A Question to All Active-Duty Military: Would You Fire on American Citizens?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Well, there's Coxey's Army and the Bonus Rebellion too.

This whole thing sorta reminds me of those weird discussions you get in boot, though - "What if a General orders me to stick my hand in a garbage disposal?"

If you ordered me to mow down a bunch of school kids on a playground, hell no.

If said people had weapons in hand charging my position, well, you ought not do that if you don't want to get shot.

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt if I had the time to evaluate the situation. But I won't stand there and let you shoot me.

O'course, I ETSd back in 1990, so it's moot at this point.




posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Orders are orders...Some will fire and some will not, just depends on how loyal they are to their commanding officer.

Considering what I know and what I've been branded into. I will not be standing in front of them when the order to fire is given.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
It's strange cos people who say no are saying no with the though process of sitting in a chair typing on the internet with no military experience.

But when you have a so called 'Superior' officer or 'Greater human being' saying to shoot, it is different mentality because you are not with the public people way of thinking, you are with the military mentality( A singular way of thinking who tell's you to do something because it is the right thing to do, because they say so?.........Is it?)

You belong to a group know as the army and that is your family, Or apparently is because it is forced into you brain 24/7 that it is.


"You have no family! The only family you have is the military! do you understand private!"


I think every one on this board is clever enough to realise that every nation should disband its military, and the only type of conflict that should go on is a social one!

Not physical, no weapons or poisons, words can solve everything, if you're willing to listen.
edit on 19-11-2012 by definity because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-11-2012 by definity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I am a civilian, but I think the answer is both.

You would see a high rate of defections and you would see people get slaughtered.

If one man isn't there to do their job, another would step in even in a situation like this.

I am also assuming that you are asking a 'Fire on peaceful demonstration citizen'

Technically the military can't operate with force within America against it's citizens, but to think that couldn't change in a minds eye is stupid.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I believe the military are brainwashed to follow orders, not make judgement calls. Haven't national guard and military already fired upon our own citizens here in the US?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Cops fire on unarmed citizens all the time.

Most LEOs are ex military.

If the commanding officers give the proper reason to fire.

The troops will follow orders.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I would do my best to try and explain to any soldier that at a certain time, they will become as expendable as the people they are being asked to fire upon.

With that kind of loyalty, I have no doubt any officer would give the order to take out members of their own unit if they get the order. Disobeying would be punishable by death and would most likely be strictly enforced.

I really don't think we will get to that point though. As long as we have our right to bear arms, we won't have to deal with that situation. Maybe after they try and enforce it and it fails they will get the message.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
CBUs to the targeted area. And when detonated, a deadly chemical gas will kill every human and animal in the specified cordoned area.
I would rather be shot at.
& run like Hell.......Your puppy will make a good meal, im heading for the woods..
Die in peace.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
An excerpt from the enlistment oath: "To protect all enemies, foreign and domestic".
Would I? I think it would depend. If was something like riot control, no way. If it was an individual who was doing some horrific stuff, then yeah I would. It all depends on the situation and circumstances. I would not take something like that lightly.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 



I'm not sure that's a valid statement. Most officers I know were never in the military. Most military that leave service end up doing something similar to their field of expertise. There are a lot who do go into law enforcement, however I do not believe most are prior service.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 


They won't have to.
Troops will be sent to our country and out trips will be sent to their country.
WTSHTF all countries will go down by all other countries armies



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
edit on 19-11-2012 by DrGod because: bored



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
i'm sure at this point that if anyone has seen any of my posts i know this will sound like a broken record but this is something i think about often as well.. REVOLUTION, we need it badly and if we attempted it and marshal law was declared and the military was called to action what would you guy's actually do in this situation? i mean you're a soldier, you have your orders, if these orders aren't carried out there would be actions taken against you BUT the people trying to "take the power back" are doing it for the good of you and your family as well so therein lies the conflict.. do you follow orders being the soldier you are or do you side with the people?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 


Exactly.

Sheeple are extremely suggestible. Just label anyone who is not compliant with the emperor's RFID implant program a terrorist. Anyone who talks about freedom,human rights,national sovereignty, or has committed thought crime or a level 3 sense offense a terrorist or a extremist.

Then the sheeple with activate their NLP pre-programmed hate response to the word terrorist or fundamentalist and hate what ever is labeled "terrorist" or "fundamentalist".

Simple.

MegaCorp News can call a kitten or a 4 year old child a terrorist and the mindwashed sheeple with irrationally want them tortured, executed and burned.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by Expat888
Do you really expect a truthful answer from them on a public forum on this subject ??? keep dreaming...... pigs will fly before you get a truthfull answer to that one....


Sure, why not. Soldiers are people too, ya know? I'm retired now, but most of the people I served with were good people. Oh, yea, there are always dirtbags...but they are everywhere.

The question is a honest one that deserves a honest answer.

But the answer really is in a grey area don't you think? As I said before. The situation dictates what actions are taken in any given scenario.
quite realise they are human too... but they do have their military career to worry about as well... wouldnt look good to the promotion board or when getting security clearances if they mention some subjects on an open public forum....



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I am former enlisted and yes I would fire on civilians and most likely citizens. It does not have to be a riot or anything posing as a threat to my person and I would still engage my target. A lot of you, I believe, are not fully grasping the concept of this scenario. Many of you that have posted mention that the military personnel would be brainwashed or concerned over their career but I think you to be mistaken. Well, news flash for you, people are twisted and there are plenty of them in the military. Now, that is the short answer. You may recall a similar study being conducted in the name of science if you have ever taken college level psychology(if you don't know, I won't ruin it for you). Point is that most people(not military) would do it simply because they were told. Personally, I do not value human life..... it does not get more honest than that. I had more to say, but this should be enough for such a simple question, have a good week everyone.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Timical
 


The actions of the world's armed forces devalue human life, so your attitude is no surprise. The most surprising aspect is that scumbags usually try to conceal the way they really feel, out of the guilt of knowing what they do is wrong. But I wouldn't be too proud of being a sociopath.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
My college roommate of 2 years is in the Army and I asked him a hypothetical question along these lines. I had assumed he would give a reassuring, categorical "No," and I could have a nice positive takeaway. This is a guy who, in years past, had joined me in many conversations not too unlike ATS threads.

Needless to say, I was a little surprised when his answer was more yes than no and very nuanced. He raised a good point that it would depend on the situation and how it was presented. If the order was, "Hey we're going to [insert part of the US] to maraud through a few towns under cover of darkness, shoot as many civilians as possible," he would not comply. He said that was pretty unrealistic, and if the order was to protect a strategic location, etc. he would follow any reasonable order like that and, if threatened per the usual rules of engagement, he would fire on anyone threatening his men, position, etc.

Surprisingly, I found his answer pretty reasonable. I think it would all come down to why the military was sent into the heartland, and how the citizens reacted. I think you'd find a lot of disobeying if the order was something brutal like an encore of Sherman's March to the Sea, but I don't think the citizenship of a threat, US or otherwise, would come into consideration if they were truly threatened with no available response other than force.
edit on 11/19/2012 by hayek11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
First of all the US military is not going to be called upon to engage or even get involved in civil disorder until it becomes so widespread and violent that there will be no doubt in their minds that the “American Citizens” they are asked to round-up, control or engage are acting in such an unlawful manner that they are a clear and present danger to the stability of the nation.

The military will not be unleashed on a generally lawful protest or demonstration. TPTB will make sure that the situation is completely out of hand so that the Soldiers (or Marines, Sailors, whatever…) will have no doubt that they are acting in the best interest of the nation. This is imperative for the success of such a maneuver.

The meme is easy to manipulate…if they control the media as is the case with the current administration.

I am no longer on active duty – I am retired. I did always say I would never do such a thing but honestly, I am glad I was never placed in a position to have to choose.

The economic reality is that most Soldiers/Officers are just people who need to feed, clothe, house and provide for their families and given the choice to round up some strangers; even American strangers, or risk losing your pay and benefits and therefore your families’ security - most would readily do so.

Especially, since this potential scenario will likely be coupled with a collapse of the economy or during a suspension of federal pay or a long term government shut down I think you'd see more Soldiers willing to follow orders just to ensure that their families were being taken care of.

With rampant inflation and a shortage of food, gas and other essentials the government would make promises to pay their salaries at least in part or as a minimum give food vouchers to Soldiers’ families or something to keep them placated.

However, if for some reason the Soldiers were to stop getting paid completely or have reason to worry about the care and safety of their own families we might see desertion and a lack of desire to comply with their orders. Because at that point they have less to lose and more to gain by their disobedience (rushing to the aid of their loved ones). This is the very reason the military would try very hard to keep the Soldier’s paid or at least have their families issued vouchers for housing and food and living securely on their bases. A means of control.

Even with a suspension military pay or shut down of their vouchers or a breach of security or safety on a base from which the Soldiers deployed, it would take a long time to register through the ranks as the military can control access to information very easily.

As a point of reference… Why do you think some Polish Jews would readily round up other Jews during the Holocaust?

it’s because, they were getting food/shelter and either safety for themselves and/or their family to do so. The family unit and its preservation is a more pervading human motivation than even self preservation.

At this point any concept of community, country, and liberty or freedom for all is a neat but not very practical for most people as a point of motivation. This drive also supersedes (for almost anyone) the fulfillment of any oaths to countries or for some (as stated above) even breaking religious taboos.

Most people would kill, maim, starve and torture a stranger – even a friend to save their children or family.

I know I would, no questions asked. If someone gave me a choice shoot my wife or my daughter I’d drop the old lady in a second without a thought – as she would me. I would not blame her a bit.

IMO as a career Special Forces Officer; as long as the government would keep paying/feeding the military most would do as they are told with minor acts of resistance being common, i.e. say feigning the lack of ability to track or find certain people, ignoring small thefts of food and such… If the situation drags on for a long time we’d see deserters. Especially, like I said if these Soldiers had reason to fear for the well being of their own families.

Regarding the locality and use of troops from certain region.. Even the military is not so stupid as to expect Soldiers to round up their own family members and unit commanders would be required to identify and transfer any individual Soldiers/Officers from the US region or city to which they were being be deployed to avoid any undue potential for disobedience for that reason. So you won’t see (m)any instances of anything like that.

As a retiree, my personal threshold for active resistance is the continuation of my benefits. If they should cease; I won't have much to lose by taking up arms and protecting what is mine or taking what I need. Until that threshold is reached I will just keep to myself and mind my own property and investments. I don’t intend to rock the boat until it is in my best interest to do so. Desperate times and all that.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Yes. I would.

Not because I want to mind you.

It's simple. The troops would, no matter how unlikely, be deployed against citizens deemed a threat. They would be classified as not American citizens. Rather foreign terrorists. Lies. A confusion tactic to ensure no questions are raised. How many people can honestly say they have never been led astray?

I'm not saying this makes it right. It's an abhorrent act. I would never be able to live with myself. But lets be honest. Most men wouldn't even know they were. At least, I would hope they didn't. But if they figure it out, I'm sure they would stop.

Edit: I don't think I conveyed what I was trying to say very well.... I need to think harder to get my message across.
edit on 11/19/12 by Echo3Foxtrot because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join