John Titor's Non-lethal Weapon

[Darkwolf]

JT's non lethal weopon...

There is your duty, the one you swore a oath upon. Then there is your DUTY to your fellow man, one where rights as a American given to us by the Constitution, should never be trampled upon.

They are the same duty starlord. I swore the same oath when I was commissioned that a soldier swears. To defend the CONSTITUTION from all enemies forign and domestic. Doesn't seem like much of a complicated choice.
Phil

 

[Darkwolf]

JT's non lethal weopon...

Kerry already said he values the UN Flag more than the US Flag

Unintentional,
Well there is my final choice of who not to vote for. Did he say that directly? When and where, I'd like to be able to send articles to a couple of people before the election.
Didn't Titor mention fighting UN troops a couple of times? That could very well be what makes things go down the tubes. Americans would be ruluctant to fight our own military, and hopefully vice versa. However I don't think the man on the street would have any such compunction about the Tidy bowl heads. Especially once they started raping and pillaging as UN troops are wont to do.
Phil

 

[Unintentional]

JT's non lethal weopon...

Originally posted by Darkwolf@Oct 26 2004, 08:32 PM

Kerry already said he values the UN Flag more than the US Flag

Unintentional,
Well there is my final choice of who not to vote for. Did he say that directly? When and where, I'd like to be able to send articles to a couple of people before the election.
Didn't Titor mention fighting UN troops a couple of times? That could very well be what makes things go down the tubes. Americans would be ruluctant to fight our own military, and hopefully vice versa. However I don't think the man on the street would have any such compunction about the Tidy bowl heads. Especially once they started raping and pillaging as UN troops are wont to do.
Phil

​

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1251081/posts

This quote is actually from April 17th of 1994 on CNN's Late Edition. This is back when Frank Sesno hosted the program. This is the third paragraph of the story in the Washington Post today.

\"Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.'\"

 

[Judge Bean]

JT's non lethal weopon...

Originally posted by Darkwolf@Oct 26 2004, 10:49 PM
... But you might be surprised what happens when those orders are given to local cops. Alot of us ain't any more happy with the way things are going than you are.

...aknolage the nessisety of stopping violent riots at some point. If you let them run, somone will die eventually. Usually sooner than later. Also the lives, property and livlihoods of everyone who lives and works in the area are in danger. Unfortunatly, there is not a really nice way to do that. The LA riots are an example of where the police were reluctant to stop a riot at the outset. If they had waited longer, I think that we might still be having a nation wide race war.

​

Repeatedly on these two forums I have heard the exact sentiments about the defense of the Constitution and the ultimate loyalties of soldiers and law enforcement officers as what you allude to; and I understand exactly what you mean. The government would find that Reservists, Guard, servicemen, and deputies in every county hold the same feelings, with perhaps even more conviction than is common among those whose professions do not call for carrying a gun at work.

But as for the riot situation, you need to understand that it is a primary tactic of the authorities in a politically tense moment-- such as when average people take their frustrations to the street in loud demonstrations-- to try to get people to "behave." It's called "crowd control." Why do American crowds need to be controlled? The fear is that the crowd will start wrecking property, and it often will. But the danger to property should never justify deadly force.

If you study famous modern riots closely, such as the one in Seattle a few years ago, you'll see that the crowd resorts to violence in reaction to police attitude and teargas; you trash a cruiser because of the frustration and rage at being attacked on a city street as though you are a dangerous criminal. The violence escalates until the unarmed crowd is compelled to be either brutalized or fight. The purpose of such tactics-- which are published in pamphlets for training-- is to force the crowd to submit to authority and do what it is told. Only the crowd members on the edge of the mass of people can actually flee; the rest are trapped.

What the authorities fear most of all is the spontaneity of violence, and because they are helpless against it, they accuse "organizers" of inducing it ahead of time. This is the basis of the infamous "Chicago 9" prosecution, in which they tried to prove in court that the 1968 riots were deliberately staged by Communists. The trial turned into a circus. The riot was eventually judged by history to have been a "police riot."

In Watts a few years before, the only reported deaths of looters were those who had been shot by the police; the National Guard killed scores, which anyone who worked in local courts in surrounding suburbs can verify, since the courts were used as morgues, and each one held at least as many bodies as were reported for the entire event. The Guard encountered armed civilians trying to defend their property and fought them and killed some of them. In the following summers, American cities suffered regular "race riots" involving snipers, handmade bombs, and gunfights in the streets-- I guess they'd call that a war against terrorists now, but it ought to be recognized for what it was: a race war. It ended because one side lost-- not because of expert police use of force, which was on the contrary one of the causes of the war.

What we should be most afraid of is the apparent willingness of the government nowadays to turn on its citizens in many different ways, and whether it can expect the cooperation and loyalty of its soldiers and police in suppressing freedom. I think it cannot.

 

[Timmy G]

JT's non lethal weopon...

Repeatedly on these two forums I have heard the exact sentiments about the defense of the Constitution and the ultimate loyalties of soldiers and law...<snip>....and whether it can expect the cooperation and loyalty of its soldiers and police in suppressing freedom. I think it cannot.

Hey, where's the 'Standing Ovation' smiley... its got to be here somewhere....

Very well said & I couldn't agree more.

 

[Darkwolf]

JT's non lethal weopon...

Watts a few years before, the only reported deaths of looters were those who had been shot by the police; the National Guard killed scores, which anyone who worked in local courts in surrounding suburbs can verify, since the courts were used as morgues, and each one held at least as many bodies as were reported for the entire event. The Guard encountered armed civilians trying to defend their property and fought them and killed some of them. In the following summers, American cities suffered regular \"race riots\" involving snipers, handmade bombs, and gunfights in the streets-- I guess they'd call that a war against terrorists now, but it ought to be recognized for what it was: a race war. It ended because one side lost-- not because of expert police use of force, which was on the contrary one of the causes of the war.

Actually that race war ended when the federal government passed massive welfare programs and bought them off. The violent black leaders were threatening to lead crowds of rioters into the white suburbs. If that had happened, there would have been a real race war. The government stepped in though and gave them what they wanted.

(understand I am not racist, I just have huge problems with any racially motivated movement.)

 

[Judge Bean]

JT's non lethal weopon...

Originally posted by Darkwolf@Oct 27 2004, 09:13 PM

Watts a few years before, the only reported deaths of looters were those who had been shot by the police; the National Guard killed scores, which anyone who worked in local courts in surrounding suburbs can verify, since the courts were used as morgues, and each one held at least as many bodies as were reported for the entire event. The Guard encountered armed civilians trying to defend their property and fought them and killed some of them. In the following summers, American cities suffered regular \"race riots\" involving snipers, handmade bombs, and gunfights in the streets-- I guess they'd call that a war against terrorists now, but it ought to be recognized for what it was: a race war. It ended because one side lost-- not because of expert police use of force, which was on the contrary one of the causes of the war.

Actually that race war ended when the federal government passed massive welfare programs and bought them off. The violent black leaders were threatening to lead crowds of rioters into the white suburbs. If that had happened, there would have been a real race war. The government stepped in though and gave them what they wanted.

(understand I am not racist, I just have huge problems with any racially motivated movement.)

​

No. This is not the chain of events, and it is not the motivation of the Civil Rights Act or the welfare laws. It is pernicious racism to assert that an entire race would have responded to such a thing as you suggest, or that it might be manipulated in such a way, or that it would do anything altogether as some sort of spooky lump of humanity. The people who rioted burned down their own neighborhoods, and it would be well to reflect on the level of rage and frustration necessary to burn down your own neighborhood. Justice took a left turn that month; no one was safe. America violated its promise to a sizeable portion of its citizens after a hundred years of post-slavery exploitation and oppression-- not the government alone, but "big business," Southern judges, Seattle and Detroit employers, etc.

The causes and results of the innercity riots are complex and not in the hands of any government agencies or block of like-minded rioters.

 

[Darkwolf]

JT's non lethal weopon...

No. This is not the chain of events, and it is not the motivation of the Civil Rights Act or the welfare laws. It is pernicious racism to assert that an entire race would have responded to such a thing as you suggest, or that it might be manipulated in such a way, or that it would do anything altogether as some sort of spooky lump of humanity. The people who rioted burned down their own neighborhoods, and it would be well to reflect on the level of rage and frustration necessary to burn down your own neighborhood. Justice took a left turn that month; no one was safe. America violated its promise to a sizeable portion of its citizens after a hundred years of post-slavery exploitation and oppression-- not the government alone, but \"big business,\" Southern judges, Seattle and Detroit employers, etc.

The causes and results of the innercity riots are complex and not in the hands of any government agencies or block of like-minded rioters.

Ok, I'm not saying that a whole race did anything. The leaders of the violent racially motivated movement however have proven themselves more than capable of starting a riot, or mini war as happened in watts. It only takes a comparitive few who are in controll of the information and can sway public opinion and a few crazies who are willing to start burning and shooting to get something like that started.
I aknolage that some of the people shot by the guard were probably innocent, but the majority of them were shooting at the soldiers. What do you expect to happen?
Unfortunatly the black leaders of the time were cynically using their own people to threaten the white establishment. The result, look at the time that inner city welfare started to get beg, and compare it to when the rioting and bombing stopped. Coincidence, I think not.
Unfortunatly, the us and them attitude of those who claim to speak for the minorities continues to this day. In my opinion this weakens America and puts us all in danger. It would be far better if we just said, as the majority of white America has, an american is an american. The notion of a Black America, and a White America ect needs to dissapear before the boundries become much more physical during our next period of turmoil. Their formation could be very unplesant.

Phil

 

[Judge Bean]

JT's non lethal weopon...

Originally posted by Darkwolf@Oct 29 2004, 10:21 PM

No. This is not the chain of events, and it is not the motivation of the Civil Rights Act or the welfare laws. It is pernicious racism to assert that an entire race would have responded to such a thing as you suggest, or that it might be manipulated in such a way, or that it would do anything altogether as some sort of spooky lump of humanity. The people who rioted burned down their own neighborhoods, and it would be well to reflect on the level of rage and frustration necessary to burn down your own neighborhood. Justice took a left turn that month; no one was safe. America violated its promise to a sizeable portion of its citizens after a hundred years of post-slavery exploitation and oppression-- not the government alone, but \"big business,\" Southern judges, Seattle and Detroit employers, etc.

The causes and results of the innercity riots are complex and not in the hands of any government agencies or block of like-minded rioters.

Ok, I'm not saying that a whole race did anything. The leaders of the violent racially motivated movement however have proven themselves more than capable of starting a riot, or mini war as happened in watts. It only takes a comparitive few who are in controll of the information and can sway public opinion and a few crazies who are willing to start burning and shooting to get something like that started.
I aknolage that some of the people shot by the guard were probably innocent, but the majority of them were shooting at the soldiers. What do you expect to happen?
Unfortunatly the black leaders of the time were cynically using their own people to threaten the white establishment. The result, look at the time that inner city welfare started to get beg, and compare it to when the rioting and bombing stopped. Coincidence, I think not.
Unfortunatly, the us and them attitude of those who claim to speak for the minorities continues to this day. In my opinion this weakens America and puts us all in danger. It would be far better if we just said, as the majority of white America has, an american is an american. The notion of a Black America, and a White America ect needs to dissapear before the boundries become much more physical during our next period of turmoil. Their formation could be very unplesant.

Phil

​

There have been a number of different paths taken by various Americans to get to freedom, not all above reproach, not all completely successful yet. Some reckon they are better off than others; some know they can't get justice.

There's more material to hold us together than there is the power to divide us. My advice is to choose leaders very carefully, and it's sometimes better not to have them.

 

[CaryP]

Re: JT's non lethal weopon...

Well, well, well. Look at what the U.S. military has come up with. The development of a device that "...delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed" Yeah, I can why the military would need "crowd control" devices that deliver excruciating pain to "rioters" (read demonstrators or protestors) in countries that we "liberate." They're just so happy they take to the streets like their home town had just won a major sports championship and "go crazy." LOL These boys are just too much.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7077

Maximum pain is aim of new US weapon

• ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?19:00 02 March 2005
• ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
• David Hambling

?
The US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed. But pain researchers are furious that work aimed at controlling pain has been used to develop a weapon. And they fear that the technology will be used for torture. ? ? ?\"I am deeply concerned about the ethical aspects of this research,\" says Andrew Rice, a consultant in pain medicine at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, UK. \"Even if the use of temporary severe pain can be justified as a restraining measure, which I do not believe it can, the long-term physical and psychological effects are unknown.\"

? ? ?The research came to light in documents unearthed by the Sunshine Project, an organisation based in Texas and in Hamburg, Germany, that exposes biological weapons research. The papers were released under the US's Freedom of Information Act.

? ? ?One document, a research contract between the Office of Naval Research and the University of Florida in Gainesville, US, is entitled \"Sensory consequences of electromagnetic pulses emitted by laser induced plasmas\".

? ? ?It concerns so-called Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs), which fire a laser pulse that generates a burst of expanding plasma when it hits something solid, like a person (New Scientist print edition, 12 October 2002). The weapon, destined for use in 2007, could literally knock rioters off their feet.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Pain trigger

? ? ?According to a 2003 review of non-lethal weapons by the US Naval Studies Board, which advises the navy and marine corps, PEPs produced \"pain and temporary paralysis\" in tests on animals. This appears to be the result of an electromagnetic pulse produced by the expanding plasma which triggers impulses in nerve cells.

? ? ?The new study, which runs until July and will be carried out with researchers at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, aims to optimise this effect. The idea is to work out how to generate a pulse which triggers pain neurons without damaging tissue.

? ? ?The contract, heavily censored before release, asks researchers to look for \"optimal pulse parameters to evoke peak nociceptor activation\" - in other words, cause the maximum pain possible. Studies on cells grown in the lab will identify how much pain can be inflicted on someone before causing injury or death.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Long-term risk

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? New Scientist contacted two researchers working on the project. Martin Richardson, a laser expert at the University of Central Florida, US, refused to comment. Brian Cooper, an expert in dental pain at the University of Florida, distanced himself from the work, saying \"I don't have anything interesting to convey. I was just providing some background for the group.\" His name appears on a public list of the university's research projects next to the $500,000-plus grant.

? ? ?John Wood of University College London, UK, an expert in how the brain perceives pain, says the researchers involved in the project should face censure. \"It could be used for torture,\" he says, \"the [researchers] must be aware of this.\"

? ? ?Amanda Williams, a clinical psychologist at University College London, fears that victims risk long-term harm. \"Persistent pain can result from a range of supposedly non-destructive stimuli which nevertheless change the functioning of the nervous system,\" she says. She is concerned that studies of cultured cells will fall short of demonstrating a safe level for a plasma burst. \"They cannot tell us about the pain and psychological consequences of such a painful experience.\"

?

Hmmm. I wonder if they'll find a "state side" use for this technology. Like in, you know, the National Guard in the event of "rioters" here. How about riot police? Sure would have come in handy during the RNC and all those pesky demonstrators exercising their freedom of assembly and free speech. Oops, I meant to say those "rioters disrupting the RNC." LOL They don't even care to hide this stuff anymore. Maybe they're sending "dissenters" a warning. Freakin' amazing.

Cary