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.

 

US " civil war "

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
the claims that the united states is :

" heading towards // on the brink of civil war "

are getting more frequent and shrill

and to be honest - PISSING ME OFF

the claims are never substantiated or fleshed out

just the claim -

so here is my plea :

FFS - stop being cockwombles - and actually detail HOW your fantasy is going to occur

because i am now convinced that a lot of people dont actually know what a civil war is [ despite the fact that the united states had one in the 19th century - and it was a pretty text book example of the genre ]

a civil war needs at least 2 sides

so start with defining who will be on which side

this could be entertaining




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape
I've thought much the same as you in previous ATS years, but surely the topical revival of the theme is more specific?
What I see currently is "There will be civil war if the opponents of Trump seem to succeed in blocking him", which assumes "supporters of Trump v opponents or Democrats". Work out exactly where the two groups are located, and you have the two presumptive sides.
One would guess Texas and "the militias" on the one side, California and Black Lives Matter on the other. and the exactly loyalty of the official military would depend on circumstances.


edit on 17-12-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Jesus. Do you really have fifteen and a half MILLION stars?

I dont want to fight. No civil war.

If ATS were a civil war, you'd get instant General status.

Fifteen and a half million?



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: MiddleInitial

I'm pretty sure it's a glitch my good sir.

To OP: Americans will not do this. I have extreme difficulty just trying to get people to leave their house most time of the time...



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Anyone remember this article America divided into 6 parts .

It's from 2008 and while he predicted civil war in America to occur in 2010, I found his map intriguing in that it discusses that parts of America would basically become part of other countries.

Russia especially has a recent history of agitating a civil war so it can then come in as "humanitarians" (Republic of Georgia and the Ukraine).

So yes, while I would hate to think Americans would kill other Americans, I can totally see another country agitating the more extreme elements of America, I do think that Civil War is likely. Just look at how many people are discussing it without even one mention of how this could all just be Russia trying its "Hybrid" war in America. It's low risk and cheap.

Once you look at it through that lense, a lot of events this past year makes sense-including the hacking scandal.
edit on 12 17 2016 by SgtEsquire because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

If the Democratic process is undermined by subversive elements it will be the duty of patriotic Americans to restore the Republic by any means necessary. This is fundamental to the freedom and liberty on which this country is based.

Not everyone values their lives so much they would agree to live in tyranny. If you don't understand this then I feel sorry for you.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: SgtEsquire




Russia especially has a recent history of agitating a civil war so it can then come in as "humanitarians" (Republic of Georgia and the Ukraine


LOL - Ukraine has all the fingerprints of Monsanto & Soros written all over it

www.mintpressnews.com...


www.globalresearch.ca...



he World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) is helping biotech run the latest war in Ukraine. Make no mistake that what is happening in the Ukraine now is deeply tied to the interests of Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and other big players in the poison food game. Monsanto has an office in Ukraine.

While this does not shout ‘culpability’ from every corner, it is no different than the US military’s habit to place bases in places that they want to gain political control. The opening of this office coincided with land grabs with loans from the IMF and World Bank to one of the world’s most hated corporations – all in support of their biotech takeover.

Previously, there wasa ban on private sector land ownership in the country – but it was lifted ‘just in time’ for Monsanto to have its way with the Ukraine. In fact, a bit of political maneuvering by the IMF gave the Ukraine a $17 billion loan – but only if they would open up to biotech farming and the selling of Monsanto’s poison crops and chemicals – destroying a farmland that is one of the most pristine in all of Europe. Farm equipment dealer, Deere, along with seed producers Dupont and Monsanto, will have a heyday.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

A few Americans live in TV-Show Land. They imagine slaying 'progressives' on the streets of America will be like double-tapping zombies in The Walking Dead. In their reality, 'snowflakes' are identified by the signs they always carry with them. They think progressives are born that way like a distinct species so there's no moral consequence to killing someone's daughter, son, father or mother.

They don't see the irony that going out to kill people over beliefs is exactly what being 'triggered' is. Murdering opposing beliefs is an extreme form of creating a 'safe space.'

This, tiny, tiny, teensy small minority are saying 'civil war' when what they really mean is mass slaughter and death squads. There is no other side.

I bet they've already got their outfits figures out lol. "Hmmm. Leather chaps and waistcoat? Cowboy style? Boots and camo gear? All black jumpsuit with cross-over bandoliers??"



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky



I bet they've already got their outfits figures out lol. "Hmmm. Leather chaps and waistcoat? Cowboy style? Boots and camo gear? All black jumpsuit with cross-over bandoliers??"


Nah they are not afraid of anything becouse they are true patriots, so ghillie suits



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Yeah, we've been on the brink of civil war for at least 20 years, probably longer.

I'm over it.




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: Kandinsky



I bet they've already got their outfits figures out lol. "Hmmm. Leather chaps and waistcoat? Cowboy style? Boots and camo gear? All black jumpsuit with cross-over bandoliers??"


Nah they are not afraid of anything becouse they are true patriots, so ghillie suits


Here's an obvious regressive who's walking instead of supporting patriotic Americans in the US motor industry. Click clack goes the gat...




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   
I highly doubt the average American, including our turbo-posting ones here, could put the tech down long enough to get off their ass and pick a fight worth anything beyond blowing hot air.

I could see groups like BLM using any further unrest to their advantage and razing more ghett-- I mean, "stricken neighborhoods", and thus having concentrated mini civil wars in the country's obligatory hellholes, and that's about it. In general, Americans don't have much "get up & go". At all.
If it ever came to a civil war, I'd hop over to Canada and watch, it'd probably amount to something like a comedy version of the Special Olympics stateside (no offense to our disabled)
Edit: No, that's giving us too much credit as a country. it'd be more like "Here, hold my beer!"
edit on 12/17/2016 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I just had a fantastic idea. A beer holder that mounts on an AR-15. We are going to be rich!



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah



I highly doubt the average American, including our turbo-posting ones here, could put the tech down long enough to get off their ass and pick a fight worth anything beyond blowing hot air.


Most are exuberant high-energy and thunder like Yosemite Sam and just as harmless. Venting on message boards isn't so bad I guess.

Here's Sam defending the 2nd against some vegan illegal lol




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Alright, ill bite.

First: A civil war is one in which two or more factions wish to be in control of the government. Overtly, our union has never experienced this as during the so called "American civil war" - regardless of other motivations - the fight was due to some States wishing to leave the union....not take control of it.

Second : Perhaps I've simply not seen the threads you speak of; but I have seen exactly zero "frequent and/or shrill calls for civil war" on ATS.

What I have seen, however, are at least a good handful of cautionary voices, many from combat veterans like myself; who have attempted to plead against a civil war, or actions that would lead to one...actions like attempting to subvert the outcome of a fair and legitimate election. This is tantamount to a burn victim saying "hey! Don't pour gas on that fire!...it won't end well!"

Myself, I have absolutely no desire to ever again see dripping garbage bags of human remains be collected for identification and processing..(this statement may be close to crossing the line of t&c, but I sincerely hope it will be allowed, as I hope this visceral image will work its way into the minds of those who are being warned that they are indeed playing with fire).

I have no desire to kill. I have no desire for others to die. I wish only to watch my children and crops grow, in peace...yet somehow I get the feeling you will add me to your list of those you claim are "calling for a civil war".



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Maybe they just have murder fantasies.

imo.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   
The talk of civil war in the aftermath of the presidential election was ramped up by the fear of the result being thrown to Clinton by a corrupt and complicit establishment. In that instance the civil war would have been between liberal supporters of the establishment and aggrieved populist voters. Prior to the election the talk was a divide along racial lines and the opposing factions would have divided along similar lines. Speculation about how it might have played out is conjecture.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: blood0fheroes
First: A civil war is one in which two or more factions wish to be in control of the government. Overtly, our union has never experienced this as during the so called "American civil war" - regardless of other motivations - the fight was due to some States wishing to leave the union....not take control of it.

Your definition is arbitrary and too restrictive.
Historically, "civil war" is merely the opposite of "external war". It takes place within the borders of a country, instead of one country attacking or being attacked by another country. It does not matter whether it is about fragmentation, or about control of the whole. The Russian civil war, post-revolution, was a bit of both. When the break-up of Yugoslavia began, it could legitimately be called a Yugoslavian civil war. What is happening in Syria is a civil war complicated by external intervention.
The English Civil Wars included a Scottish intervention on the Parliamentary side, and two more Anglo-Scottish wars (known as "the Second Civil War" and "the Third Civil War") after the king had been defeated. They also included a supplementary civil war in Ireland, finally terminated by an English re-invasion. So there were elements of attempted fragmentation there, which does not prevent historians from calling them the Civil Wars.
If the conclusion of the war favours the side which is against fragmentation, as in the British case and the American case, they are justified retrospectively in treating the area of conflict as a single country, and the conflict itself as a Civil War.
If historians and others have been calling it the American Civil War for the last century and a half, who are you to say that your definition is right and the standard usage is wrong?





edit on 17-12-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: blood0fheroes

oh FFS - another one who didnt read or comprehend the OP :


but I have seen exactly zero "frequent and/or shrill calls for civil war" on ATS.


thats because you made this crap up - what i actually said was :

" the claims that the united states is :

" heading towards // on the brink of civil war "

are getting more frequent and shrill "

spott the difference ?



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

thats nice dear - but you didnt actually reply to my OP - did you ?

did you either read it or comprehend it - it seems not




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join