 origin with the latest update I can find in 2006. See below. The link is

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/i2000_16.pdf

This basic document is Bush Admin era. The test mentioned is not contained in the basic document...at least I can’t find it.

TITLE: DoD Instruction 2000.16, “DoD Antiterrorism (AT) Standards”, 10/2/2006; Incorporating through Change 2, December 8, 2006

SUMMARY: This Instruction:

Reissues DoD Instruction 2000.16 dated June 14, 2001 to update policy implementation, responsibilities, and the antiterrorism (AT) standards for the DoD Components under the authority of DoD Directive 2000.12 for the protection of DoD elements and personnel from acts of terrorism. This update reorganizes the AT standards listed in Enclosure 3 according to the minimum required elements for an AT program: risk management, planning, training and exercises, resource application, and comprehensive program review. It also cancels DoD Instruction 2000.14.
Expands protection of DoD installations to recognize the importance of defending against terrorist use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high explosive (CBRNE) weapons according to DoD Instruction 2000.18.

Expands requirements to DoD Instruction 5200.08 and DoD 5200.8-R (to address the linkages between AT and Physical Security Programs.

CHANGES:

Change 1, 10/31/2006
Change 2, 12/8/2006

FILES:

PDF(210 KB) RTF(953 KB)

OPR: USD(P), 703-695-5136