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.

 

American Revolution

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Abusrd. There is no reason for a revolution and people aren't likely to give up their lives for some revolution these days.
No reason for revolution? You're kidding? The consitution is being flushed in the toilet, illegals wars, the corporations are owning the government, american union, 911 inside job, ect.. ect.. ect..


Anyone raising arms against the government is a traitor and should be locked up and executed for treason.
Anyone supporting a fascist government is a traitor to the values of the same nation, the people inside it, the founding fathers and a shame to all soldiers who died for the preservation of liberty.


What are you going to do when bush's term expires and there is an election and a new president and none of this stuff comes to fruitition???
What are you going to do when you realise than elections are biased? Have and can be stolen at anytime with the Diebold machines?


A second revolution wouldn't happen today because the suggestion is absurd. THere is no need for a violent revolution against the state.
Not thinking about it it's even more absurd. There is a need for revolution, but not a violent one necessarly.


They'd be upset that their slaves are free? Hell, the founders passed the Alien and Sedition Act, which was far far worse than anything the Bush administration has done.
They'd be ashamed that people think like you, trading their liberties and civil right for an illusion of security.


?
We have laws the are intended to prevent terror attacks, there haven't been attacks since we put them in place, and you think that that means there's no reason to have those laws???
Do you want to buy my rock that push back tiger if there's any tiger in the area? No terror attack happenned because the neo-cons didn't need to, until the next one.


These laws permit the governement to monitor possible terrorist organizations and make arrests. It doesn't combat terrorism by fiat. I don't know where you get that impression.
Like ACLU? Like Nelson Mandela, the terrorist? Like the black panthers? Like the guy who get arrested because he criticized the Iraq war? YEAH RIGHT. They never make errors, they don't abuse their power.



Also, lets consider, the militias that are out there are generally favourable to bush, they're far right republicans. Do you really want to create a situation where those guys are installing a new government????
I talked to a lot of militias all over the country and they are against what Bush is doing into spitting on the consitution. He's gone too far. The militias don't protect the president, they protect the country and the constitution, if the president is selling the country and against the constitution, he's an enemy of the country, as simple as that.

You don't seem to see the difference between a president and the people inside it. If the president is against his own people, he's an enemy of the same country he's at the head of. It's not because he's at the head of the state that he's good for his people, and you say that if we're against the criminals in office we're traitors? IMO, it's not to be a traitor to be against those who try to enslave you.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by Vitchilo]




posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
From what I see and the people I talk to, there is apathy in the majority of the population. As long as it has not arrived on their doorstep (as if they could see it), then there is no concern. People move thru live with blinders on. Maybe if the next presidential election brings a change then things with smooth over. I myself feel that it will not.

It seems that too many people with money, which equals power in the US, will continue on with the present path. I am amazed that any changes that help the people on the bottom end of the economic scale are said to hurt or destroy the economy and country. Example, the debate over raising minimum wage. Sure as long as business wants to see it that way. What will businesses do when people cannot buy items like they have in the past. It is easy to overlook when one is working at a well paying job. Just be aware that those jobs disappear whenever business dictates. I know, I was there and am now gone.

I am sorry to say this, but I feel the corruption goes many times deeper than the average person believes. It will not repair itself, it takes regular, caring people to effect a real change, but then those people do not have the power to change it without a radically different approach (revolt).



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The first American revolution was started by a small group of well-funded peole. How would you suggest that a new version of our Founders be estalished today?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I'm sure that there are groups in America right now with the means to bring about such a revolt. I think the only thing that is lacking is a leader who's intergity is such that like minded people will follow such a person. Once set in motion such a revolt would quickley gather support, are the figures right that 5% of Americans own 95% of the wealth, well thats always a good starter for any revolt.

The war of Independace was about people and business men wanting to be free from the tyranny of the British Goverment, Well the only thing that has changedsince then is that you now Have an elected Goverment doing the same thing. Revolt, revolution, civil war call it what you will it will happen and soon.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I've been studying this possibility for quite some time, and while I admire your enthusiasm, I do think the 'issue' is in doubt. It's quite likely in my opinion that we'll be seeing a lot changes in our country over the course of the next ten years that will make social discontent much more likely. Even so, the issue of an actual revolution is in doubt because of the extent of public apathy.

We are now seeing the rise of government agencies and social movements that will radically alter the future landscape of this country. While there can be no doubts about pockets of resistors, the leadership you mentioned seems unlikely to emerge during the first few years of the struggle. During that time, the revolt will appear to be in decline and the media will celebrate its many defeats.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Goverments should fear the people and not the other way round

Inded, and the people trying to overthrow the government through violence should fear the people that are going to squash them.

there is a growing chasm between the haves and have nots in America, I once heard years ago (cannot remember the source) of wealthier US states becoming independant from the poorer ones.

If you can't even be bothered to recall a citation for such a weird statement, then I doubt you can be bothered to take up a gun and risk getting shot over it. Thats why there's not going to be any revolution, because no one is going to run around killing other people and probably getting killed themselves because of Bush, who's out of office in a short time anyway.

If anyone wanted to carryout any attacks in America or anywhere else no amount of legislation is going to prevent it.

Thats like saying its ok to make guns illegal, because it won't in and of itself get rid of guns. The legislation doesn't stop terrorism, its that it enables anti-terror agencies to get at and stop the terrorists.

You do not have to invent new laws when existing ones will do the job.

Considering that the old laws didn't work to stop 911, Oklahoma City, the orignal WTC bombing, etc, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the basis of fact.

Bush and co have got you all chicken scared of one event,

Yes, thats right, 911 was 'only' one attack, not really a big deal, nothing to actually make people pay attention, we should just all go back to sleep and forget about it.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Abusrd. There is no reason for a revolution and people aren't likely to give up their lives for some revolution these days.
No reason for revolution? You're kidding?

And who exactly is ready to kill and be killed over these things you mention?? Until there are several thousand people ready to do so, there will be not even a hint of revolution.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I strongly suspect that things will have to get far worse than they are now before we see even the smallest beginnings of a revolt. It takes a lot just to get to the 'insurgenc' stage, and most armed movements fail at that point for lack of support from the general population.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
There is 'no doubt' there will be a revolution. It is at least two generations away. When the twenty somethings of today are at the helm 40 years from now the projected levels of totalitarianism will be overwhelming. Life in America will be very different then. Martial law will be the norm with micro-chipping and intense survielance[sp] .The North American Union will be finalized, the UN will have troops in control on US soil. Fear grips many Americans now, anger will grip them then. What makes our situation unique is an armed population. As an American you should own a weapon and never relinquish it. Instruct your children and friends to do the same. Without an armed populace we would have been a dictatorship by the 60's. My biggest fear regarding a revolution would be the leader him/herself. A paid provacatuer from the NWO to lead the rebels to detainment or worse. Remember Abby Hoffman and Jerry Rubin of the 'revolutionary' Chicago 7. The Yippies piled in behind them only to realize later that their leaders were paid props.

What would our founding fathers have thought?

Well 51 of 54 had ties to Freemasonry and probably had wished they'd re-thought the pesky 'right to bear arms' issue



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Nygdan are you saying that the all the US law/inteligence services are incompetant, that with the massive budgets and resources at their disposal they could not have stopped one man from commiting the Oklahoma bombing. If all these resouces cannot prevent a one man attack please explain to me how changes in the law prevents further attacks.

Are you saying that if such services if used against ordinary citizens will prevent such actions please explain how. Do you think terrorists are stupid, do you think that they would not be aware of the counter measures arrayed against them. I think it is wrong for the goverment to make people believe that attacks could not happen, that the sacrifices of liberty and privacy will ensure the quick arrest of would be terrorists. If you want to stop terrorism then you need to look at why you are being targeted for such acts and deal with those issue's

As for the gulf between the haves and have nots I have watched a number of programs dteailing such things as charity food shops, increasing numbers of homeless people, people unable to afford health care etc. The problem is it all depends on your own social class and where you live, you may not see or be aware of such things but that does not mean it dose not exist.
Anyway you should be grateful that we Brits GAVEyou America.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Anyway you should be grateful that we Brits GAVE you America.


Well, now. That's an interesting perspective.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Anyway you should be grateful that we Brits GAVE you America.


Well, now. That's an interesting perspective.


Yea, it is. Actually, "gave" is neither the correct term nor the actual reason. The Rev War was a War of Attrition--like 'Nam and ----Iraq. Thousands of tears of Military History have proven over and over again that "no Army of Occupation has ever been vicrtorious
against and Insurgent Force."

Since that view is a matter of repeated history, then I wonder when Tony Blair will get the picture and the UK will pull it's troops out of Iraq? It certainly wouldn't be the first time --


FWIW-- it wouldn't work, here, either. If there ever is another armed mass revolt in America, it will be one of Insurgency on the part of the "rebels".



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Attention Please that last line was a private joke between myself and Nygdan so do not let it deflect you from the main topic. Thanks



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Attention Please that last line was a private joke between myself and Nygdan so do not let it deflect you from the main topic. Thanks


Sorry-- no offense meant.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join