service men and women will fire upon civilians if ordered

It has been my experiance after three plus decades of service.

If you don't shoot at us...We won't shoot either.

But all it takes is one round to screw things up.

I think it's important to consider in the examples being used here, there is one constant that is ignored.

These were never conventional wars outside the opening weeks when conventional armies weren't simply defeated but routed to a man.

Then it turned 100% urban guerrilla warfare. In other words, a combatant could literally change from a legally recognized fighter to a an innocent civilian and back to a determined fighter multiple times within the same day ...and always amongst the general civilian population.

At least in my thinking, that seriously muddies the waters for the whole debate here. When those doing the fighting hide among and knowingly USE the true civilians as cover and concealment? How doesn't it come to look like (and in too many cases become) attacking civilians? Not all decisions of how a war goes are the decision of just one side, IMO.

reply to post by EL1A5


AGAIN!? what is going on with my account.

reply to post by EL1A5


you deleted your post.. ?

If you had a double post you should leave one of them there.

I agree with Wrabbit by the way.. It's one of the reasons they are gaining info on all of our activities.. I'd want to know who would potentially be violent., and so do they..

We are coming into very complicated times, and it's more important every day to know for sure where exactly your morals lie in all conceivable situations.

Be Good guys.

reply to post by oasisjack

Any one american or foreign national who sympathized with the taliban or al-Qaida is a terrorist

yes...that is the only thing I could agree with in the OP.

The problem with 9/11 is that is made legislation that targeted EVERYONE ELSE....including the soldiers and retired vets....That is why they would not shoot their own people. This sort of argument just divides us as a country. THEY ARE US!! I mean come on. This is just retarded.

Please.

reply to post by TDawgRex


If you were ever given the order to fire upon civilians without them firing first; would you?

From my years in service disobedience can lead to death of a service member.

Perhaps these methods might be used to scare those "good" men into shooting un-armed civilians.

It saddens me though that these ideas are even the topic of discussion; you would think our nation has GROWN UP by now.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Artanis667
I have wondered, is it a possibility that if civilians were to rebel against the US government that UN troops could be used to "stifle the terrorist threat"? I mean, it certainly has to be on their minds that US troops might not want to kill other Americans. Especially considering a rebellion likely wouldn't be "region vs region" but strike much closer, in our homes. What soldier is going to shoot his brother for the president?

Just something I've wondered about but speculations as far as i've got.

"what soldier is going to shoot his brother"??...are you kidding?...there are tens of thousands of guys that relive the civil war each year, with actual muskets, grey and blue uniforms, cannons, etc....in realistic (but, not deadly) battles across the southern and northern states. you don't think southern boys wouldn't want to shoot a few thousand northerners, if they felt threathened?... "revenge is sweet" is a cliche, due to the fact that it happens so much, not so little.

Right, but the civil war was more so "region vs region". US citizens bringing an armed rebellion against the US government is not exactly the same. Households would be divided, not entire states. I'd imagine the civil war playing out quite differently if it weren't the north vs south but neighbor vs neighbor, father vs son, ect. Most civil war soldiers marching into battle probably never had to think about killing a friend or family members.

reply to post by Dustytoad


I tried editing it and it erased the whole post when I clicked edit.

I reposted what I said.

I agree with everybody. If that day (or those days) approaches us it will be ugly regardless. I think a few US military units will be mobilized to other parts of the country where they will confiscate weapons and fire on civilians (insurgents). I think some units with strong leadership will resist mobilization because they are Constitutionally aware of the illegality of such an order. I also believe that some foreign troops will "come to our aid" and destroy our freedoms.

As far as military weapons and tech goes, who knows? Hopefully some oath-keepers will be able to be "equipment-keepers" as well.

A perfect example for this in modern times is Syria.Despite being under totalitarian rule,when their army was told to fire on their population.Many of the soldiers and officers deserted and formed the Free Syrian Army.Including top military commanders.

So O/P you seem to think that members of the U.S armed forces, wouldn't see the need to defend their people and country? BULL!!!




...Man...

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


Agreed; many of the men I served with would fire upon their officers if ever ordered to do something to hurt or kill unarmed civilians on their home turf.

I just pray that there are more men and women like that in the service today.

reply to post by ltdan08


I have been on ATS since 2007, this has been discussed many times. I have also talked to service men and women about it.

By and large they would play along, get armed and then turn then turn their weapons on who ever issued an illegal order like that. They are not international mercenaries who are out for a pay check. They are patriots for the most part.

This is all a distraction to make us act like fools to each other so we end up losing them and they end up losing us. You know who they and we have then? Daddy government to keep the union. The federal government then turns into the soul of the union instead of the people.

The military is US and we are THEM. We are one people.

reply to post by EL1A5


OORAH !!!






...Man...

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by ltdan08

 

I have been on ATS since 2007, this has been discussed many times. I have also talked to service men and women about it.

By and large they would play along, get armed and then turn then turn their weapons on who ever issued an illegal order like that. They are not international mercenaries who are out for a pay check. They are patriots for the most part.

This is all a distraction to make us act like fools to each other so we end up losing them and they end up losing us. You know who they and we have then? Daddy government to keep the union. The federal government then turns into the soul of the union instead of the people.

The military is US and we are THEM. We are one people.

edit on 30-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)

I agree with the above and would opine that those who thing the military is comprised mainly of mindless bloodthirsty automatons have never actually served in the military.

reply to post by NavyDoc


They are trained to follow the chain of command. Like previously posted, if they were told a group of individuals were terrorists or whatever was fashionable at the time, do you not think they would follow orders and take them out? Or is the average army grunt able to wait, send out an intelligence team and come to their own conclusion?
Not everyone would, but, with the threat of being discharged/jailed, wouldn't you? (Remember, you don't know they are bad or good, you are just told.)

It would more likely happen like it did during WWII. The military would be off to war while the politicians, using DHS, would reek havoc on the citizens. Using the military in America would not likely work. During WWII corrupt politicians got a stranglehold on towns across America. When the troops returned, they tried to correct it legally through the corrupt voting system and failed. Finally in 1946 The Battle of Athens occurred. A small town cleaned out the corruption with guns and dynamite and ran the politicians out of town. News of this battle spread across America like a firestorm and towns demanded their own corrupt politicians clean their acts up. Eleanor Roosevelt applauded the incident and her take on it is well worth the read.

patriotpost.us...


www.democraticunderground.com...

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

They are trained to follow the chain of command. Like previously posted, if they were told a group of individuals were terrorists or whatever was fashionable at the time, do you not think they would follow orders and take them out? Or is the average army grunt able to wait, send out an intelligence team and come to their own conclusion?

Not everyone would, but, with the threat of being discharged/jailed, wouldn't you? (Remember, you don't know they are bad or good, you are just told.)

Well, that is a valid point and the answer comes back to "it depends." What you may also not realize that we are also trained on the rules of war, the convention, and the concept of disobeying unlawful orders. The Naval Academy even way back when I was a Mid had many, many courses on the ethics of war and this very subject. I agree that, for even someone who would refuse an order that contravened the Constitution, that at the time the situation may not be as clear and cut and dry as many assume.

OTOH, in response to your silly emoticon, yes, if a soldier is shown a bunch of women and children lined up against a wall and ordered to shoot them, he is expected to recognize that as an unlawful order and not only refuse to do it, but stop the culprit in question.

The issue is not that soldiers will obey unlawful orders, but that will they be able to recognize the unlawful ones.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
A perfect example for this in modern times is Syria.

They are the worst example when it comes to watching a stable society not even a few years ago to now where they are sniping kids with MG's in neighbourhoods.

If Civil war hits America, you can bet it will be the most disturbing thing to ever happen in our lives.

Syria is the example I would hope we could learn from.

Originally posted by EL1A5
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

If you were ever given the order to fire upon civilians without them firing first; would you?

From my years in service disobedience can lead to death of a service member.

Perhaps these methods might be used to scare those "good" men into shooting un-armed civilians.

It saddens me though that these ideas are even the topic of discussion; you would think our nation has GROWN UP by now.

Two words.

HELL NO!

I have even gone the route of not returning fire in a crowded market place while being fired upon because there were to many innocents in the line of fire. I have been lucky I guess, to have served with people who thought before they pulled the trigger. We usually just pulled back, but on the occasion we did rush forward as well to put the innocents behind us.

However I have heard stories were someone flipped and did return fire in those types of circumstances. They never turned out well.

It's a fine line to walk, and it ain't fun at all.