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.

 

National guard unit refuses to answer questionaire about using lethal force on Americans Updated

page: 11
149
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ranger_Ric

Originally posted by Elsha
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 


Anyways yes there are plans to police the U.S. citizens and it will involve foreigh troops....one of them most assuredly being the French


I do agree that they would need UN troops if they even wanted to have a shot at this but they best they could do is perhaps control a few large cities. I don't care what kind of troops they employ, they don't have the manpower to secure the vast majority of the US.

On a personal note, other than the French Foreign Legion which is primarily a merc unit anyway and likely have few frenchmen in their ranks... does France even have a real military? The French are going to come confiscate my weapons and food? That's funny.


France has a very capable military.

I'd put their spec ops on a par with SAS and Navy Seals.




posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ranger_Ric

... does France even have a real military? .....


Yes, and I believe their banner is a white flag



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
topical here:




theintelhub.com...

Two Four Star Generals Write New York Times Op-ed Against NDAA and Indefinite Detention of Americans

The Intel Hub
December 21, 2011

Two four star Marine generals have written a stunning op-ed in the New York Times which demands that President Obama veto the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that allows the government to use the military to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process.

Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, both 4 star Marine generals, published the piece on December 12. The op-ed starts with a direct demand that President Obama veto the NDAA bill in order to protect our country from the “false choice between our safety and ideals.”





stevequayle.com...


Letter from Brigadier General Friend / Deputy Commander Of Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay Cuba Concerning US Citizens Being Held As Terrorists

Dec 21, 2011

["cons" against Gitmo as being a prison for Americans...]

[...]

§ I believe legal experts would argue that American detainees (not held on US soil) be afforded Geneva Convention rights.
§ The JTF detention facilities are small. While it would be possible to keep the current detainee population separate from the Americans, it would be difficult.
§ How the guard force (average age 22) would react to treating Americans like foreign detainees is anyone’s guess. Having separate Rules-of-Engagement for different detainee groups is also problematic.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


The vast majority of military personnel will NOT fire on U.S. citizens. You people really need to quit worrying about U.S. military personnel doing this.

Well history would prove you wrong time and time again. The Military go against their people 99.9% of the time.

So I think we will play on the safe side and go with history. But thanks for your input.

I do hope history's probabilities will be proven wrong and that the military in large majority will side with the people and refuse the orders.
edit on 8-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)


I don't think there's been any other country like the US, or her Armed Forces - so your statement is a little skewed.

I'm an active member of the US Military and if I was ordered to fire on US Citizens, I would simply lay down my weapon and say no. We do not have to follow orders which we judge to be morally wrong or corrupt. Servicemen and women have the right to disobey that order and then be scrutinized under a Courts Martial to determine weather or not the order was justifiable. There are many cases where Marines refused to fire on civilians - they were tried and found guilty of disobeying a direct order - but were given light punishments (if punishments at all).

So in essence, you can stand firm that the Military overwhelmingly supports Ron Paul, and the majority also would not fire on innocent US civilians.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
All of us whom have taken the oath to defend our constitution against all enemys, both foreign and domestic, must stand together and keep that oath. Our term in service to our nation may have expired, or we retired, but our oath to the constitution of these United States will never expire, and should not ever be taken lightly. The Armed Forces of the United States is a force that is paid for by the people, and is paid to protect and defend our constitution. I salute these soldiers who have the courage to stand up for their beliefs and will not obey an unlawful or immoral order.

edit on 25-12-2011 by govspy911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


What is terrifying is that there is a questionaire on this in the first place!!!!!!


Hell yeah!!

Also they better not use lethal force against Americans, Its their duty to serve this country and her people first and foremost. Not to shoot at us.


Well at least thats what my grandfather told me, The ideals and morals of America might have changed since his time.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
remeber in the movie a Bugs Life? the grasshopper didn't want to the ants to know they could over throw the grasshopper through sheer numbers. Our government has the same fears. United we stand...divided we fall.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Unless the OP can produce actuall proof this occured I say it should get moved into the hoax bin.

It's feel good patriotic propaganda, nothing more.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
The military have no business marshalling conflicts between domestic civilians; that is the domain of the police and the courts

The role of the military must be limited to defending the nation against foreign enemies otherwise the people themselves will become the enemy

What is the government so afraid of that requires such regressive legislation ?

edit on 29-12-2011 by wemadetheworld because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Maybe the question should be if a soldier is given an immoral and unconstitutional order to kill American citizens (assuming no due process of law here; no trial, no judge or jury)...will that soldier then summarily kill his commanding and superior officer or nco who issued said order?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Twenty years ago, I could easily say that virtually no one in the military would agree to such a thing. Today, harder call. I know a LOT would not, nor would they simply lay down weapons, either. Most would be fighting the idiots that demanded such a breach of the law. That's the reason, I would assume, that certain people would prefer UN troops, other "security forces", etc.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by wemadetheworld
 
er yes they do "to defend against all foreign and domestic" domestic means the US citizenry



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by wemadetheworld
 
er yes they do "to defend against all foreign and domestic" domestic means the US citizenry



Not sure where you got your information, but the in the actual oath its

"to serve and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic"

So domestic could just as easily apply to corrupt government as it could citizenry.

omitting those words seems to twist the intention a bit - IMHO
edit on 3-1-2012 by vogon42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by vogon42
 
yes it is, the last time I stated it the thread got closed, but we are on the same page , what is good for goose is good for the gander.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Medically retired USAF Captain here. I can surely tell you that if I were faced with this situation that as soon as everyone had laid their weapons down I would have given them a round of applause and said "you're all the type of men and women that we need. Standing for the men, women, and children of America, and never leaving a lone Airman behind."

I can't believe the commander is actually pursuing a court martial. Once again facing that situation with one of my Airmen I would be behind my NCO's speaking with JAG and the Base Commander on the issue. I'd pursue until either I was right alongside of my Airman, or being charged myself. It's just a power issue.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 



I have met MANY officers who were concerned with nothing more than impressing their superiors, and gaining that next promotion.

I am glad to see that you are obviously NOT one of those.

I thank you for your service, sir.

(and as an NCO I say that "sir" with actual respect)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by vogon42
 


Trust me... I know the type that you are referring. Worked with many of them as a Captain and work with them still as a GS-13.

I once as a 1st LT worked alongside of another LT for a Marine Corps Major in a deployed environment (not a very hostile location). We had a few personnel working for each of us. Their tasking varied from the duties at our location to forward deploying to other very hostile locations in both Iraq and Afghanistan (Blue Diamond, Fallujah, Mosul, Kalsu) to name a few. One of the other LT's Airmen was often in Blue Diamond with Marines. Just about every week he was there and back for a few days picking up equipment etc.

He became accustomed to Marine terms working with them often (Errrr, Yut, Kill). Although mostly Air Force was at our base, he hung onto them. He ran into a 2nd LT one day, saluted and yelled "Errrr sir". Uptight LT (thinking it's disrespectful) tells him (as a short version) not to say it again. Airman being a hard headed gets into a verbal altercation with the LT. Airman comes into our cell shortly afterwards telling us what happened. Later the LT comes in and tells us a similar story but making it sound worse than what I know this Airman would do. Major is there as well.

Airman's LT (the one I work with) tells the 2nd LT that he'll handle it and begins sweet talking the guy. I could tell he was going to give him paperwork and I couldn't take it anymore. I stood up and walked closer to the 2nd LT and said "Excuse me for one moment Lt. Bowers but I need to handle this." Then I told the 2nd "Don't EVER disrespect and demotivate MY Airman by telling him what he can and CANNOT say. He clearly explained to you that it's a form for respect of ones kind you still take your initial view of the term which he uses as a way to deal with his stressful position to harm him. He will not be getting paperwork over this whatsoever. If you have an issue with it, have your boss to call mine (pointing to my chucking Marine Major sitting at his desk). And think about how silly you will sound telling your boss that I won't give my Airman paperwork because he was being respectful to you in a different way than you understood."

Point is, sometimes it only takes one person to do what's right for others to want to back you. Our Major could have been persuaded either way. If I hadn't stepped in, the Major would have backed Lt. Bowers. But I know that he has the Marine fight that would back me unless it got out of hand which it never did. Lt Bowers was the kiss butt type that wanted to make himself look good by handling it calmly and hurting his own people.

Sorry for the long story, but I feel it fits. Same type of situation may have happened had one Officer backed their decision not to complete the survey. Shows their true morals.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


i think the questionaire was taken out of context..

i'll ask you this.. would you take up arms against an american citizen who was spreading anthrax around a city?



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ensign
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


i think the questionaire was taken out of context..

i'll ask you this.. would you take up arms against an american citizen who was spreading anthrax around a city?


Question first...
Does he know he is spreading it? (is this intentional)
edit on 7-1-2012 by vogon42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ensign
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


i think the questionaire was taken out of context..

i'll ask you this.. would you take up arms against an american citizen who was spreading anthrax around a city?


Ensign, your question, is a non-event, a framing question.

FIRST: Those who spread anthrax historically, are dupes. Therefore the first thing to know as a soldier is that the people above you, especially Generals and officers, will and MUST lie to you. Often however, they're protected from having to lie, by being lied to themselves, this makes it easier to lie to you.

So if you are told: "Shoot that dude! He's the anthrax spreader!!" ...Chances are, you gonna be a damn TOOL if you pull that trigger. Is the subject dancing in a burka, waving a sack marked "anthrax" over his head?

But really the truth is that most GI or infantry types soldiers are gonna follow orders. So it'll be the Corporal and Sgt level of command which sways the soldiers. And that's why the famous Russian Marxist "Joe Steel" decided to complete decapitate his own army before engaging Hitler. He couldn't afford any free thinkers so he liquidated most of his commanders. In the famous "angry Hitler" scene of web-fame, it's actually a scene from the movie "Downfall" where Hitler is screaming "I should have liquidated all the generals as Stalin did!" ...So you see, in the end, this thread is web-chub-fluffery, it's a substitute for actual research, and the question posed above, is an example of how threads like this hold your attention while nationally, most humans are lulled to sleep.

What's cool for Joe Steel was that he had secretly made a deal to have rolls royce engines and funds, so he knew Hitler was in a rope-a-dope doomed state, and therefore he guessed correctly that he could chop the head off the Red Army, and build a new head before Hitler attacked. Although many millions of Russians died, these were mostly slavs who were destined to die since Stalin and Himmler were both Jesuits accomplishing a death-offering for the vatican called "World War II". So from outside appearances Stalin's damaging of his own army seems foolish but he secretly knew the fix was in, and that in the end, Rome would only grow stronger. And he was right.

It would be sad today, if some Marxist ass decided to abandon or sabotage our US military in this way. It's important to study the fervor with which the Nazi Sixth Army marched into their own graves. Literally they polished themselves up and marched and dove face-first into the giant tomb called Stalingrad, and of the 100k soldiers who survived to surrender to Stalin and Ike, less than 10% survived. Literally the armies of Germany were marched into the shredder. Both Stalin and Hitler had contempt for their militaries, while chatting up the patriotism of the soldiery, is the point. It's up to the individual commanders to guide their men mentally, and hopefully not guide them off a cliff under orders.

Also its important to understand that even today it is not fully accepted that Hitler outright and purposefully abandoned his army in the combat zone. All the scholars and douchebags will make excuses for poor old Adlof --"Oh he was senile he was crazy, oh who could have forseen that he'd sacrifice his whole army?!?" ...In fact it appears that Himmler intended to create a holocaust and that requires many many victims to die fully of their own volition, in the occult definition of sacrifice. Himmler despite being a Jesuit, had the Bagavad Gita as his cherished text and it's basically a book which serves the war racket, because Arjuna is encouraged to allow both armies to immolate themselves. That's exactly what Himmler did. He survived WW2 and surrendered, he expected the Vatican would preserve or reward him as a modern day Arjuna, but he got left holding the bag and had to take a suicide pill, chumplike. That's the final truth of Arjuna, he makes warmongers rich and then passes into history, just another priest.



new topics

top topics



 
149
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join