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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Pleads With Troops Not To Revolt Over 2016

page: 2
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs

"Mr. X" in the film JFK wasn't a fictional character, he was based on a real man named Leroy Fletcher Prouty. He was a consultant on the film, and the following scene represents how he actually saw the JFK assassination.


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...
edit on 29-10-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs

Reverbs...

Let me ask you, since you have some military experience, if you believed and had good reason to, that the military was no longer under the control of the only legitimate power, that of the people of the United States of America, and had been taken over by some corporate conglomerate or other association no matter how defined, how would that change the field of play, in your opinion?

Would that be a decent reason for those in the service, to make a stand in the name of the people, do you think? Or would you insist that they simply adhere to any control structure, in order that they remain under control in any event ?



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   
The UK Military's first duty is to a non-political Head of State. Outdated? maybe, but it a lot less ugly and our standards are much, much higher than others. Unfortunately we have the same problem as many, in that traitors in our government kick the ass out our defence budget for political capital.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I shared the book War Is a Racket with a friend of mine before he joined the military. I pleaded with him not to join because I tried to explain to him that he was joining the dark side. He agreed with me completely but...

He was signing a four-year or five-year contract where if I correctly the first two years were going to be for a very specialized education that would lead to a very high-paying job if he decided to leave the service. He was joining at the rank of an officer. That really appealed to his ego. He also explained to me that his family had a long history of military service, so it was in his blood. He just said that if he wasn't happy he'd leave after his contract was up.

He ended up not being happy, but he did get the education he was promised. I would consider that to be selling my soul personally.
edit on 29-10-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Reverbs

Reverbs...

Let me ask you, since you have some military experience, if you believed and had good reason to, that the military was no longer under the control of the only legitimate power, that of the people of the United States of America, and had been taken over by some corporate conglomerate or other association no matter how defined, how would that change the field of play, in your opinion?

Would that be a decent reason for those in the service, to make a stand in the name of the people, do you think? Or would you insist that they simply adhere to any control structure, in order that they remain under control in any event ?



no only if it came to starting a war with russia, and then I woiuld expect the military to cross that line..
But as former military I get it, we can't cross that line.. We are the muscle, if we react against the government or politically picking sides, we erode the rules that keep the military on the side of the people..

So it better be worth eroding the rules that make us on the side of the people..

We are close ish to that point..

especially with Hillary as president.

It's a whole different life as a soldier.

It's like you are an angel and you don't have freewill. You must remain pure to your chain of command and the top of that command is elected people, and the top of that chain is suppossed to be YOU..

and you're right it's been hijacked, but have you not watched military interventions in the last 30 years?
Good for installing military dictatorships or gangsters, but once you go to force instead of words you change all the rules...
A country may not survive the interim..

it's our job in the military to keep you guys civil so you have the time and energy to make the world better... We are just the white blood cells.. Tell us where is the cancer.. We can't start deciding on our own that our heart is corrupted and start attacking heart cells, or even give the impression we are deciding what cells to kill...

get it?

that's the military..

Now as a civilian now, it's my duty to FIX the problem of government being hijacked.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


If a situation were to come about where the "elected" party were not actually elected by the people, but installed by the electoral college in direct opposition to their will, or worse, thrown into place in an emergency by the Continuity of Government group, or the 7th Floor mob, what would the situation be then?

No different. The military is obliged to obey the constiuted authority.

There are no legitimate reasons for the military to intervene in such a situation. On the contrary, it is vital that the military remain in barracks until the civilian authorities have sorted out the situation. Their intervention would only make a bad situation worse.


I think you are probably under more threat of having your liberty taken from you by a false authority, than you ever are from a military dictatorship.

I can tell you, from direct personal knowledge, that you are wrong.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Reverbs

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Reverbs

Reverbs...

Let me ask you, since you have some military experience, if you believed and had good reason to, that the military was no longer under the control of the only legitimate power, that of the people of the United States of America, and had been taken over by some corporate conglomerate or other association no matter how defined, how would that change the field of play, in your opinion?

Would that be a decent reason for those in the service, to make a stand in the name of the people, do you think? Or would you insist that they simply adhere to any control structure, in order that they remain under control in any event ?



no only if it came to starting a war with russia, and then I woiuld expect the military to cross that line..
But as former military I get it, we can't cross that line.. We are the muscle, if we react against the government or politically picking sides, we erode the rules that keep the military on the side of the people..


What's your opinion of the emboldened parts below? How do you reconcile your views with the possibility of a domestic enemy such as Hillary Clinton becoming POTUS? How do you reconcile your views with the conditions concerning illegal orders that are mentioned below?

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

a reply to: Astyanax


But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

-- Declaration of Independence, 1776

edit on 29-10-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

he said


command structure until the next administration comes in, and that the military should not undermine its credibility in the interim with the next president.


you suggest this means...???


Isn't Durnford saying that if another Hitler were to come into power in the U.S., U.S. soldiers should just keep following orders until they find themselves guarding concentration camps?


How so? Bit of a stretch bringing Hitler into it...
edit on 29-10-2016 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: spelling



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I swore that oath and I take it VERY seriously.

I do my part to expose evil and try to influence people to make better choices..

I will be voting..

I'm trying to defend us against the enemy inside the gates..

Once the military does that all bets are off.. Once all bets are off who knows if we can ever reform USA as a republic??

Cross that line at the last minute...

Until then it's stateside that needs fixing..

The military is not elected, so it must try to stay underneath elected control.. controlled by "the people"


You DO NOT want the military acting in similar fashion to the NSA or CIA.. Trust me.

edit on 29-10-2016 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Cuts absolutely no ice, I'm afraid. It's the state that decides who its enemies are. The military is only, and explicitly, an arm of the state. You are suggesting that the military assumes the authority of the state.

Look: there are military and ex-mil people on this thread trying to explain it to you. This is foolish, dangerous talk. What you are suggesting is treason . I mean that literally.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs

Thanks for clarifying the fact that you're making arguments for contradictory positions simultaneously.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

"you suggest this means...???"

I gave my opinion concerning the entire blog post. I don't care about the meaning of specific sentences.

"How so? But of a stretch bringing Hitler into it..."

Hillary Clinton's no fly zone in Syria could be worse than anything Hitler did. You may not have read the entire thread, but I tried to explain that's why I thought comparing Clinton and Hitler is an appropriate comparison.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
a reply to: Reverbs

Thanks for clarifying the fact that you're making arguments for contradictory positions simultaneously.



Life is more complex than this side or that side.

Simple ideaologies are what lead us into ruin, similar to terrorists taking force into their own hands..

generally produces chaos...

So yes I have nuanced points to make.

Trust that the military command is VERY measured.. It gives me hope. The ball is not in their court under the constitution and the rule of law, it's in YOURS.
edit on 29-10-2016 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Profusion

Cuts absolutely no ice, I'm afraid. It's the state that decides who its enemies are. The military is only, and explicitly, an arm of the state. You are suggesting that the military assumes the authority of the state.

Look: there are military and ex-mil people on this thread trying to explain it to you. This is foolish, dangerous talk. What you are suggesting is treason . I mean that literally.


"I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

If that's "treason" then what's the point of saying the oath at all? How does it make sense to say that if the people elect a leader who is a domestic enemy as POTUS then the military must continue to carry out that person's orders?

All of this just proves to me that I was right about what I wrote in the thread linked below. The Nuremberg defense is the state of the art on Earth, and it always will be with this system.

Is the 'Nuremberg defense' the predominant philosophy on earth?


originally posted by: Reverbs
Life is more complex than this side or that side.


I'm not talking about sides. I'm talking about you arguing for contradictory stances on the same view.
edit on 29-10-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
All this statement to the troops says is,

Don't make an a$$ out of yourselves when you go to vote, it will embarrass the armed services.


This is an understandable message because there is a high likelihood soldiers may be confronted with violent political actors near the polls, BLM racists, the now proven paid by democrat surrogates there are hired mental patients out for blood money etc.
edit on 29-10-2016 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Nuremberg defence? Nothing to do with the question. This is not about following orders, it is about the military taking matters into its own hands.

You're just digging yourself in deeper.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The U.S. Military Has Only One MASTER , the Constitutional of the United States , Bound by Oath to Protect it , that is their Only Duty to Perform when Asked to .



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
When I was in the military we worked so much we didn't have time to give a crap about that kind of stuff. I don't think it has changed that much.

That stupid youtube video really takes things out of context.


They put thus out every election they don't want active military involved in public relations for a candidate. This is just a stupid fear mongering and in no way based in reality. This state mentioned had nothing what so ever to so with a revolution. This is just a restatement of there PR policy. U S military personel are not supposed to talk to the press or claim they represent other soldiers. So if a reporter came up to them and asked as a soldier which candidate do you support they are supposed to say no coment.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   


When a Government usurps power from the people then said people, including those who serve in the military have every right to take action necessary to remove this hypothetical government from power


If someone you don't like is fairly elected that doesn't constitute "usurping power" it just means that you have to accept that you were outvoted.

IF you think the federal government is too powerful then you should have been revolting since the 40's, that's when we got big government, not just under Obama or Hillary.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I know. Every election there is some stupid piece like this that gets some attention.

All this talk about revolt and usurping power is completely stupid. The next election we will see the same.


We have an awesome system that is very friendly to starting new parties to represent us, but much of the populace are too ignorant about it to take advantage of it.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Right, that's what I'm all about

former air force 72

his speech was perfectly tame and leaning toward not just blindly dropping the constitution, which was the ring in the ears of the active duty boys....but they are deployed....

what kind of aquatic bimbo got us into this? We don't just follow along with some moistened bink... nay a watery tart

the country here is to be run by a mandate from the masses....not some career frigging .....by the way, my name is dennis....you know

edit on 29-10-2016 by GBP/JPY because: our new King.....He comes right after a nicely done fake one



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join