How the U.S. Military Would Crush a Tea Party Rebellion

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Those that are in control determine who is the enemy. I truly believe it's as simple as that. Doesn't matter If your right or wrong. The ones in control determine weather or not you are a domestic enemy. So, with that being said, I don't care if we have YouTube video of an FBI agent running out of a Costco before it exploded. If the citizens revolted over it, they would be the enemy. End O' story.




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
This article assumes the willingness of a large number of the military to turn their guns on American citizens, and in some cases their own relatives.

It would never happen.


threat of militias to inflict violence on others.


Really? Please elaborate. I've never heard of this..


Perhaps that is because you are just cherry picking the bits you like??

The full quite was the "IMPLIED threat of violence..."etc

Any group that is armed is armed for the purpose of using those arms if needs be - which is violence by definition.

Please try to:
1/ quote accurately, and
2/ deny ignorance rather than demonstrate it.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
This article assumes the willingness of a large number of the military to turn their guns on American citizens, and in some cases their own relatives.

It would never happen.


threat of militias to inflict violence on others.


Really? Please elaborate. I've never heard of this..


Perhaps that is because you are just cherry picking the bits you like??

The full quite was the "IMPLIED threat of violence..."etc

Any group that is armed is armed for the purpose of using those arms if needs be - which is violence by definition.

Please try to:
1/ quote accurately, and
2/ deny ignorance rather than demonstrate it.



Ohh please! I wrote one damn line and somehow you manage you say I've misquoted you? Clearly I'm asking a question. And questions are not a demonstration of ignorance. You know this isn't the first time I've read your thoughtless negative remarks. You troll around many of these threads with this same nonsense.

Being armed is an example of their implied violence? Lol. Why don't you take more than two minutes to elaborate on "Constant implied threat" then?

edit on 11/17/1212 by foodstamp because: Typo



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp

Ohh please! I wrote one damn line and somehow you manage you say I've misquoted you?


Is there a rule saying a misquote has to be a certain minimum length??


Being armed is an example of their implied violence? Lol. Why don't you take more than two minutes to elaborate on "Constant implied threat" then?


Because 2 minutes is more than was required.

Sorry you don't understand how armed paramilitary groups carry an implication of violence.
edit on 18-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by foodstamp

Ohh please! I wrote one damn line and somehow you manage you say I've misquoted you?


Is there a rule saying a misquote has to be a certain minimum length??


Being armed is an example of their implied violence? Lol. Why don't you take more than two minutes to elaborate on "Constant implied threat" then?


Because 2 minutes is more than was required.

Sorry you don't understand how armed paramilitary groups carry an implication of violence.
edit on 18-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


Great way to cherry pick my statement and dodge the question! This is pointless. It's not too much to ask someone to defend their comment. Should you want it to stand up to scrutiny anyway. Which clearly you don't.

I'm not even going to argue this anymore. There's no point. You don't even have a story, or a side... Just mindless drivel.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Would the military attack it's own citizens?




Bonus Army

At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. The Bonus Marchers, believing the troops were marching in their honor, cheered the troops until Patton ordered the cavalry to charge them—an action which prompted the spectators to yell, "Shame! Shame!"

After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, an arsenical vomiting agent, entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was a Communist attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested.[11] A veteran's wife miscarried. When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, while a hospital spokesman said the tear gas "didn't do it any good."
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by meticulous
 


Yeah, I would have to agree with you OP and most of the other posts here. As a veteran of eight years in the US Army serving as an Military Police Officer and later working MP Investigations, we did A LOT of “Martial Law” and “Urban Combat” type missions, exercises and training. I can say for 100% certainty, unless provoked by violence, American forces (not counting special ops, that’s a different group of individuals altogether) will not willingly open fire on peaceful American citizens.

The only plausible scenario I would see soldiers firing on civilians is when the civilians commit open acts of violence towards them or that which they are charged to protect. A very good example of this would be the Katrina aftermath scenarios. Where small groups and or individual citizens were shooting at military rescue helicopters as they attempted to rescue stranded civilians. Even then, military retaliation was minimal and mostly non-lethal. Now, I am not saying a certain hired “security” corporation didn’t clean house! Because they did.

You would no more have to fear the US military than you would your local law enforcement agency.

Its when you start seeing the blue hats aka UN forces being dispatched, that’s when its time to keep your head down and go off the grid.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by JBpage76
 


I don't trust our fighting forces any more than I trust the government.

They are pawns of the government in my opinion and if they don't attack, they'll be attacked from within.

Animals know no limits.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Looking @ the average TP member, I'd say that the "crushing" of a rebellion could be done by forcing the average TP member to engage in a running battle for more than 15 min. Old, bulbous white guys with bellies so ample that they now have outtie belly buttons, aging eyes, aching joints... it would be over in a week, or sooner if cold weather hit.

The TP would fold faster than Superman on wash day. Really.

Sure there are a lot of neo-con bladders of hot air (that's what the TP has become, the uber right of the GOP) that will try to refute what I just said, but if they were/are a third as hard/tough/motivated for change as they think that they are motivated they would have no time for ATS as all their time would be deovted to the change that they're seeking to make. Activists act, bladders of hot air yap. Really.

Derek





top topics
 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join