Originally posted by schrodingers dog
“Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny: they have only shifted it to another shoulder”
George Bernard Shaw

“Revolution is a trivial shift in the emphasis of suffering.”
Tom Stoppard

“A revolution is interesting insofar as it avoids like the plague the plague it promised to heal”
Daniel Berrigan

Quotes are that, just quotes. Doesn't make anyone more justified than anyone else.

Mop, just because you are ignorant of the facts dose no mean its not true, the info and answers are there if you care to look. But if you want to spend your days being blind deaf and dumb thats your choise of course.

There was a similar thread like this about a year ago, barely anyone replied, negative comments, derailing. In short, no one really cared about it. Today I see quite alot of support. Hm...seems like people are beginning to wake up. Maybe there's some hope after all.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by CommanderSinclair]

When and where lets do this i want to see heads roll

In honesty it would be easier to start at the state levels and organize separation form the union in multiple stats. I don't think the government has the man power to stop it, if you have local police and militia working together to stop any incoming troops.

I've never been an activist, but this is the one cause I'd be willing to join.

It would be nice if people like Alex Jones, Jim Marrs, George Noory, Linda Howe, and whoever else has any clout to organize a march on Washington. Of course nothing would come of it but this would raise the concerns to the forefront and we could go from there.

Rich

Originally posted by Oouthere


It would be nice if people like Alex Jones, Jim Marrs, George Noory, Linda Howe, and whoever else has any clout to organize a march on Washington. Of course nothing would come of it but this would raise the concerns to the forefront and we could go from there.

Rich

this is an interesting thought. you are right, that nothing as far as the change we need would come about...... but making more ppl that feel this way and don't have access to sites such as this more aware they are not the only ones.

i like this idea a lot.

Civil War: The People versus the Government

I don't wanna give away all my thoughts, or incriminate myself, but heres some thoughts:

I've thought about this alot, and discussed it , debated it, with a friend. We debated guerrilla people's war versus the US government/loyalists/military. This is what we found.

The loyalists and rebels are irreconcilably mixed in their density of population regardless of location, in all locations, save the exceptions. This means you cannot bomb rebels without bombing loyalists. This is particularly true for the urban areas, but also suburban and regular sized towns and cities. People have neighbors, simply put. With the "keep to yourself" mentality already in place among the citizenry because of the fear of being labeled a terrorist or sympathizer, people do not know much about their neighbors, so how will the government have accurate information on this?

Another seeming fact is that the U.S. Military wouldn't whole heartedly go with the Government against the people. There would indeed be a split of forces, and resources, much like the Civil War. One side may start superior, and that may be the Government, but the people will not be helpless. They'd have the assistance of: Military defectors and the stockpiles/equipment they have taken and can maintain / use, Foreign agents who want to see the Government lose, and all of their financial support and equipment smuggling, the Mexican drug cartels, the racist, white-power, right-wing militant extremist groups, minority assistance groups, neighborhood militias of concerned citizens, gangs and some organized crime, etcetera. How many of your military friends will answer the question with a "yes" when you ask, "if there was marshal law instituted, and the people were having an uprising, and you were ordered to help put it down by firing on american citizens who, in their minds are trying to protect their homes, with paltry arms such as pistols, single shot rifles, and at best, semi-auto rifles, would you engage and kill them?" What if it was a neighborhood where that soldier had relatives or friends? Some are cold enough to comply, some aren't. There would be a split.

There'd also be a split along idealogical levels, in the officers and leaders. Some Generals do not agree or like each other, some are vying to take each other's commands right now, and allegiences run very strong in the military to your commander and officer. Some high ranking Generals would disagree, and whatever they commanded would go to one side or the other. This includes nuclear missle installations, ships at sea, ships docked, airplanes, ground forces, tank forces, artillery forces, intelligence forces, special forces. Again, one side may get more than the other, but the people would not be without any help at all.

The Cubans, Venezuelans, Mexican Cartels, and possibly Bolivians would covertly assist the southern resistance movements. Sympathetic Canadians would assist some northern resistance movements. The potentially sympathetic Canadian and Mexican military would assist with potential equipment and training, covert assistance.

On the battlefields, the rebels would play guerrilla, much like the Iraqi resistance forces, intermingling with the population, taking opportunistic strikes, knowing the land better, keeping secret caches, taking hostages, setting up ambushes. Or better yet, the Colombian FARC, a more military oriented organization, though in the decline. Every engagement, unless rebels were caught in the wilderness, would result in casualties of both loyalists and rebels, citizens and fighters.

The Government wouldn't have quite as much power as you may think. It really would be an extraordinarily interesting time from a strategic point of view for either side. Rebels have proven time and time again that they have undying longevity when operating under Guerrilla pretext.

[edit on 7/5/2008 by runetang]

(though not officially a hindu, still gets classified under the same umbrella)

hindus and sikhs are pretty similiar , except that Sikhs believe in only one God , and have similiarity with hindu and muslims , yes sikhs wear turbans .

Couldnt you??? Put cds or videos in the tvs st every store you go to with 9-11 information.
if you work at those stores you could.
you could play radios loud as heck with alex jones.
graffiti every where 9-11 inside job
put signs up everywhere
call in to every radio show
go house to house distributing liturature
Put things up on every blog in the world
put it so much in peoles face a little light must turn on in there brain.... neuro pathway training.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by zeusadam]

If ya don't like our country, try China or Cuba, if they'll have you.

This country has it's issues, but it is still "MY" country and I love it. And it is still the BEST in the world.

Leave.. no one is forcing you to stay.. that's what's great about my country ..

So go, and make this an even greater country and democracy.

Originally posted by ArcAngel


So go, and make this an even greater country and democracy.

you mean constitutional republic, right? because that is what we are intended to be. i will keep correcting everyone on here that labels us a democracy. as someone else said, yes, constitutional republic falls under democracy, but so does social democracy, Parliamentary democracy, and Totalitarian democracy and on and on.

constitutional republic is a form of democracy, but democracy in and of itself is not what we are and to believe such will set us up for many other dangerous systems they could and already are imposing on us.

you say this is "my country" and yet you fail to know what makes it or at least what was intended to make it so great.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by justamomma]

[edit on 5-7-2008 by justamomma]