It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Northcom Troops Are Only Human

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:10 PM
There has lately been a lot of internet discussion regarding the possibility of American troops being deployed on American soil and even more importantly about the liklihood ( or not ) in that event, of US troops using deadly force on US citizens if ordered to do so.

This topic is quite understandibly one which is extremely charged with emotion.

I have followed some of the threads and really didn't know how to contribute positively to the discussion so I never posted any comments. This is an issue which in my opinion is very important and that is why I decided to make this thread on it.

To locate a few of the ATS threads I had seen on this topic, using the ATS search function I executed this query.

Of the more than 100 hits which came back I chose the following three as typical examples. Certainly one may find many more if sufficient time or personal interest is available.

Most directly to the point of this thread, and indeed at the very heart of my own concern is the following question -

Reference 3

So here it is: USAF, USMC, NAVY, Coast Guard, US ARMY, all reservists , all vets and current military, WOULD YOU if ordered by the United States government, turn on your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and friends...on your COUNTRY , If the order was given to do so? Or would you fight back against TPTB, to protect our sovereignty and people from tyranny?

Would you willingly round up people say, who wouldnt take a flu vaccine, and assist local police in arresting said people?

If the people rose up against the government, would you stand beside us and help us restore our freedoms? The freedoms we were sworn to protect when we took our oath? Or would you help the government quell the uprising?

A particularly eloquent response later on in the same thread, quoted in part, is -

I'm so tired of people berating our military personnel.
Do I think they would become traitors and round up American citizens if told to do so? NOT FOR ONE SECOND !

Their job is to protect our FREEDOMS and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC ... Our men in women in the military are much too honorable and intelligent to [comply with illegal orders].

You can hate the wars and the government but ALWAYS support our soldiers. As far as I'm concerned, if you hate our soldiers, you're a traitor to our country and the Constitution.

What I am setting out to do with this post is certainly not to hate on or berate in any way our brave and honorable troops. Far from it ! My intention is to absolutely include such military service folks in with all the masses of Americans. Certainly, on average, the law of large numbers practically guarantees our American service personell are pretty much in all respects indistinguishable from the American civilian population.

Most unfortunately this fact is far from good news, and it should be anything but reassuring to anybody who has the evenmindedness to objectively consider the well established facts I am about to present.

We have now arrived at the heart of what is troubling me so deeply, and troubling many other concerned and thoughtful folks as well ...

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of 70 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Those selected were chosen for their lack of psychological issues, crime history, and medical disabilities, in order to obtain a representative sample. Roles were assigned based on a coin toss.

Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early. After being confronted by Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating, and realizing that he had been passively allowing unethical acts to be performed under his direct supervision, Zimbardo concluded that both prisoners and guards had become too grossly absorbed in their roles and terminated the experiment after six days.

Ethical concerns surrounding the famous experiment often draw comparisons to the Milgram experiment, which was conducted in 1961 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram, Zimbardo's former college friend. Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr wrote in 1981 that the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment were frightening in their implications about the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature.

Emphasis mine.

Source : Wikipedia

Continued next frame -

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:11 PM
Since the Milgram experiment as well has profoundly disturbing implications with regard to the topic at hand and was mentioned in the above quote, I provide a brief synopsis here -

The Milgram experiment

... was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.

The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the question: "Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?" In other words, "Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?"

Milgram's testing revealed that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs. Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience," writing:

    The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

    Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.
Italics mine.

Source : Wikipedia

Obviously, the implications of both the Stanford Prison experiment and the Milgram experiment are deeply troubling for anybody considering whether or not American troops, when activated on American soil would ever fire upon US citizens.

I know I've gone out on a limb here with this post, but it is not my intention to offend or denigrate our honorable American service folk - as I have mentioned before, far from it ! I have finally made the decision to post this precisely because my conscience is clear on this matter.

This post is not about generating any big discussion. It is only my intention to raise awareness about the basic facts concerning the issue at hand.

For those who have followed up to this point, I thank you for your time and for your kind attention.

Best Regards, vv ...

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:03 AM
Here in reality we see it is entirely possible. It is based on what we call the 'powder keg'. Basically it is a high tension scenario with one little spark.

In training there is an event where the riot police face off with a volunteer group of civilians, generally triple the size, and act out a riot scenario. They are allowed to throw rocks and fight and afterwards everyone eats pizza and beer. But it can turn pretty bad.

All it takes to get into the mindset is a random attack. When you get struck in the head with a large rock, there is an enraging sense, because you know that you personally were singled out, and you cannot see who in the crowd threw it. This creates a mass tension. But it is when it gets close that the danger starts.
When one person hits another their comrade will see and help out, and basically after one hit there become a string of revenge hits, and soon everyone is involved. Luckily we did not use guns. In theory then in the real situation of government troops versus militia, the tension will be with taunting and the spark will be a SHOT not a hit. And when one of yours goes down then the firefight ensues.

Another aspect is the psychological warfare, which is too long for here, will thread later. But the civilians were allowed to watch a video of police brutality before if they wanted, like propaganda, they wanted well trained. In reality that corresponds to telling either group of the others atrocities or 'terrorist' actions.

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:08 AM
I'll tell you what... I'm all for "intellectual studies" and all. Very useful in their own right.

I'll also let you in on a little "secret" that I posted on one of the other threads you cited, and quoted from...

There are a LOT more of us veterans that are aware of what is going on than there are active service personnel.

You're in good hands, and those hands are your neighbors, relatives, and friends. We're the same prospective "prisoners" that you are worried YOU will become.

The active and reserve service personnel will wise up and step into line, or good old Darwin's law will take over.

Quite simply, We the People... the civilian armed veterans and non veterans, vastly outnumber the active military. Add to that, the FACT that there will be dissent in the ranks regardless if orders are given to detain US citizens.

It simply won't happen.

Note to foreign troops... At least you'll have the opportunity to be buried in the land of the free, the home of the brave if you so much as TRY to enforce the orders of TPTB.

Note to TPTB: We the People KNOW who you are, and when we're done washing our collective hands of the mess you've made, we'll be around to collect our debt from YOU.

I rest my case.

[edit on 30/7/09 by cbianchi513]

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:59 AM
reply to post by cbianchi513

Pretty eloquently put, and persuasive.

No matter which way you slice it, thiings are likely to get ugly ...

As long as I have your attention, may I ask about how I might interpret the background of your avi ?

new topics

top topics

log in