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.

 

Freedom fighters goals?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
This will be my first thread but I just had to post something.

I’m reading this threadwhich has a lot of interesting thoughts and comments and I keep turning back to one thought. These people that are discontent and are willing to rise up to take back their freedom, what is it that you want?

Do you want to live on a farm and grow vegetables, raise a few children, a few chickens and be ‘free’? Is that your idea of revolution? Maybe live off the grid, in a cabin in the mountains, just you and your freedom? The kind of revolution some of you are talking about, that’s the most you will be able to do afterwards.

So you overthrow the government, you somehow get over 50% of the military to join you, then what? The local warlord/military commander with the most guns turns around and try’s to do the same thing you just fought to overthrow. Or your neighborhood forms a little group to defend each other against the starving masses that don’t live off the land. This is your idea of freedom? What happens to society? What happens to progress? The bloody battle isn’t over, because of course the resources that still exist are a ripe target for other countries, with intact armies. You’re talking about reverting to the middle ages, which were called “dark” for a reason.

All of human history is filled with tribes trying to dominate each other over resources. You think that will go away once the government is torn down? It’s the wild west with automatic weapons, and the wild west was a hell hole compared to most modern urban ghettos.

What happens to farms, universities, hospitals, schools, fire departments, police departments? What happens to the people who fight to overthrow the government with you then disagree with you? Some say it’s ok to pay some taxes, but your neighbor who fought with you says, it’s not ok to bay any taxes. Who pulls the first gun to prevent their neighbor from oppressing them?

This kind of anger destroys the country every bit as much as socialism, communism or fascism.

The world governments for all their faults (and they are LEGION), still feed more people provide more for more people and keep more people safe than anytime in history. Fact is compared to most of history the USofA is a freakin paradise. Running water, sewers, electricity, who upkeeps that after the revolution? Look at places that have suffered under long term civil wars. All that stuff is gone, and the people are living off what they can grow or the help of other nations.

I don’t know what it is you want. It’s certainly not what I want. I work my ass off, I’m lucky to have a job I enjoy mostly, and it keeps me employed. I work hard to provide for myself and help my family, but it doesn’t involve growing food, or living on a farm. In the world you freedom fighters are talking about my world is gone, destroyed. Any modern society would become a wild-free-for-all of violence (look at any place in the modern world where it's happened!).




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Although I am not sure exactly how I I should respond to your post, I wanted to say something in hopes that this thread didn't die out. I'm glad that you at least consider what might happen should a revolution as you describe it occurred.

I think it would be a safe assumption to say that the virtually majority of all 'freedom fighters' don't want anarchy. What they want is a return to a free-er America more in line with what the founders intended. Ideally, we could vote the bad out and the good left in their place would pull back the reins and reduce government control, influence and power. Unfortunately as government has grown to the extent it has, politicians are more concerned about being political than representing the people and maintaining a free, constitutional government. In addition to that, as we have seen, government increasingly is dictating how private businesses will operate, and everyone begins to have a vested financial interest simply to stay afloat (some to gain substantially,) that people have been increasingly and willingly letting go of liberties bit by bit.

Now what you seem to elude to is that you are willing if not happy to let things be as they are since it maintains you lifestyle. Those who are shouting a battle cry of freedom either place a greater value on liberty than yourself, or they see the inevitable end to giving up incremental liberties and want to see it stopped before it comes to that.

With technology and cities being what they are, to remove the system as in a revolution, is far more drastic and is the ultimate reason people cannot or will not even entertain the idea of needing to revolt against a corrupt government. The founding fathers didn't need to worry about that when they revolted. At that time everyone was capable of taking care of themselves so the system breaking down only impacted the presence and authority of the British crown.

But here is where I think you missed a critical element in your thought process: The States. The individual states can govern themselves. To my recollection, anyone outraged with the government is referring to the federal level. Should the federal level disintegrate, I firmly believe (with the possible exception of Texas, Alaska and Hawaii, that the states would see fit to join together in a new union, with a clean slate, or at a minimum starting off of the constitution and its amendments alone.

Life would be dramatically different in such a transition period, and the only thing that would throw a wrench in that idea is an attack by a foreign government. Even there, I would bet the states and people would unite for that front.

I apologize if I am bouncing around a bit, but it really all boils down to constitutional and inherent human rights as envisioned and brought forth via the creation of the USA. Is that freedom more important than comfort and technology; and are you content with your individual 'independence' being dependent on the government or something else.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Thank you for the reply and for some insight into what, at least you, think.

I guess my biggest disagreement is on the nature of people. Looking at history, looking at the last few election cycles, looking at the vast divide between people that hold different views. I think it's almost impossible to believe that the people would work together, except in the face of a foreign attacker, Americans on one side often dislike Americans on another side(no matter which sides you pick).

In a conflict that got many many people killed those differences would become insurmountable. The first Civil War still generates lingering animosity between those sides. In a Civil war that actually split the country up after tens or hundreds of thousands end up dead, displaced, or starving, it seems highly unlikely (to me) that people would be willing to work with the people they were fighting.

I can see the romance of wiping the slate clean and returning to a government that is for the people and not for the corporations and the politicians. I just don't think it can happen via violence.

I firmly believe that the Constitution is one of the best documents ever produced by humanity. It had in place the means to be changed hrough amendments, it is a living changing document. But going back to my point about one side against the other side. I doubt there will ever be another amendment and that's a shame, times change, the world changes, we the people need to change our government. I don't believe that's possible through violence, not without destroying the very country you seek to save.

I still want clarification on something you said:

"Those who are shouting a battle cry of freedom either place a greater value on liberty than yourself, or they see the inevitable end to giving up incremental liberties and want to see it stopped before it comes to that."

What liberties are you talking about? I was in the military, my father was in the military, both my grandfathers were in the military. I belive my liberties are wide and expansive. They aren't all incompasing, I can't do anything willy-nilly, but I can live my life in the pursuit of happiness.

What liberties don't you have? What liberties do you want or are afraid will be taken away? Where in the world do people have more liberty than the USA? What point in history had more freedom than now? Those are all just one question. What is it you want?



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Are you serious? What liberties don't we have? Patriot Act. Look it up. It does not endorse patriots. That is the first clue.

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. It has been criticized for weakening protections of civil liberties, as well as being overboard in regard to its circumstances of application. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[1] The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9, 2006.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
the sad thing is that a substantial increase in civil liberties and freedoms can, and has been, achieved by peaceful means in modern america. what's more, many political leaders in america were part of that peaceful expansion of civil liberties.

this "rebel, rebel, rebel" rubbish is just a generation of parents that didn't know the best way to deal with a child having a temper tantrum wasn't to give in to it's demands. now those kids aren't getting exactly what they want the moment they demand it from the government, so they think that the only way to progress is to take to the streets with guns and have a grown up version of a temper tantrum.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
the sad thing is that a substantial increase in civil liberties and freedoms can, and has been, achieved by peaceful means in modern america. what's more, many political leaders in america were part of that peaceful expansion of civil liberties.

this "rebel, rebel, rebel" rubbish is just a generation of parents that didn't know the best way to deal with a child having a temper tantrum wasn't to give in to it's demands. now those kids aren't getting exactly what they want the moment they demand it from the government, so they think that the only way to progress is to take to the streets with guns and have a grown up version of a temper tantrum.


I don't know where you get your information from, but the Growing Discontent does not equal rebellion. The Growing Discontent is just that. For you to equate that with a temper tantrum shows your limited reasoning capabilities.

No one I know wants either chaos or slavery. We want the common good on moral grounds without all the liars, cheats and hoodlums in power controlling our thoughts and actions.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


did you think i was singling you out or something, i really wasn't. discontent is good, i'm more than a little discontented myself. i'm no fan of the patriot act either.

i'm talking in general about the video game playing, movie watching, hoo ra macho bullsh1t spouting idiot that goes on and on and on about taking to the streets on a murderous rampage in order to take down the liberal commie pinkos in power.

i'm not talking about the generally discontented and i'm not talking about you, unless, of course, you do think that armed response is the best and most appropriate reaction to the patriot act!?! if that is the case you are not really in a position to lecture me on my reasoning capability.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 



I agree that the Patriot Act was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed by the numbskulls in Washington, it was rammed through Congress because of the fear running rampant in the country after 9/11. It should be undone, it should be almost entirely revoked. But that is a straight forward legal process, it should be undone and I believe it can be undone with a lot of people getting involved in politics and telling congressmen and senators FIX THIS or you are out! It shouldn't be a call to arms.

The hard part is getting people to look past the labels everyone tosses around, and work together. If people can't do it for simple things, like this, it goes back to my comment that I don't think it's possible for any kind of armed struggle to bring people together (except possibly against a foreign enemy)



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Glad to see this got some attention. Let me break down your questions to better answer them from my perspective. Also, I am glad to hear of you and your families service. We are in the same position in that nature.


Originally posted by Abbadon777Where in the world do people have more liberty than the USA?


This is a dangerous way to look at liberty. "We are free-er than them so why should we ask for more?" We as a nation were not conceived to be a 'free-er than' nation, we were intended to be a free nation.


What liberties don't you have?...What liberties do you want or are afraid will be taken away?...What is it you want?


This is the real meat and potatoes of the argument. The only thing that has stopped actual armed conflict with the federal government is that that liberties that have thus been taken away only indirectly affect the common citizen, or have not been 'felt' by many. Case in point, you may have heard of the teen recently held under the patriot act. Now, it isn't a widespread rounding up of people, but for the few who have, that is going too far. Additionally, the insurmountable debt (fiscal bondage) that the federal government has recently thrust upon our children in giving away public funds to prop up failing businesses, and then empower the government in such a way they they have control and influence within those businesses is a direct assault on the principles of a free market. Granted, that a free market is not a guaranteed constitutional right.

It is the actions that the government is suggesting, or beginning to demonstrate that are what is increasing the outcry of the people. Lets just start by walking down the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Speech. The government has identified people who speak out against government policies and action, read the DHS "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" recently released and look at the distorted definitions given to identify groups and label them as extreme. Additionally, nearly every week or two you can find a news report on citizens being stopped or harassed by law enforcement over patriotic, third party or other 'liberty' espousing bumper sticker or other identifying item. And this week, we see congress trying to push through 'Hate Crimes' legislation, which I would be willing to bet, will be used against people who offer an opposing view to anyone based on religion, race, or sexual orientation. Now, from my perspective, a crime or violent act is just that, motive be damned. It is getting to a point where people are starting to feel as though government is breathing down their necks, worrying whether they are going to be stopped, questioned, detained, or are on some list somewhere. This is not my definition of freedom.

The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is already not being adhered to, but on a regular basis now, you can find reports of desires or plans by government to further restrict this right. They distort the definitions of weapons to get some banned, or parts of others. Then they want limits on amounts of weapons, or ammunition, or they talk about putting unreasonable regulations on ammunition or weapons manufacturers to drive prices up or make the products unreasonable to produce.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures... We see this one being infringed upon regularly. Now, for reasons stated above and or for questioning the legality of actions of law enforcement/government, that invokes suspicion and the ire of the parties involved so they then make life as difficult and problematic as possible.

Additionally, we have already mentioned the Patriot Act so I wont beat that dead horse.


Originally posted by piemanyou do think that armed response is the best and most appropriate reaction to the patriot act!?!
and

Originally posted by Abbadon777It should be undone, it should be almost entirely revoked. But that is a straight forward legal process, it should be undone and I believe it can be undone with a lot of people getting involved in politics and telling congressmen and senators FIX THIS or you are out! It shouldn't be a call to arms.

The hard part is getting people to look past the labels everyone tosses around, and work together. If people can't do it for simple things, like this, it goes back to my comment that I don't think it's possible for any kind of armed struggle to bring people together


I don't, and I don't think most of the growing discontented think that armed conflict is the best choice. But, as you can see, anger by the plebs goes unheeded by the representatives. The only response is often to pander to them.

Clearly, violence is and should be the last resort. The sad thing about it is, many already see that as a foregone conclusions. That no amount of complaining or voting will be able to change the actions or behavior of the government as it is now. Should it come to violence, I fear and dread the day. There will be no guarantee on such actions would return us to the intended freedoms of the constitution, but it is the American spirit that drives people to want to risk it all to resist and break the bondage of freedom infringement by an oppressive government.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Anybody that has taken an elementary look at the history of the the second half of the 20th Century would know that so called " freedom fighters " were more often then not the brutal agents of what became dictatorships and such like . The latest bunch of freedom fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan target there fellow nationals based on religion or there actually support for genuine freedoms . Policy failures and support from lefty's has seen terrorists and other insurgents succeed . This pattern may or may not change in Iraq and Afghanistan.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
its gonna be hard to top the replys, which are so well written. I am not good a writer. What we want is for the lies to stop, mismanagment of our money. A goverment that serves the people not one that wants to control every aspect of our lives.We want our kids brought home when the misbehave not thrown in "kiddie jail" ( i just cant beleive we let this one slide, seeing them shackeled for being out late or climing on top of a roof, or making minor mistakes..unbeleivable) We want logic and common sense in our laws not ones that oppress and are based on money.Ten laws were fine.We want to be able to voice our discontent without being fired or jailed. We want a goverment that dosen't meet in the woods of California or in secret meetings with the worlds richest. So to do that we need to bring everything to a stop, we will clean up the mess and fix the waterpumps ect... we don't want caass but it will be nessa'for a while to wake everyone up and clean house. Dont get me wrong , I love to come home after a hard day and relax too....but as for now , I want to see it all come down so we can fix it.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join