Troublemakers and
terrorists
In case we should
have mass protests, with street demonstrations,
shouting, placards and
slogans, we have also taken precautions.
Did you notice the
recent confrontations between the demonstrators
and the forces of law
and order on different occasions? Who is the
one who always wins and
proves himself every time to be better
organized and more
efficient?
The
protesters maintain their tactics
unchanged
and still use the means
available
to Neanderthal man:
mostly
loud shouts, sticks and stones.
Can you prevail
with these means against an organized,
trained and equipped
army, whose arsenal of conventional,
mechanical, chemical
and other (even psychological)
resources is daily
growing?
In the next clash,
the forces of law and order will be even
more impressive and
effective. As each confrontation is for
them an exercise which
builds up its military clout.
Really, how are
these conflicts caused?
Some influential
and important persons want to meet somewhere,
exchange a few words
and maybe have a quiet drink.
And the ungrateful
mob, though it should know
that they work hard for
its wellbeing, gathers outside,
makes a racket, doesn't
let them think in peace and spoils
their appetite, if not their
digestion.
But I wonder. Why
are these meetings necessary?
Haven't their
secretaries thoroughly edited everything and already
discussed the slightest
detail?
With today's
telecommunication facilities, if eight (or eighty, it is the
same thing) important
people want to communicate with each other,
must they wait a year
to be in the same room together?
Don't they have
phones?
Don't they
communicate daily with image and sound?
Don't they
exchange fax and e-mails incessantly?
Don't they use
video conferencing?
Do they really
need to be in the same room to communicate with each other?
Why should they
meet anyway?
Is it to cause
riots, to break windows and open heads?
Unless of course
the riots have their usefulness and therefore are welcome.
On the one hand
the security forces exercise in real action, each time
testing the
effectiveness of their new weapons and their advanced strategy,
and on the other hand
the rioters are taught that they have no hope of
succeeding ever.
In the event that
the protesters are stupid enough to use force,
we have also made
provision for some time.
We
have explained systematically for years
(long
before the providential 9. 11. 2001),
and
all mankind believes it, that there is no
greater
threat than terrorism.
So we have the
right to remove immediately anyone who opposes
us in this way, if
needed by a drone attack of surgical accuracy.
Notwithstanding
the fact that terrorist attacks
are doing nothing but
good to us and therefore,
we
should wish them to continue or to provoke them.
Whoever expresses
his objection
by dynamite has no
chance.
He is condemned as
a terrorist,
isolated and completely
eliminated.
If the opposition
starts to become even louder,
say at state level,
then we will send the B-2s,
we offer them a
humanitarian bombing and we have
all the benefits seen
so far from the liberation wars.