Shock claim: Obama only wants military leaders who 'will fire on U.S. citizens'

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Well we seem to be getting as much negative stuff on this guy as we are positive. I dunno. But it's curious that he's just the messenger, not the source. I don't think we'll ever know if the officer really said it. But again, is why this is in skunk works. When we get unconfirmed stuff that's just too hard to prove either way, we are then left with circumstantial evidence as the only guide.

But discrediting Garrow is not enough. Other things, and as you can see, more member remarks, potentially corroborate the allegation.

I dunno folks, this one might be too dicey to call either way. We Report, You Decide. If ya can.

reply to post by MajorKarma

That was a pretty good post, and one that I agree with in the main. The only part I take issue with is the notion that Lincoln ordered his troops to fire on fellow citizens. I don't know of any instance during the Civil War where that occurred, but it's entirely possible that it did happen at some point - Lincoln was no saint.

In the war itself, soldiers from the USA were fighting foreign soldiers - soldiers of the CSA. They were not US soldiers, they belonged to an entirely different country altogether, which separated and established itself with the secession and subsequent confederation of the seceeded states.

The US DID invade this foreign country, this country DID defend itself, and then was forcibly annexed into the US. There was military rule and martial law for years after that annexation, which rule was never formally ended. I know these things because I formerly lived in Military District 2 of the occupied territories. At present I believe I am in Military District 1 of the occupied territories. The civilian citizens of those territories suffered egregiously at the hands of the US military immediately after the invasion (and for years afterwards), not just the CSA soldiers.

As far as I know, the former soldiers of the CSA were all disenfranchised, none ever repatriated, and none were ever extended citizenship in the US. For example, former confederate soldiers were never allowed to vote in US elections or hold office in the occupied territories.

Something, perhaps, to keep in mind for the upcoming Civil War II.

ETA: The Emancipation Proclamation was Lincoln's attempt to write law for a foreign country, and held about as much legitimacy as Obama writing law concerning muslims in France if he were to attempt such a thing.

reply to post by ElohimJD


If one requires the government to keep him up, to feed and clothe him, to give him water, then he really NEEDS to be in one of those FEMA camps, and not out here in the general population with the rest of us.

If you make the government your daddy, then live in daddy's house, in the room he tells you to live in.

Found this on YouTube
Same theme:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ElohimJD

That only applies to city people. Most of which are already disarmed.

Originally posted by saturnsrings
Look at yourselves.

I was here when Bush occupied the Wh. It seems there was a ton of threads about Bush declaring martial law, and calling off the election in 08.

What happened then?

Unless my memory has failed me, nothing happened.

No names, means it never happened.

Really though, does anyone really believe that had something along those lines actually happened, it wouldn't be front page news? Unless of course, the military leaders are in on the deal.

Bush is Clinton is Obama is Reagan is Carter is Johnson etc. Don't you get it, all of these Presidents and a large percentage of Congress and the House of Representatives are and have always been owned and controlled by the Corporate Elites..the Owners.

Originally posted by Urantia1111
unless the generals themselves are going to gear up and go door to door killing civilians, they still have to rely on their troops, most of whom i doubt would be willing to kill Americans at the whim of our Terrorist in Chief. i think a large percentage of them would flat refuse.

I agree,I've been military for 24 years not one person I know would...although I'm sure there are exceptions,the majority?no not a chance.These guys and gals are Americans with families,they see whats happening in D.C, and are not happy with current administration.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I am a soldier and for claims of us to fire on one of our own, meaning Americans, is outrageous. I can promise you everyone of the soldiers I serve with bleed red, white, and blue. Yes, we do as we are told, but you better bet your bottom dollar we would never turn on Americans. No matter how high the order was pushed down from! You might not believe in the president but you can always believe in the soldiers doing the work. A "TrueAmerican" will always stand by his troops!

Do you think the majority of the us military will use force to take out its own citizens..
If this is true you guys need to be doing some thing too protect your selfs ??

I would like to think that no Americans would fire on unarmed civilians..And if they
do fire on unarmed civilians is this in its self not a war crime. ?

I truly hope this is some kind of sick joke or disinformation i fear for you guy's if our
government starts asking questions like this im emigrating.

And the face book link and post has disappeared for user jim.garrow.1


Found screen cap of the message.!


Already took down the video wow.!!

Who knows what will happen? Civil wars are never pretty to begin with. I think americans are confused on what the actual issues are other than "gun rights" and second amendment. Sure this is an important issue to some degree, but I have been a conspiracy theorist long enough to know there is great evil behind the western governments especially the american government. You can call them bankers, masons, international capitalists, whatever.

You are not fighting against some make-believe communist government. This is utter bs spouted by the right wing talk heads on fox news. Even they do not believe such gross hyperbole I think, but they have an agenda to demonise the left and keep the communist illusion alive as much as they can.

Fight for your nation, fight against excessive restrictions, against the military-industrial complex, against the rich who do not pay their fair share of taxes, fight against aliens invading your nation, fight against police brutality, fight anything that is real and not imaginary.

And above all hold on to your weapons for as long as you can. I think gun restrictions have become increasingly oppressive for no good reason. Not all left wingers hate weapons. Besides I am a centrist and can see both sides of the arguement. I believe in minimal and effective restrictions, not feinstein's twisted version.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I have a feeling they're gonna have an pretty empty army then.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by newcovenant

 

No offense but I think you are losing it.

Not necessarily, this isn't hard t believe when you take into consideration, Waco,

America has had a long history of using force against its citizens.

It's crazed and unhinged citizens - yeah but then what country doesn't?

OK there are a few who treat ALL their people with the utmost respect, humanity and consideration - even their criminals. We are not one of those nations.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by newcovenant

 

No offense but I think you are losing it.

Not necessarily, this isn't hard t believe when you take into consideration, Waco,

America has had a long history of using force against its citizens.

It's crazed and unhinged citizens - yeah but then what country doesn't?

OK there are a few who treat ALL their people with the utmost respect, humanity and consideration - even their criminals. We are not one of those nations.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Is this a surprise with all the heavily armed gun worshipers out there? Police at any level will shoot citizens, and by the way people are talking, this is going to be routine.

National guard shoot US citizens
All intelligence branches shoot US citizens.
Regular military deployed on US soil is the news, not that they should be willing to shoot citizens.

So grab all your gun-loving friends and neighbors and all your cross-eyed progeny, go to a fenced compound and wait for the knock on the door. I'll see you on the evening news.

Why would a "senior military leader", one who is supposedly "one of America’s foremost military heroes", confide to a foreign national, especially a man such as the Canadian "Dr." Jim Garrow.

As some have posted, Jim Garrow's resume is rather suspect. It certainly makes claims that can't be verified or are inaccurate.

It has been pointed out that his claim to have been nominated for a Nobel can't be proven to be true. We merely have his word for it.

The claim to have been nominate for the Order of Canada, while true, is not as impressive as it sounds. Anyone in Canada can nominate a person or organization for the honour. I could nominate my next door neighbour if I was so inclined, whether or not he has done anything to deserve it. Apparently the Governor-General's staff could not confirm receiving the nomination when asked.

Here is the link to the original article about Garrow that is found on some other sites that were posted. It is from his home town newspaper: Guelph Mecury: The Life of Guelph's Jim Garrow

It amazes me that people so distrustful of the MSM will unquestioningly accept the unsubstantiated claim of some individual simply because it fits with their world view.

I started a thread regarding two dreams I had in the past week, about what is being discussed here, or maybe more of the end result of what is being discussed in this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In my dream, it's more underhanded, though. Interestingly enough, at the end of the second dream, a scene with my dead mother-in-law had her pointing out words in a dictionary that I first thought was a bible. I remember only one of the 3 words she pointed out, and one was "acquiesce". I had to look up the definition of that word when I woke and that word, along with the theme from that dream and especially the first one, sort of made me shudder:

dictionary.reference.com...

"ac·qui·es·cence
[ak-wee-es-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act or condition of acquiescing or giving tacit assent; agreement or consent by silence or without objection; compliance (usually followed by to or in ): acquiescence to his boss's demands.
2.
Law. such neglect to take legal proceedings for such a long time as to imply the abandonment of a right."

www.thefreedictionary.com...

"ac·qui·esce (kw-s)
intr.v. ac·qui·esced, ac·qui·esc·ing, ac·qui·esc·es
To consent or comply passively or without protest."

reply to post by AtcGod

I am very glad to hear the soldiers speak out against the idea of shooting Americans. Keep you eyes open, people.

West Point center cites dangers of ‘far right’ in U.S.
www.washingtontimes.com...

“Shouldn’t the Combating Terrorism Center be combating radical Islam around the globe instead of perpetuating the left’s myth that right-wingers are terrorists?

These elite cadets will be the future military leaders.
2+2= ____?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


You do realize this is a claim correct? Not actually providing any type of proof for it whatsoever. Except for an 'ex' military hero? I'm sure he isn't part of this pro-gun hoax either. The fact that this post, with unsubstantiated evidence has got 160 stars shows the lack of overall intelligence on this website. Now let the labeling begin.

Originally posted by beezzer
Let's table-top this.

The economy collapses.
The grid is down.
Riots in the streets.
Mass starvation.
Massive movement in the streets, migration to safer areas.
And our military is going to impact 300 million plus?

I am highly speculative.

This would work in a small area, just as it did during Katrina. Working in a larger area is far more difficult. Could I see them trying this in a place like Detroit or Chicago? Yes, but I don't think it'd go the way they planned. The tactics they would have to use would be effective only for a very limited amount of time. A city being the focus on operations wouldn't be that difficult, but you'd then have to ask yourselves what strategic advantage would they have for doing this when they know that all of America is buying up arms at a staggering pace?

There also must be given serious consideration into how many veterans we have living among us from the Gulf Wars alone. I'm one of them. Suffice it to say I know many others in my local area. Suffice it also to say that we've discussed this very issue and certainly would not stand on the side on a military killing its own people in defiance of the US Constitution. We know their tactics, we know their weaknesses. In a bit of cheesy wording, "We are Legion, for we are many."

Don't discount the people who walk among you as civilians today who were once heavy with battle rattle sending rounds downrange.

Your list is a good one, but only works for small areas. New Orleans was one, the Jersey Shore was another. When you stretch it even to a five-state grouping, it goes south in rapid fashion. There are too many rogues and dissidents who know what they are doing and won't be taken out easily. There's also the inside stand-down issue to keep in mind. Yes, there are those who would fire on Americans in the right situation. There are also many who would not. There would be a significant resistance from within the military ranks that would prove operationally disruptive.