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.

 

Missouri National Guard's term for Ferguson protesters: 'Enemy forces'

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: soulshn

Yes, it is disturbing. On the one hand, it seems logical that a military force, which the National Guard is, would think in terms of "enemy forces." But it's not harmless by any means. The American people are not the enemy. Not even the looters, arsonists, and other rabble rousers. We hire, train and pay our National Guardsmen to protect us and the Constitution, and the includes our right to peaceably protest. Those who commit crimes are criminals, not enemies, and retain their right to due process. In theory at least, as the protectors and defenders of the Constitution, their job is to protect and defend the peaceable protestors from the agent provocateurs and others -- including elected officials and bureaucrats.

There was good reason for posse comitatus laws, as the founding fathers well knew.


As someone asked above - If states secede, are the citizens therein still Americans?




posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: soulshn

When you have a large group of people burning stores, stealing from stores, injuring people, firing weapons, what would you suggest they refer to them as?


Criminals; with rights to due process under the law.

There is no good reason to brand all protesters with the same criminal brush. We know that there were many agent provacateurs present in Ferguson to exploit the situation for their own self-serving purposes. We know that only a very small percentage of the total number of protesters engaged in criminal activity. We also know that very few of those arrested were residents of Ferguson -- or even residents of Missouri.

The right to peaceably protest is an inalienable right. It is the job of the National Guard to fulfill their oath to protect and defend our rights... NOT to wage war on "enemy forces," playing judge-jury-executioner without benefit of due process.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I have scarcely discussed the rioters, which is why I have not had need of a distinction. My concern is for the rights of protesters, not the rights of rioters.

As LDragonFire has mentioned, the police seemed to be holding back the general public while the rioters ran amok- in some cases videos even showed what appeared to be cops starting fires.

I think the lack of distinction was in fact between the authorities and the rioters- I believe that most of the violence carried out against the community in Ferguson was the doing of outsiders who shared the goals of the authorities- to turn national public opinion against the community that was calling for accountability and to pressure that community into asking for the police to use violence in their defense. It was a protection shakedown on some people who were balking at the price they'd been paying in blood.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Black people are being used. Just think of all that lovely animosity, so much opportunity.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: The Vagabond

If it were only protests, then I think any call for the National Guard would be seen as heavy-handed.

But it wasn't just protests.

The fires set, the looting, the harm caused to other civilians, I think that's why the National Guard was called.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Very true. The problem is that the definition of enemy for those troops was not confined to or even centered on those engaged in violence, but encompassed the entire dissenting portion of the public.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

As someone asked above - If states secede, are the citizens therein still Americans?


Of course they are -- they still live in North America. Are they still citizens of the USA? I guess that would depend on who wins the ensuing war, eh? Until then, those seceding would obviously say no, since that is the point and definition of seceding... And the federal government would say yes, and no doubt exert their authority and war powers.

Why do you ask? Did Missouri secede? How is this relevant to the thread topic?



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: beezzer

Very true. The problem is that the definition of enemy for those troops was not confined to or even centered on those engaged in violence, but encompassed the entire dissenting portion of the public.


Sadly, rioters don't wear uniforms. Neither do peaceful protestors.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Right on target again, hence the difficulty with declaring who the enemy is and trying to contain them based not on their actions but merely their presence. Order could be restored with a greater economy of force if they defined their mission as locating and intervening against hostile acts rather than as "fixing" the general public as if they were the enemy. (Fixing in military terms being engaging the enemy so as to keep them in position to be destroyed by a different attack- which describes the relationship between the authorities and the rioters acting in concert against a community that undertook peaceful protest)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: soulshn

Do i approve of it? No...for obvious reasons.

Do I understand what is going on? Certainly. They aren't cops. They are military. Military, for right or wrong, understands one concept when it comes to operations: force.

Everything about the way the operation is delivered will contain elements of force. Right down to the initial "show of force" (rolling in some hardware and a bunch of soldiers).

Imagine you were to go into the NYPD with the edict of, "Go after serious crime, ignore your stats", you would have an entire command have their head explode trying to wrap their mind around that notion. Same with the military. "Force" is their operative word.

With that in mind: any civilians still in the streets when our military rolls up on them best remember The Whiskey Rebellion. Not saying you don't have a right to protest....but if the military gets spooked it could get really ugly.

Not that any of the guard have an interest in violent conflict. Like i said at first: show of force is how it starts. Escalation is on the "enemy" to introduce.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
All of this talk of 2nd amendment, trying to twist it into your right to fight the national guard...this is all bull#. The national guard is not your enemy, the national guard will not get to you to help you in time, that is when you will need to exercise your 2nd amendment. The national guard will be used to eventually restore order, but during that chaos when government cannot help you, you have your God given and Constitutional right to bear arms in your own defense.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: ketsuko

As someone asked above - If states secede, are the citizens therein still Americans?


Of course they are -- they still live in North America. Are they still citizens of the USA? I guess that would depend on who wins the ensuing war, eh? Until then, those seceding would obviously say no, since that is the point and definition of seceding... And the federal government would say yes, and no doubt exert their authority and war powers.

Why do you ask? Did Missouri secede? How is this relevant to the thread topic?


I ask because if a state were to seceded, if is almost certain that the state in question would not be allowed to go peacefully. It is also certain that those whose state does secede may very well be thinking of their state (and any others who go along) as the preservation/restoration/establishment of America however/whoever these states might be. They would call themselves Americans.

And the Nat. guard and military would almost certainly be operating against them as enemies.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The national guard is not your enemy


Then why are we having this discussion? The national guard called the people their enemy. The enemy of my enemy's enemy is my enemy.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko


I ask because if a state were to seceded, if is almost certain that the state in question would not be allowed to go peacefully.



Yeah, that's pretty much a given.

It is also certain that those whose state does secede may very well be thinking of their state (and any others who go along) as the preservation/restoration/establishment of America however/whoever these states might be.


I don't know why they would "secede" then, since by definition it means leaving the union, necessitating the formation of a new nation and/or union. Those who want to preserve/restore/establish organic law and Constitutional law as the US of A would not secede, but work within that framework of Constitional powers and rights, including state nullification and the amendment process.


They would call themselves Americans.


Well, I guess they can call themselves whatever they want under those circumstances. But they would no longer be part of the USA.

And the Nat. guard and military would almost certainly be operating against them as enemies.

Yeah, that's a given.

But that's not the subject of the OP, so I apologize if I'm helping derail the thread...



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: soulshn

Nothing like getting all upset over standard terminology.

When I arrest a person I refer to them as suspects. However, during court I have to refer to them as the defendant.

The PC police need to exercise common sense.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

So you have a variety of situationally appropriate terms that distinguish people you are supposed to physically control from someone you only have to testify against, and both are distinct from the word you would use for invading Russian troops. You see that makes perfect sense to me.
edit on Sat 18 Apr 2015 by The Vagabond because: typo



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: soulshn

When you have a large group of people burning stores, stealing from stores, injuring people, firing weapons, what would you suggest they refer to them as?


Disgruntled Citizens?



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The national guard is not your enemy


Then why are we having this discussion? The national guard called the people their enemy. The enemy of my enemy's enemy is my enemy.


If you are going to be a looting pos taking advantage of a situation where authority cannot exert itself through law, then you are the enemy. I will exercise my right in the pursuit of life liberty and happiness, and it will be fully covered by the umbrella of the Constitution. If your desire for free reeboks and iphones jeopardizes my rights you will be the enemy.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

You are failing to distinguish between protesters and rioters. Explain why authorities were pointing guns at protesters and journalists while the violence continued.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: TinfoilTP

You are failing to distinguish between protesters and rioters. Explain why authorities were pointing guns at protesters and journalists while the violence continued.


Because they were protecting my rights as a citizen to exist without my rights being infringed upon by your desire to cause chaos and loot free crap.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join