Revolution or New Dictatorship?

Does anyone else find the words of the new revolutionists an american version of terrorism? Al Queda wants to take Americans right to choose...the same way these new revolutionists want change..they want to be able to make decisions for fellow Americans based on how they see America should run. They have no plan and no leader in place ready to take over and if they did they would be the ones to choose not by letting all Americans vote. They will get to decide who lives and who is free and will be allowed to do as they see fit.

I am pretty sure they will never succeed due to military involvement. People will say the military will not fire on fellow Americans..which is porbably right, but I doubt they will see these people as Americans and will see them for what they are...and act of terrorism(the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political) by terrorists (a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells). Small cells..AKA militia groups

[edit on 10-3-2010 by kerazeesicko]

reply to post by kerazeesicko


"...(the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political)"...

This sounds more like what our government is now doing to us with the constant "war on terror" and the need to make more laws to restrict our freedoms.

The nude airport scanners are an example of what I mean.

terrorists (a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells).

That sounds a lot like the Federal Government.

I hope you are not buying into the propaganda the MSM spews?

Al Queda doesnt care about our right to choose or our rights in general they just either A want us dead or B smoke there dope and help them stack that paper. Hmmm I can think of a time when the manchus or whatever conquered china but instead of reinstituting a whole new government they figured they would just leave the chinese civil servants keep there jobs and pretty much allowed them to keep up the good work while they just kicked back and ruled the land I wonder how long it took the populace of simple people in the country far away to figure out they had a new emperor. But didnt they also end up in a nasty little opium war with the western world oh yeah England. not to say that this is the case here but yeah al queda probably just wants us dead

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
they want to be able to make decisions for fellow Americans based on how they see America should run. They have no plan and no leader in place ready to take over and if they did they would be the ones to choose not by letting all Americans vote. They will get to decide who lives and who is free and will be allowed to do as they see fit.

No sir, you are incorrect
not how WE see fit but how the constitution says it SHOULD be.
And ALL people voting without rigged voting machines is what
was meant in the constitution.

And don't label us truthers as terrorists.
We are Constitutionalists.

I think that were there any group of individual Americans a)large enough b)well enough armed) and c)organized enough to actually stage a successful military revolution and subsequent coup of the existing government, that they would be so far from representative of the values of the majority of us that it would instantly fail and simply cause an immediate counter-revolution.

That is to say, the only ones that could even come close to being imagined to meet the above criteria would most likely be extreme right-wing/fundamentalist Christian militia types.

I think even though these types of groups are the most likely to try to pull something like this off, they understand that they are outnumbered by the 'moral' majority of this country, and would recognize the futility of the effort. (I take issue with that phrase, 'moral majority' but use it here how it was intended by definition).

Physical revolution by the people, I believe, is completely impossible at this point. The only revolution that is possible is one originating with the leadership of the military. While that is physically possible, I think that the military leadership is too deeply embedded within the political structure for it to happen. Our military leaders are riding the politics bandwagon along with the houses and branches of the government, to say nothing of their mutual complicity in the misgivings of the past few decades.

To speak of a new revolution or a 'new revolutionist' would automatically qualify as misnomer. Terrorist could be closer to the reality. But similar only in that they become desperate enough to commit isolated acts of violence to express their frustration.

Which, essentially is the root cause of terrorism. So yeah, I guess you're right.

reply to post by DeltaChaos


So say if there was a coup between 2 political fanctions with military might do you think it would still start a counter revolution say for example like a Nick Cage Alcatraz scenario do you think that it would get the counter revolution or what then?

BTW I did like your above post very interesting point of view *

reply to post by Brotherman


I'm saying that in the unlikely event that a militia actually succeeded in a coup, that those who were also inclined to revolt now would, since the resulting government would be a defacto, under the new auspice of anarchy.

After having succeeded in attack, they would likely not be prepared for counter-attack, especially from an unknown counter-revolutionary force.

A power vacuum invites competition from all who vie for power.