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.

 

Why Revolution Inside USA Is A Strategical Mistake

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: rupertg

You DO know what happened immediately AFTER the French Revolution occurred right?

Reign of Terror


The Reign of Terror (5 September 1793 – 28 July 1794),[1] also known as The Terror (French: la Terreur), was a period of violence that occurred after the onset of the French Revolution, incited by conflict between rival political factions, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution". The death toll ranged in the tens of thousands, with 16,594 executed by guillotine (2,639 in Paris),[2] and another 25,000 in summary executions across France.[3]


Napoleonic Wars


The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) were a series of wars between Napoleon's French Empire and a series of opposing coalitions. As a continuation of the wars sparked by the French Revolution of 1789, they revolutionized European armies and played out on an unprecedented scale, mainly owing to the application of modern mass conscription. French power rose quickly as Napoleon's armies conquered much of Europe. Roberts says that Napoleon fought 60 battles, losing only seven, mostly at the end.[19] The great French dominion collapsed rapidly after the disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812. Napoleon was defeated in 1814; he returned and was finally defeated in 1815 at Waterloo, and all France's gains were taken away by the victors.


It's so nice to romanticize about the French Revolution, but most people have no idea what that actually entails.




posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   


Why Revolution Inside USA Is A Strategical Mistake


A revolution would take leaders and structure. The only people capable of that are the ones with a gang mentality, like the Hells Angles, Mongols, Pagans, etc. and I doubt if they will ever stop fighting among them selves.

So where would the leaders of a revolution come from in a nation full of drunks and NFL addicts?

Revolutions are started by hungry people not sloth pirates.
edit on 21-1-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

NOT as funny as those who don't check the CENSUS...quickfacts.census.gov...
MAYBE in 2040 ...not now.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
HORRIBLE idea by the way.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Exactly!

Maybe we just need a social revolution instead of a bloody one. OBVIOUSLY we need a plan and nobody sitting here is going to give us one haha... What do you think we all do for a living, we all military generals here planning the revolution?

No! All we know is that we are fed up and NEED change!! The revolution ain't gonna happen overnight and how dare you shoot down people who only want to change this country for the better- just because they don't have a good plan. Ffs guys

a reply to: dezertdog



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Not every revolution is a shoot-em-up bang-bang though.

Revolutions come in lots of flavors. Tech revolutions. Consciousness revolutions. Green revolutions. Bloody military takeovers. Wait....



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
BUT...
your collective BUTTS better be ready if the FED has OTHER IDEAS right?



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Silicis n Volvo
Why does your post completely stink of pompus arrogance?

The US government along with the UK's are corrupt to the very core. Keeping them in power means enslaving yourself and your children for generations to come.

Doing nothing because of an absurd fear of China and Russia invading is moronic!

I'm not scared that a revolution will leave us open to invasion. I'm scared that no revolution will leave me living a restricted life on a polluted planet working to make other people rich while I just get by.

Your entire theory is crackpot! And you are completely unaware of just how corrupt things are.

The US has its flaws?? HA! Here is the award for understatement of the day!


Seriously if it wasn't you who made this thread I would think the OP was trolling


Let me present to you a counter proposal. Lets say we have a revolution and that the revolutionaries win. What person or group of people in the US right now are capable of providing us with a new document on par with the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Considering that we only have that document due to legal precedent and that both sides have their own clauses they would like to be rid of, I propose that we are better off as we are because the ideologues we have who would lead a revolution are incapable of providing better.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

If there were to be a rebellion in the US the only way to accomplish it is with fertilizer and diesel IED's and snipers. Essentially, roadside bombs to kill civilians while your snipers take out people of interest (cops, bankers, and so on). A rebellion would have to be a guerrilla war against the people and not against the government. This would create a police state that many would not be content with, which would be the source of many protests and large economic losses. After a period of years officials would eventually be elected that would end things by offering up concessions and taking away the reason for rebellion.
edit on 21-1-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: rupertg
I think it's time the masses revolted and killed off the wealthy elite. As if it were the French Revolution or a Michael Bay film.



Billionaire's get beheaded during the revolution. Millionaire's rent out the town square for the beheading.



If you think the arrogant wealthy will be sticking around while any fighting is going on, then think again.

They will just go to another country and live the good life, while the barbarians fight it out, transfer of funds and such. . . .

After the fighting is over they will return to take over again with thier own private armies and live like modern day egomaniac arsehole kings. . . .
edit on 21-1-2015 by FormOfTheLord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
If there is a 'revolution' inside the United States, it will not be a conventional war, not even like Syria. Any revolution will be fought by small cells in local conflicts. There will not be a 'standing' 'rebel army' vs. the 'government' army. There are to many people in this country for a full scale internal war. Because of this reason, it will not 'weaken' the US like you are saying. They are not going to pull the 12th Marines from Okinawa to fight rebels in say Colorado thereby weakening our presences in the Pacific that makes the Chinese decide to invade Taiwan. Rebels here in the states aren't going to try to invade and take over Miramar in California as a strategic target. The way I see it going down is through attacks by rebels on DHS or ATF or NSA targets and threatening more attacks if the government doesn't do XYZ and the US government responding by raiding suspected 'rebel' facilities, arms caches, etc.

In my opinion, THAT is how a 'revolution' in America would go down. Rebels won't be attacking infrastructure to weaken the "US War Machine", and obviously the government isn't going to be attacking 'infrastructure' of the 'rebels'. Think something along the lines of what happened in Ireland, albeit on a much larger scale due to America's numbers, prevalence of gun ownership among the American population and sheer size of America compared to Ireland.

My 2 cents.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

If there were to be a rebellion in the US the only way to accomplish it is with fertilizer and diesel IED's and snipers. Essentially, roadside bombs to kill civilians while your snipers take out people of interest (cops, bankers, and so on). A rebellion would have to be a guerrilla war against the people and not against the government. This would create a police state that many would not be content with, which would be the source of many protests and large economic losses. After a period of years officials would eventually be elected that would end things by offering up concessions and taking away the reason for rebellion.



Why would an anti-government group attack American civilians? They are not Al-Queda trying to kill non-believers, they are a group that is growing more and more concerned with where the country is ultimately going, that is the fault of Politicians, who, a select few would be targets of such aggression. It would be attacks on the enforcement arm of the US government (as in my previous post, ATF, FBI, NSA, etc.)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258
If there is a 'revolution' inside the United States, it will not be a conventional war, not even like Syria. Any revolution will be fought by small cells in local conflicts. There will not be a 'standing' 'rebel army' vs. the 'government' army. There are to many people in this country for a full scale internal war. Because of this reason, it will not 'weaken' the US like you are saying. They are not going to pull the 12th Marines from Okinawa to fight rebels in say Colorado thereby weakening our presences in the Pacific that makes the Chinese decide to invade Taiwan. Rebels here in the states aren't going to try to invade and take over Miramar in California as a strategic target. The way I see it going down is through attacks by rebels on DHS or ATF or NSA targets and threatening more attacks if the government doesn't do XYZ and the US government responding by raiding suspected 'rebel' facilities, arms caches, etc.



In my opinion, THAT is how a 'revolution' in America would go down. Rebels won't be attacking infrastructure to weaken the "US War Machine", and obviously the government isn't going to be attacking 'infrastructure' of the 'rebels'. Think something along the lines of what happened in Ireland, albeit on a much larger scale due to America's numbers, prevalence of gun ownership among the American population and sheer size of America compared to Ireland.



My 2 cents.



Be aware that the 2nd amendment may be removed with the stroke of a pen, there just needs to be a reason in place like some terror attack or false flag. . . . .

Most may hand in thier guns. . . .

However some may not and be branded as revolutionaries. . .





Enjolras:
It is time for us all
To decide who we are...
Do we fight for the right
To a night at the opera now?
Have you asked of yourselves
What's the price you might pay?
Is it simply a game
For rich young boys to play?
The colors of the world
Are changing
Day by day...
Red - the blood of angry men!
Black - the dark of ages past!
Red - a world about to dawn!
Black - the night that ends at last!

Marius:
Had you been there tonight
You might know how it feels
To be struck to the bone
In a moment of breathless delight!
Had you been there tonight
You might also have known
How the world may be changed
In just one burst of light!
And what was right
Seems wrong
And what was wrong
Seems right...

Grantaire: [mocking...]
Red...

Marius:
I feel my soul on fire!

Grantaire:
Black...

Marius:
My world if she's not there...

All:
Red...

Marius:
The color of desire!

All:
Black...

Marius:
The color of despair!

Enjolras:
Marius, you're no longer a child
I do not doubt you mean it well
But now there is a higher call
Who cares about your lonely soul
We strive toward a larger goal
Our little lives don't count at all!

All:
Red - the blood of angry men!
Black - the dark of ages past!
Red - a world about to dawn!
Black - the night that ends at last!

Enjolras:
Well, Courfeyrac, do we have all the guns?
Feuilly, Combeferre, our time is running short.

Gavroche:
Listen!

Enjolras:
Grantaire, put the bottle down!
Do we have the guns we need?

Gavroche:
Listen to me!

Grantaire:
Give me brandy on my breath
And I'll breath 'em all to death!

Gavroche:
Listen everybody!
Listen up!

Gavroche:
General Lamarque
Is dead!

Enjolras:
Lamarque is dead...
Lamarque! His death is the hour of fate.
The people's man...
His death is the sign we await!
On his funeral day they will honor his name.
With the light of rebellion, a blaze in their eyes.
From the candles of grief we will kindle our flame!
On the tomb of Lamarque shall the barricade rise!
The time is here!
Let us welcome it gladly with courage and cheer
Let us take to the streets with no doubt in our hearts
But a jubilant shout
They will come one and all
They will come when we call!



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258
Why would an anti-government group attack American civilians? They are not Al-Queda trying to kill non-believers, they are a group that is growing more and more concerned with where the country is ultimately going, that is the fault of Politicians, who, a select few would be targets of such aggression. It would be attacks on the enforcement arm of the US government (as in my previous post, ATF, FBI, NSA, etc.)


Because we are the only targets. Unless you propose that they would instead assassinate government officials, the only violent rebellion possible is against the people in order to cause economic losses and a police state to show how bad the government is. Bombing government buildings and military bases doesn't work very well and that's the alternative. You're far more likely to see Eric Frein style rebellion with each acting individually. On a large scale that will overwhelm the authorities and people will get away to commit followup attacks.

Edit: As a followup, ask yourself this. If you wanted to shut down commerce in a city (or the entire country) in order to cause economic damage costing the government billions of dollars how many roadside IED's would you have to detonate before people start avoiding the roads? I don't think it would be very many. I bet NYC would be brought to a complete standstill for 2-4 weeks with 10 or fewer bombs scattered over a week.
edit on 21-1-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Be aware that the 2nd amendment may be removed with the stroke of a pen, there just needs to be a reason in place like some terror attack or false flag. . . . .

Most may hand in thier guns. . . .


There is zero point in removing the 2nd amendment. It's not even a question of if we should have it or not. 3d printing means that within a few years we are all going to have the ability to create our own firearms.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

There may be a time when the cure is worse than the disease. Who cares if we are competitive with China if that means I have to live in a country that is as oppressive as China?

Let's be clear. I am not talking open revolution at the moment, but if we ever got to a point where they were rounding up entire groups of citizens and shipping them off to camps in cattle cars would you still say it was worth not revolting just to maintain competitiveness with China?



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Be aware that the 2nd amendment may be removed with the stroke of a pen, there just needs to be a reason in place like some terror attack or false flag. . . . .

Most may hand in thier guns. . . .


There is zero point in removing the 2nd amendment. It's not even a question of if we should have it or not. 3d printing means that within a few years we are all going to have the ability to create our own firearms.




I think quite the opposite there is every reason to end the 2nd amendment, no 2nd amendment means there will never ever be a revolt. Meaning the power that be will stay in power and have nothing to fear from the public ever again, all positives from thier point of view, and no negatives other than a few angry Americans who refuse to give up thier weapons. They would most likely be labeled terrorists and enemies of the states.
Just look at how the rest of the world views Americans right to bear arms, they all think Americans are crazy, they think the founding fathers were crazy too.

Yes losing the 2nd amendment will be the end any chance to ever revolt with anything other than farm tools and kitchen knives. Government doesnt want the people to revolt ever!
Some believe we dont deserve to have the right to revolt. . . .
That no one should be able to rebel!
So they have every reason to take that ability away from the people.

Lets not forget police are militarizing, and there seems to be a growing distaste for police officers. . . .
The actual chance of winning a revolt is a small one. . . .

So I really dont see a reason for the government to not take the guns away, other than the blow back they will get from the public, which they most likely consider a minor setback to victory.


However with a good well planned false flag/revolt/terrorist attack the people will just hand those guns on in without too much of a fuss.
Various states may declare gun free zones for citizens who want no guns in thier areas. . . .


Of course people will aways have guns, but it will be government people and police officers in a hypothetical no 2nd amendment USA.

edit on 22-1-2015 by FormOfTheLord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The constitution was written so that the people could over throw their government at any point in time, it's why they have 2nd amendment in there. If government gets uh.. out of line then "we" have the same "resources" as the folks they are trying to "over throw". All hypothetically of course


It doesn't have to be violent. All it takes is for people to start protesting en masse in Washington DC.

You would only need about 7-10% of population too. 30 Million pissed people marching in DC would change things quick. Oh well, one can dream I suppose.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I think you're missing the point. I actually support the Second Amendment, my problem with the amendment is that it doesn't go far enough, and I think that issue is a completely unworkable issue as it's currently written. Lets start with personal guns:

Gun control is pointless at this point. In 5 to 10 years we will all have access to affordable 3d printers that can create lethal weapons. They won't be of the highest quality but they'll get the job done. Part of my background is in 3d modeling. I can model any firearm I want and put it on the internet in any format I want from a .MB file hosted on a filehost to a text file on Github that's copied back into a .MA. I could display the text for a copy/paste on a webpage or I could take the route of PGP using my right to free speech and print a book with attached OCR software to scan in the pages and create the file on your computer.

The data cannot be contained, which means everyone has access to the models and the printers. This means we all have access to custom guns, as well as custom knives.

Now lets look at the reality of an armed rebellion. Individuals have weapons and a few hundred to a thousand rounds. We have some nice weapons but only the ones allowed to be sold to the public. There is an arms gap between civilians, military, and law enforcement. They get nicer guns. On top of that they get better body armor, APCs for transit, and Tanks. They also have chemical weapons that can be used to disable you. That's just the ground difference. US Citizens may not own armed fighter jets, and if we could they wouldn't have modern weapon systems, and their flight computers would be incapable of targeting US aircraft (restrictions we impose when we sell our fighters to other nations). Therefore we have no air force. Without secure skies a rebellion will face 24/7 drone surveillance and attacks. Bombers can destroy anything of use. Next comes the supply lines, with the US Navy having nothing better to do, they will stop all naval shipments sent for a rebellion by ocean. The only remaining options are direct support from Canada and Mexico, both allies of the US Government.

On top of this, think of combat scenarios. If you wound one of them, that person goes to the hospital for treatment, that hospital is well supplied, the wounded person has a high chance of living. If they wound one of you, you have little medical treatment. Recovery (if it happens) will be slow, and the wounded person will be out of the fight. You have no official medical treatment options, and if you go to one, you will be detained/arrested and out of the fight.

Guns are not the weapons that matter today, aside from Eric Frein style shootings or other assassinations by a guerrilla force they are largely useless as a tool for rebellion. The weapons that matter today are cyber and financial weapons. The ability to break into a bank and remove billions of dollars, or the ability to hack a movie studio and cost them 20 billion in revenue. Alternatively, you break into the accounts of a senator and start collecting blackmail material forcing them out of office. These are the weapons of today that can change a government as there isn't a significant technology gap. Cyber weapons and encryption are what you want.

Alternatively, you scare the people with widespread violence. Diesel Fuel and Amonium Nitrate on a cell phone detonator. Start blowing these up on school busses as they're returning kids home. Or do a bunch of them to parked cars in NYC during a week. It would cost you $10,000 and cause 10 billion in damage. As we've seen in most of the worlds criminal justice systems, hitting a persons pocketbook is the best way to change their behavior. The same is true of nations, and it's what made OBL so effective. He made a career out of using low amounts of money to cause high amounts of damage... hitting the pocketbook.

If people were going to rebel these are the types of actions they could take, and most of them don't require guns at all. Guns only serve to protect yourself on an individual level these days, they don't have the power to change a government. A nation that turned in all of their guns could still do everything I just said and be effective at doing it.

So I'll repeat, I like what the 2nd Amendment stands for, but I very much disagree with standing in front of it and protecting it at the expense of everything else. The idea is that without the second all of the others vanish. To which I'll counter that we have the 2nd right now and all the rest are vanishing before our eyes. Guns don't protect your rights, being politically active does.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: cenpuppie
The constitution was written so that the people could over throw their government at any point in time, it's why they have 2nd amendment in there. If government gets uh.. out of line then "we" have the same "resources" as the folks they are trying to "over throw". All hypothetically of course



That's the thing. You do not have the same resources. The 2nd amendment gives you a right to weapons but it does not give you equality in weapons. Your handgun or your hunting rifle is completely worthless against a tank, or a fighter jet with a guided missile, or a carrier group. These are all arms that no one has access to due to cost.

Kind of like, you have the right to life but if you're too poor to afford water... too bad. You're too poor to afford the weapon systems necessary to compete, guess you should have been more responsible and obtained the $50 million for a fighter jet if you wanted to stand up to the government.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join