Violent Protests in America

Let me state bluntly that I am not advocating violent protest in America. I am just asking questions, and they're questions you've already thought about...

What if there were protests against the U.S. government that turned violent and the police killed several people. What if it got so bad that the president declared a state of emergency and brought the military / national guard in... Would other nations get involved and ask the sitting president to step down? How many protests/protesters would it take for them to decide that the sitting American president "wasn't fit to lead the country". Do you think he/she would step down peacefully? Would you welcome other nations' involvement? Would you view other nations' attacks on military installations/facilities here as acts of war or acts of compassion? What if the compassionate nations helping out were Russia, China, or Iran? ...

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman



If our own government were killing tens of thousands of American citizens and we did not have the resources to defend ourselves, yes I would like to see China step in and defend our people. Because we all know the gov't would use the "violent protests" as an excuse for marshal law and military police in every medium-large city. Soon you would get amendments to the Constitution and the further erosion of our rights that would probably make the Patriot Act look tame.

I know you want to hear everyone say "no way I ain't havin commies fightin my gov't for me!" to make a Libya comparison, but when it comes down to it I don't want my government killing US citizens and I don't want MPs trolling our towns

reply to post by Hawking


Tens of thousands? Strange that the Libyan press would list many reasons they protest and "tens of thousands" dead at the hand of Gadaffi didn't make the list. In fact, no mention of any deaths.

Long list, for sure... kind of reminds me of another several governments...

Why do you Libyans want Gaddafi gone? Here are some reasons…

* Salaries in Libya are governed by law number 15 which sets the average salary of Libyans at 200 dollars per month. To make things worst it is customary to have this low wage paid intermittently.
* Law number 4 caters for the confiscation of private and commercial property, practically passing such stolen properties to the members of his family and of its so called revolutionary committee members who are in charge of security.
* The burning down of the land registry building in Tripoli to destroy any reference of legal ownership of property.
* The continuous discharge of untreated sewage in the sea in close proximity to the cities Tripoli and Benghazi
* The sudden unnotified change of Libyan currency practically confiscating all personal assets of Libyans
* Civil infrastructure, healthcare and the education system have failed beyond disbelief in the last 40 years.
* Private Libyan citizens yearly spend on average 5billion dollars in Tunisia, Jordan and Egypt out of their pockets for medical treatment, because they have completely lost trust in the Libyan health care system.
* Gaddafi committed some of the most brutal human right excesses in the late 70′s and early 80′s. Libyan students were hanged in universities, sport auditoriums and public squares simply for not adhering to the green book ideology.
* Gaddafi has squandered unimaginable wealth on his propaganda machine; mainly managed by such figures like Mr. Ali Alkilani and Mr. Abdullah Mansour
* For many years Gaddafi squandered hundreds of millions of dollars on terrorist organizations such as the IRA and the red brigades, and on separatist movements in Africa, the Far East and central and Latin America.
* Gaddafi’s agents killed WPC Ivon Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984 and many other Libyan political dissidents through a campaign that he calls “Eliminating Stray Dogs”
* Gaddafi has also shot down a civilian Libyan airliner over Libya killing about 150 passengers. Bizarrely he had given the doomed flight a similar flight number to the Lockerbie airliner. This atrocity was also committed on the anniversary of the Lockerbie airliner.
* Abu Sleem prison massacre where he ordered the killing of over 1200 political prisoners
* The HIV infection breakout in Benghazi. Over 500 children where effected because the sterilization equipment were malfunctioning.
* Gaddafi waged pointless wars in Chad and Uganda where over 20,000 Libyans died. In addition, Gaddafi supplied chemical weapons to the late Somalian dictator Ziad Berri which caused thousands of deaths.
* The destruction of the mausoleum (in Benghazi) of Omar Mukhtar and the removal of his remains to be buried in a remote Oasis which was an act of desecration to the national pride.
* The act of entertaining and handing out euro’s to hundreds of selected young Italian women in Rome so he could preach to them the green book ideology and convert them to his version of Islam. To add insult to injury, upon his return to Libya Gaddafi publicly insulted and attacked a couple of Libyan women that he caught begging outside Tripoli central mosque (Moulia Mohamed) after the Friday prayer.
* The declaration of war on Switzerland for arresting one of his sons and his wife for beating up the domestic staff.
* The demolition of several historically listed buildings in downtown Tripoli such as the parliament and our foreign ministry.
* The use of Libyan women as so called revolutionary nuns as personal bodyguards.
* The total disregard of the teachings (Sunna) of the prophet Muhammad and his failed attempts at altering the Quranic text.
* The forced military training of very young male and female students.
* The peculiar unwritten law of forbidding the mention of the names of any Libyan official by the national media accept those of himself and immediate members of his family. In football no names of players were allowed to be mentioned except that of his son because Gaddafi regarded stardom as a political crime.
* His continuous efforts to rewrite Libyan history according to his twisted personal ideology and personal grandiose.
* The abolishment of the Libyan constitution (compiled by a team of leading international jurists) which symbolized the smooth birth of Libyan independence and its national sovereignty as voted for by the general assembly of the UN. Gaddafi continued to rule Libya without a constitution until the present day.
* According to the UN development surveys and other international organizations publications Libya’s development indicators perform dismally.
* Gaddafi’s extensive liaison with colourful African witchcraft doctors and voodoo priests, arguably leading to his ultimate act of eccentricity proclaiming himself Africa’s King of Kings. Commentators and political analysts continue to struggle to accommodate this with his brand of revolutionary socialism.

I think it would depend on a lot of variables. Mainly it would matter what the protests were about. If it was over something that had large public support, then it's likely the National Guard and military wouldn't turn on the citizens. However, I don't see any protests such as this occurring. There are many problems with our system, but the checks and balances at least work well enough to implement some sort of change before a tipping point like this.

On the other hand, if the protesters only represented a small fraction of the populace, things wouldn't get very far. The government would likely use riot squads or something similar, since use of military force would only lead more people to turn against the government.

In addition, it seems highly unlikely that any foreign government would get involved and turn against our government. I could see them making public statements, or even conducting covert operations, but they wouldn't put troops on the ground.

I guess it's an interesting thought experiment, but I don't currently see it as a possibility. Of course, things can always change.

Kissinger supposedly said he would have Americans begging for UN troops on the streets of LA one day.

Guess that's what this is really about.

The ultimate formation of a world government which appears to be almost complete for the most part.

Libya can tell you all about how nice and friendly our world government is.

Revolutions rarely begin for political reasons alone. Once people start getting hungry they will start to get angry.

The dollar collapse could cause food shortages, and discontinuation of entitlement checks. That will mean this hypothetical would become all too real.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


good thoughts...

i don't believe other countries would Fire on targets inside the USA, even if we had an internal war,, unless of course , they had their own agenda,, like wanting ,,,ummm,, ok,,, our Women.... or MY car...!!

or our farmlands....

but you gave me a good moment to reflect...TY
s&F

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


You don't remember him firing on large crowds of protesters? www.washingtontimes.com...

And then firing on the mourners who attempted to bury them?
www.huffingtonpost.com...

And then bombing rebel groups and towns?
www.freep.com...

And the list is reasons they wanted him gone before the protests even began.

And yes, Libya is a smaller nations with less people, with America's 300 million people it'd comparably be at least ten thousand Americans

If this were happening in America and it were Obama perpetrating the same, I'd be scared ****less and wanting him dead

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


isn't this the basic argument for sovereignty of the nation itself? at what point does a nation lose its own sovereignty? what is required for other nations to not only tell another nation what to do, but force it to do something it doesn't want to. what's the line that cannot be crossed? in years before, information did not travel like it does now. is what's playing on youtube accurate? if enough people post atrocities, does it become fact which cannot be debunked? if the most vocal of one group even if it reflects less than 10 percent of the population control the basis upon which an international coup de tat is acceptable? what does a nation's sovereignty mean and what does it cost?

At the risk of sounding naive to some people..

I think agitating any NATO nation with the same actions as done to Libya would be political suicide. Its a big club the NWO and if you aren't in it and aren't a super power then you shouldn't throw your weight around too much.

If anyone will do anything like that to a NATO country I think it would most likely be a power like China or Russia. Or both joint.

I believe we are going to be seeing the open formation of two forces similar to the Allies and Axis in World war 2.

Iran will almost definitely be involved.

Troubling times..

Surely the U.N have set a precedence and any form of brutality imposed on the people by their government should now automatically result in all military and government buildings to be taken out, therefore allowing the people to have at least an even chance.

Or does it apply only to countries in the Middle East (with oil)?

Originally posted by Lawgiver
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

isn't this the basic argument for sovereignty of the nation itself? at what point does a nation lose its own sovereignty? what is required for other nations to not only tell another nation what to do, but force it to do something it doesn't want to. what's the line that cannot be crossed? in years before, information did not travel like it does now. is what's playing on youtube accurate? if enough people post atrocities, does it become fact which cannot be debunked? if the most vocal of one group even if it reflects less than 10 percent of the population control the basis upon which an international coup de tat is acceptable? what does a nation's sovereignty mean and what does it cost?

Excellent - every point! And yes, of course, this is the basis of national sovereignty AND respect for other nations' sovereignty. World governance is being demonstrated before our very eyes... I hope the American people are ready for it, it's coming.

Love your comments about information/disinformation.

Other nation's troops do not belong here, and we should not be in Libya. Freedom has never been successfully imposed from an outside force. If a nation truly desires freedom it must achieve it itself. Even here, where we have inherited our freedoms, many of our own people despise those freedoms. Freedom is not free, and it is not a gift to be given. It must be earned. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time with the blood of PATRIOTS and tyrants.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Or does it apply only to countries in the Middle East (with oil)?

Good question.. I think we'll probably have a chance to see the answer to this question soon, somewhere in the world. The answer won't surprise me though, I suspect.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


World governance is nothing new, and yes we do only help people with oil beneath them. It's not right but it's not surprising either.

Conclusion to me is the same though, if I'm seeing the US army bombing our cities I want them taken out. The American people will never have the firepower to defend themselves from an entire military. Especially not the US Military

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Things are never what they appear to be when we talk about governments and their helping others. The answer to your posed questions are simple, others (by others I mean the UN, China, Russia, etc.) would help only if there was something they wanted that would help them with their hidden agendas. The same thing is true of the US and its allies. Now the question should be what is it the US and it's partners in mischief want from Libya? It's apparent it's not to help the average joes of whatever country, otherwise, why would they be using depleted uranium against that country's military, poisoning the land and water?
Rothschild Globalist Killers Pour DU On Libyans In Nuclear War

I do not think our president would step down even though they expect that of others. All due respect to the OP, police brutality is out of control in the US and the people that run our government don't see anything wrong with the citizens being on the end of a hostile cop's stick. I don't see much difference if I was beat (and or killed)by the military for protesting the government or by a cop that felt I didn't hand him my license fast enough, other countries should not get involve let the populace handle their own government.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman


What if there were protests against the U.S. government that turned violent and the police killed several people.

-Of course this would have disastrous consequences. Odds are though that out government would be smart about it.....Demonizing the police along with us.

What if it got so bad that the president declared a state of emergency and brought the military / national guard in...

-If it got to the point where wars were breaking out in the streets i would hope that there was an effort to stop it. Though, it would be up to the state governments to ask for armed military help.

Would other nations get involved and ask the sitting president to step down?

-What would that do? The president isn't a dictator....But yes, if the US government was systematically attacking all dissent through violent force, which would be pretty retarded on their part, other nations would demand the removal of the the government.

How many protests/protesters would it take for them to decide that the sitting American president "wasn't fit to lead the country".

-338?...........Again the president isn't a dictator. He wouldn't be able to do such things on his own to begin with, and removing him would do no good.

Do you think he/she would step down peacefully?

-Barry is a he. Odds are he would be impeached by congress so that they wouldn't loose their power before he could even attempt something that stupid....and he would have no choice in the matter. The whole government, which is allegedly the people, would probably not. The sad thing is the military would be our Fathers, Mothers, Husbands, Wives, brothers, sisters, and friends. I would be hard pressed to think that they would even fight against us.

Would you welcome other nations' involvement?

-Sure, If we were in the face of blatant and terribly violent tyranny any help to the revolution would be welcomed.

Would you view other nations' attacks on military installations/facilities here as acts of war or acts of compassion?

-It would be acts of war, of course, but helpful maybe.

What if the compassionate nations helping out were Russia, China, or Iran? ...

-They wouldn't of course. If they did I would actually side on the US for the time being until they ravaged each other enough to make them too weak to stand against us. I would never trade a tyrannical US government for that of the governments of Russia, China, or Iran. That's just me though.

I remember a similar question posed by a German Officer
to the Russian Army Frontline in the Battle for Stalingrad
over a loud speaker.

This was before a train of Russian Refugees
was placed on a German rail car and stopped
on a bridge, bound them together 2 by 2 and each
pair were shot with one bullet and allowed to fall
over the rail into the freezing river to wit the one
not shot then drowned to save bullets.

This story was re-told in the Hollywood movie
"Enemy at the Gates" with Jude Law.

Sometimes the enemy that appears to be your
friend is NOT really a friend at all.

Regardless of the reason, I would not want other countries involved. If for no other reason than that which ever country or countries helped regain freedom they would want something else in return. Sorry, but nobody does something like that out of the kindness of their heart. I am a firm believer that if you cannot get something yourself and protect it yourself, you do not deserve to have it.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

I agree it must come from within, but is this not what is going on in Libya?. I am no historical scholar, but did not America's revolutionaries receive assistance from foreign nations in our Revolutionary War? The French I believe played a large part.

Is this not analogous to what we see happening here? A small group of revolutionaries standing for a change.( I believe that the Revolutionary War was not favored by the masses at the time, it was the few that dictated what the many would be involved in).

There is no real comparison I suppose to America in the Philosophical sense, but there is at least a topical comparison to the original American cause to get out from under suppression and seek our own way. A small group within a larger group rebeling against a tyrant or tyrannical issue.

Just a thought.