It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Even if one out of every four Marines would shoot American citizens, what this survey revealed was

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: crustyjuggler27

Exactly! It would be such a one-sided war. Anyone the citizens should be worried about would be on their side anyways. No worries America, this vet has your back as I'm sure 99.99% do.




posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The lengths people in uniform will go to follow orders is astounding.

I have a feeling we'll have plenty of boys and girls in green firing on their own brothers and sisters if told to.

"I was only following orders and General ____ said these American citizens are just "zombies" or dangerous to the American public so we had to kill them."

Are they protecting the American people or are their shiny weapons of destruction protecting the ones who oppress us (and ultimately use our "armed forces")?



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Glassbender777




Im going Gorilla style tactics on whomever is violating my rights.


I don't think throwing poop and stompin your chest will impress them.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I do not believe that most would fire on citizens if asked straight up like that...or told shoot that man soldier right now!!! Sure some would without hesitation , which is sad, but that will be mainly the younger guys.

But this is not how it will be done, and what should scare most people...TDawg even said as much. I have asked military folks before about this, and almost all to a man said , they would not fire ...BUT...every last one said they would if fired upon which includes if they heard that they fired upon soldiers...so that means all they have to do is trick the soldiers or just lie...See those guys behind the jeeps and trucks with rifles in their hands?? They are confirmed homegrown terrorists that took out an entire squad an hour ago for no reason what so ever when asked to disarm and leave the area. Add in another story or 2 of terrible acts/lies they committed..They say they will not give up so you have shoot to kill orders. Or simply have just 1 soldier pop off a shot in the group and more than likely the civilians will fire back, just like you soldiers, can you blame them if fired upon??

This is what people on both sides should consider...so I leave it in your court soldiers, be smart and know the odds of a group of regular citizens standing up for their rights have NEVER just fired upon a squad of soldiers before in America, it makes no since...you would have to be seen as the aggressor for this to happen so do the right thing and ask the right questions is all I ask.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: johnb

In defense of Marines (or any others in uniform), I believe they are not all numb-skulls deserving of others (especially civilians) giving preemptive accusations of their possible reaction to a dangerous, tumultuous (home soil) event. We are talking about a SERIOUS shtf scenerio...

In theory (and as specifically trained to react by the book) I'd expect Marines to react as Marshals of peace as calm, coordinated, CONSTITUTION-wise as possible. We can only assume such a calamity such as a huge natural disaster, an extreme pandemic or acts of terrorism etc (or some even claim the 'zombie apocalypse') would cause not just marines but everyone to behave irrationally.

In those cases, after initial panic has subsided, the only remnants of sanity that would bind any group (marines included) for the common good so to speak, is one that has cause to upkeep the basic need for constitutional values (in which they have taken oath to) and to possibly have to peg-off those who are behaving 'unAmerican'. Perhaps that is their yet unknown burden of service. Being themselves judge and jury, doubtful but by leaders? perhaps.

What constitutes as behaving American nowadays is a far cry from the USMC formed in the 1770's but I sure can hope that it doesn't include any likness to Kardashians or the Honey-Boo Boo clans of today.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: johnb

Some would fire on citizens and some wouldn’t. Most prob will not follow that order though. That’s why they will bring in the UN or some other force.

But the second the powers ordered all Americans to turn in there weapons militias would be called up and we would start the guerilla warfare.

Militias would raid confiscation locations and supply depots securing more weapons and supplies. It would be a nightmare for any military.

Just think in one major city there would probably be 25 to 100 locations were they would tell you to bring your guns. Militias would just choose the weakest ones with the best advantages for the Militias and they would hit them hard and fast then blend right back in with the civilian population. Even hit several places at the same time.

It would literally be a logistical nightmare to try and secure and oppress an armed population.

That’s why I think they will use Nukes or bio weapons on us or use a world war to thin out our numbers...



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Glassbender777

Like this:
www.bob-owens.com...



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: HappyThoughts
a reply to: Glassbender777








Im going Gorilla style tactics on whomever is violating my rights.




I don't think throwing poop and stompin your chest will impress them.



Had to laugh at that one, you got me there. LOL but seriously though, Gorilla tactics, hasworked for the other side very very well, it worked during the Revolutionary war, Thats what caught the English by suprise.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Glassbender777



Like this:

www.bob-owens.com...



Exactly, the government may want to do a gun grab, but the millions that do not comply, and maybe out of those 40,000 to 100,000 may wish a rebellion, or lone wolf tactics. It would not be as easy as the government likes to think it would.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Would a civilian outfit that was tasked to serve the public fire on its civilian population? Ony if it were a grave emergency, such as a person with excessive unpaid parking tickets, a septuagenarian reaching for his cane, a kid with a game controller in hand, a man sitting in his yard watering his lawn, or such heinous lawbreakers and degenerates as that. This is the case now when no urgencies exist but we might expect in troubled times of catastrophic events it's possible that all may escalate somewhat. In all, the average law-abiding joe-citizen should have nothing to worry about, should he?


edit on 5-11-2014 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: HappyThoughts
a reply to: Glassbender777




Im going Gorilla style tactics on whomever is violating my rights.


I don't think throwing poop and stompin your chest will impress them.


I pretty sure he ment guerilla tactics instead of gorilla tactics.

Peace.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
me thinks Blackwater would step up to the task
of takin out Americans...



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
All it takes is for the right conditions to exist. Those conditions can be manufactured with great ease.

If you think it didn't almost happen at the Bundy Ranch, you weren't watching. Had those militia guys shot even one LEO ... the military 'might' have been summoned to deal with them.

All it takes is for one 'armed force' to square off against another. The government's reputation, at any level, will not be put at risk. And, while the use of combat soldiers on American citizens may reside at the pinnacle of last resort ... no one has ever heard a recent government proclamation removing that as an option from the table.

If you think it won't (or can't) happen ... you are being willfully naïve.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: crustyjuggler27
a reply to: amicktd

you sound like a vet. as a veteran of the Marines i can tell you that this subject has come up in the field when we were bored of talking about dicks and boobs. no one i have ever served with was anything but steadfast against shooting our citizens. we swore to defend the constitution, most would rather war with the politicians who issued the order. god bless america


Everyone says that, but such a thing wouldn't be presented that way. If a group of armed US citzens... lets say 5000 people form up a rebellion and aim to forcefully march their way across the country, meet up in Washington DC, and put their own people in charge of the government... would you let them do it?

How about if 100,000 people all US citizens took over a city, declared secession from the US and implemented martial law as well as their own government in the area?

Would you fire upon either of those groups?



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I think most of them would shoot if it came down to self preservation. if they felt that their lives were in danger from a mob of unruly citizens they would shoot to save their own life, just as most of us would.
That`s how the military will get troops to fire on civilians, by putting them in situations in which their lives are in danger and it`s kill or be killed.
one way the military could accomplish this is by sending small groups of troops out to confront massive mobs of rioters or unruly civilians. doing that would guarantee that the troops would be put in a situation in which they feared for their lives.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
The corporate owned MSM could increase those figures with clever propaganda.
Like these people need to get back to work and only need to shine a light on one incident out of a million people to tarnish the image like one person crapping on a cop car as an example.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: johnb

I remember reading that paper back in the 90's. I came across it while looking over some work on PTSD, and was rather saddened by it, at least at first. It brought up that question of do you actually have free will when following orders. It is always disheartening to think that someone's soul can be bought out, or programmed away. The truth is, most psychologists would agree that the answers used for this paper were not relevant as the soldier was not actually facing this situation. There is a big divide between saying you can kill, and actually pulling the trigger. Bravado and the lemming nature of the "I like to kill" folks is a sign of immaturity at best and psychosis at worse, and will forever be present in any army, police force. There will always be bad guys, and there will always be sheep, but the measure of morality has a way of coming to the surface, especially when an individual has been exposed to war.

I think for a lot of us die hard conspiracy theorists, who have been watching the seedy ploys of these elitist geo-political gangsters, know that the true reason behind the decade+ war in the middle east was not just to bleed the country financially dry, but to decimate the American forces through attrition. Patriotism and love for country were so well developed prior to and in the months after 9/11, that a long unending war was the best way to kill off the best of us, and nurture the deranged. That is why the veterans are considered so dangerous now. These are able, seasoned warriors, who know the vile nature of war, and just want to make their home a safe place so that maybe their kids can enjoy a life. They would be the first to oppose tyranny, and can actually see the beauty of the constitution. A document written by great minds, who realized war and wealth were not the foundations of a happy people.

In other words, this report fails to take into account the development of character, and the true nature of honour.

AX
FTNWO



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: AlphaExray

I sooo agree with you there




I think for a lot of us die hard conspiracy theorists, who have been watching the seedy ploys of these elitist geo-political gangsters, know that the true reason behind the decade+ war in the middle east was not just to bleed the country financially dry, but to decimate the American forces through attrition. Patriotism and love for country were so well developed prior to and in the months after 9/11, that a long unending war was the best way to kill off the best of us, and nurture the deranged.


I believe there is more to it than that, but you are on the right track. This is not the first time a supposed 'thriving' country has sought out other land. Did we ignore the fact that (once these countries discovered their wealth in oil) they became very fertile properties? Is this the first time that a land (and it's peoples) has been invaded by armies with more armament? Why do people assume that this place is a desert, no life? no worthy lives, no water--all desolate?


That is why the veterans are considered so dangerous now. These are able, seasoned warriors, who know the vile nature of war, and just want to make their home a safe place so that maybe their kids can enjoy a life. They would be the first to oppose tyranny, and can actually see the beauty of the constitution. A document written by great minds, who realized war and wealth were not the foundations of a happy people. In other words, this report fails to take into account the development of character, and the true nature of honour.
I

Which brings me back to my point that THUS far that ALL branches of the uniformed services have been trained according to the oaths they took under the Constitution. Those OATHS have been implanted in their minds. Not to mention their moral/cultural and possibility of military the generational USofA soup-bowl that they may or may not have had longstanding and deep roots dug. These types do NOT stray from the unity (of country, countrymen or the premise OF).

Thus why the previous (to this) poster's comments about Blackwater (an other private security firms) make more sense. Those a$$hls work for profit and are likely NEVER devout to ANY nation unless they receive funds. These rogues are the MORE likely to rid of a Marine, vs any USMC member or retired being such an enemy of the union.




They would be the first to oppose tyranny, and can actually see the beauty of the constitution. A document written by great minds, who realized war and wealth were not the foundations of a happy people.



I agree.



There will always be bad guys, and there will always be sheep, but the measure of morality has a way of coming to the surface, especially when an individual has been exposed to war


Yep. This reaction will happen and show reaction in everyone. The real stigma for their own conscience is how they deal with it at the time--and that is unknown. A yet to see. Yet if I do see it...I'd rather have a Marine take me down before I'd let some buckshot from some traitor who'd sell his own sister for a pair of designer sunglasses. I'd come back to get the Marine...even from hell, I'd take that Marine by the hand up to Jesus Himself.

so I will repeat your very vital, virile and valid points of importance:



They would be the first to oppose tyranny, and can actually see the beauty of the constitution. A document written by great minds, who realized war and wealth were not the foundations of a happy people.


pure poetry.


edit on 6-11-2014 by dianashay because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Troops from most countries are more likely to joing unarmed citizens when order to fire on them. We have seen this just recently in Libya and Syria. However, if the some of the crowd is armed militia idiots and that start flashing weapons then all bets are off. Shots fired is going to mean shots returned and then some. It is ironic that armed citizens would be the biggest threat to any uprising.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
Troops from most countries are more likely to joing unarmed citizens when order to fire on them. We have seen this just recently in Libya and Syria. However, if the some of the crowd is armed militia idiots and that start flashing weapons then all bets are off. Shots fired is going to mean shots returned and then some. It is ironic that armed citizens would be the biggest threat to any uprising.


It all depends on which side appears to be just. Rising up from oppression to take down a totalitarian regime has a different connotation and a different meaning to those in the military than a group of armed anti government rebels even though they're both in essence the same thing. The underlying reasons as to why you're opposing the government are very important in an uprising.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join