It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That is interesting but now I'm thoroughly confused. What's it really saying? My mind is fuzzy this morning; I haven't had my coffee yet.
Thanks for the articles, PublicOpinion. Can you give me your take on it?
The human domain implies the “social” realm: a dominion of non-visible abstractions that, although mostly falling outside of “the scientific” are nonetheless real, if real means to have an effect on others. Yet SOF, following the Army’s lead, is attempting to apply the physical domains’ constructs to this social domain.
The trends within SOF, however, seem to be a growing reliance on process, bureaucracy, and metrics, all obstacles to breaking away from any institutionally-approved ways of thinking.
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Putting yourself in the globalist's seat what would you need to do to ensure an easy transition (aside from gun confiscation) from a Democratic Republic to an Oligarchical system? First you need to identify who the opposition is.
originally posted by: Rocker2013
originally posted by: DAVID64
I think Jade Helm is what they claim it to be, a training exercise. But training against who? Sadly, distrust of my government has got to the point that some of the stories concerning this ring all too true.
As I understand it, cross-branch communication and logistics is a major problem in such a large military, and it seems to me that this is focusing on that in the same way Russia has done in recent times.
There's no denying that this training will have to incorporate scenarios for various threats, and yes that includes domestic issues.
They probably wouldn't want to say that outright, but it's a reality sensible people have to deal with. If there was a revolutionary group in your country planning to act wouldn't you WANT your government to be prepared for it? If there were to be a war and invasion was plausible, wouldn't you DEMAND that your government be prepared to fight against that? If there was massive unrest due to a collapse of the banking system, wouldn't you EXPECT your government to be able to step in and restore some semblance of calm?
It seems that too many people here want to redefine things depending on what they personally feel at any given moment. There are a lot of "constitution wavers", "bible thumpers" and "gun-toters" who seem to think a violent revolution is needed - which really is nothing more than a terrorist act against the democratic system of government. Like it or not, the people have voted for those who are running your country, you don't get to just decide that you don't like it (usually based on nothing consequential) and attempt to overthrow that system to install something that suits you personally and the "ideals" you cling to.
These people would rightly be described as being similar to Islamic State. It's the same thing; it's about political, religious or societal ideology, and something these people want to force onto the rest of the population even when it's clear that the population is not inclined to accept it.
For those who think a revolution in the US is "needed", why do you think that? Is it because the rest of your society (for good or bad) is not in agreement with you? Is it because you think things need to be "fixed"? And why is your notion of "fixing" things any better than Islamic State wanting to "fix" things to suit what they want their society to be?
A lot of people want to call themselves "Patriots", when in reality they're only patriotic to their own notions of what they want to force on their democratic nation. If they were truly Patriotic, they would understand that the population elects people to represent them and operate their nation on their behalf, and they would understand that any attempt to usurp this democratic system (for all its faults) is terrorism against their society, not patriotism.