If You Think American Troops Will Not Attack Americans, History Shows You Are Wrong

page: 1
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+18 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Many Americans have the opinion the American troops will not use force upon American citizens. US history proves that theory/hope wrong. I will use two examples to prove this to you.

1) Hurricane Katrina. National Guard, police, and other forces went house to house, in clear violation of the Second, 4th, and 5th amendments to the Constitution, forcefully confiscating weapons from law abiding Americans. We all saw this happen on the news and none of us did a damned thing to stop it. Many of those people never got their weapons back. Others were beaten including 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. A group of police entered her home, and when she refused to give up her pistol, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm. She was arrested but had broken no laws, the officers were not punished at all.





2) The Bonus Army In 1924, Congress voted to give a bonus to World War I veterans - $1.25 for each day served overseas, $1.00 for each day served in the States. Payment was supposed to be made in 1945. However, by 1932 The Great Depression was in full force and the unemployed veterans wanted their money immediately.

In May of that year, some 17,000 veterans and their families descended on Washington, D.C. to demand immediate payment of their bonus. They proclaimed themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force but the public dubbed them the "Bonus Army." Raising "Hooverville" camps at various places around the city, they waited.

The veterans made their largest camp at Anacostia Flats across the river from the Capitol. Approximately 10,000 veterans, women and children lived in the shelters built from materials dragged out of a junk pile nearby - old lumber, packing boxes and scrap tin covered with roofs of thatched straw. Discipline in the camp was good, despite the fears of many city residents. Streets were laid out, latrines dug, and formations held daily. Newcomers were required to register and prove they were bonafide veterans who had been honorably discharged.

June 17 the Senate was voting on the bill already passed by the House to immediately give the vets their bonus money. By dusk, 10,000 marchers crowded around the Capitol awaiting the outcome. The Senate defeated the bill by a vote of 62 to 18. The crowd reacted with stunned silence. The bonus army continued to march for a month until congress adjourned.

On July 28, the Attorney General ordered the evacuation of the veterans from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two marchers were killed. President Hoover ordered the army to clear out the veterans. Infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks were dispatched with Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur in command. Major Dwight D. Eisenhower served as his liaison with Washington police and Major George Patton led the cavalry. By 4:45 P.M. the troops were massed on Pennsylvania Ave. below the Capitol. Thousands of Civil Service employees spilled out of work and lined the streets to watch. The veterans, assuming the military display was in their honor, cheered. Suddenly Patton's troopers turned and charged. Soldiers with fixed bayonets followed, hurling tear gas into the crowd. By nightfall the bonus army had retreated across the Anacostia River where Hoover ordered MacArthur to stop. Ignoring the command, the general led his infantry to the main camp. By early morning the 10,000 inhabitants were routed and the camp in flames. Two babies died and nearby hospitals overwhelmed with casualties. Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton, some of the greatest names in American military history led forces that attacked Americans who were peaceably assembled and and peacefully demonstrating as is their God given right.



It has happened before, it can happen again. "I was just doing my job" is no defense. You were doing the job you CHOSE to do. Don't depend on active duty police and military to protect you from our government. Be ready to protect you and yours.
edit on 10-2-2013 by DarthMuerte because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I believe they will shoot their own innocent countrymen, there are endless examples of the police,ATF,FBI etc doing it already and lets not forget the Kent State massacre of unarmed college kids.

They`ll do it because if they don`t they will be court martialed and jailed or court martialed and kicked of the military.Then they will be one of the innocent civilians being shot at by the people they use to serve with.
Given the choice of being the windshield or the bug most people will choose to be the windshield.
edit on 10-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I keep seeing threads on this subject, and I generally stay out of it, but here's the thing-it seems to me that there are very few people foolish enough to believe that there are plenty of soldiers that would fire on americans. ANyone who believes that is just plain gullible and/or not very bright.

But it seems to me most of the people starting these threads are missing some of the point.

While there ARE a lot of soldiers that would fire on americans, there are also a LOT of soldiers that would refuse such an order.

It's not an either/or scenario. Some would, some wouldn't.

On top of that, if the S really HTF, its far more likely that it wouldn't be america troops sent in to fight in america, at least until it truly got out of control. It would be foreign troops (NATO, UN), and it would be private contractors. And neither one of those groups would have any issue with such an order.


+19 more 
posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
In your first video the "soldiers" apparently come to every door in a neighborhood to "strongly persuade" any residents to vacate. If the door is locked they knock. If no answer they break it down. If anyone there is armed they confiscate their guns and leave them to the night. Now these people trying to survive from the trauma of Katrina have a broken front door and zero ability to defend themselves from the "other (criminal) militia" that may come after the military sweep ends. Why not? The residents are defenseless and the door is open.

At the end the "soldier" says, "Its scary. You never know who's going to pop around a corner with a gun."

Like you?

These people haven't enough trouble on their hands, they gotta be "served" by the likes of you.
You are the ones coming round, breaking down doors and pointing weapons at law abiding citizens inside their homes.

You... not some phantom menace that you fear "around the next corner".

You are the menace, American "soldier".



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


While there ARE a lot of soldiers that would fire on americans, there are also a LOT of soldiers that would refuse such an order. It's not an either/or scenario. Some would, some wouldn't.

A lot of time is spent in the military figuring that out before units ever reach the "front". They organize units for "front line" duty and the rest remain in the rear for support. The lead units are the ones that have no qualms. Those are the dangerous ones. The ones you see actually carrying out the sweeps.


On top of that, if the S really HTF, its far more likely that it wouldn't be america troops sent in to fight in america, at least until it truly got out of control. It would be foreign troops (NATO, UN), and it would be private contractors. And neither one of those groups would have any issue with such an order.

American troops are "more welcome" for the type of job at hand (like Katrina). To prevent issues with "indigenous populations" they just use guard units from other parts of the state or country. Less "friendly fire" that way.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While there ARE a lot of soldiers that would fire on americans, there are also a LOT of soldiers that would refuse such an order.

It's not an either/or scenario. Some would, some wouldn't.

65% of normal citizens followed orders and attempted to shock people. This was found in an experiment in the 1970s.
Soldiers are trained to follow orders. Much more than 65% of soldiers will follow orders to shoot. They will be told the Americans they are shooting are trying to take down the government. I'd bet 95% of soldiers will shoot on command.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


how much time is spent on this in the military? I'm curious to know how much time, and how you know it, and what else you know about how the figure it out. I was never asked "hey if I tell you to go to Kansas and start blasting people, whats your response gonna be?" so tell me more about how this process works? I'm very curious.

as for the disarming of residents after Katrina: I was there. residents were popping off rounds at us. we didn't return fire, but we took their weapons away from them AFTER they had used them "to get ya'lls attention." and no, I don't feel bad for doing it, either.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock6
 


Really? So Patricia Konie was "popping off rounds" at the officers? Somehow I doubt that to be true. There very likely was a criminal element shooting at you, and if they were shooting at me I would have shot back. I would not have gone door to door kicking in American citizen's doors in an attempt to follow an unlawful and Un-Constitutional order.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


can you copy/paste where I said she was? or where I said that was the case in every single disarmament conducted? no, you can't, can you? because I didn't say it. I simply stated that in the cases that I PERSONALLY participated in, we had more than enough reason to disarm those we disarmed. I've seen more than one post on here that implied that every single search/seizure conducted was illegal and unwarranted, and that's simply not the case.

as to your comment that you would've fired back, I find that highly entertaining, given that you created this entire post to try and show that US troops would fire on US citizens, I illustrated a perfect, first-hand account of when US troops would've been theoretically justified in doing so but did not, and now you come back saying if you'd been in our boots you absolutely would have returned fire. criminal element or not, they're still citizens, right? how were we to know they were criminals to begin with, until after we made contact and ascertained who they were and their histories?

so in direct response to your "really?" question: yes, really. really really.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I keep seeing threads on this subject, and I generally stay out of it, but here's the thing-it seems to me that there are very few people foolish enough to believe that there are plenty of soldiers that would fire on americans. ANyone who believes that is just plain gullible and/or not very bright.

But it seems to me most of the people starting these threads are missing some of the point.

While there ARE a lot of soldiers that would fire on americans, there are also a LOT of soldiers that would refuse such an order.

It's not an either/or scenario. Some would, some wouldn't.

On top of that, if the S really HTF, its far more likely that it wouldn't be america troops sent in to fight in america, at least until it truly got out of control. It would be foreign troops (NATO, UN), and it would be private contractors. And neither one of those groups would have any issue with such an order.


I will pass this on to the president. What a lovely idea, bring foreign troops onto American soil to police and take away their rights. That will go over swimmingly. As soon as an American citizen opens fire or resists they will be labeled terrorists, and the US big swinging balls military will be all about killing them. " Huh, terrorist? Yeah get some. "

It wouldn't take much to convince a US serviceman that the civilian he was to shoot at, is justifiable. " He's a terrorist." " He's a dangerous criminal." " He eats babies. "

Tada, US military will act.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


This is exactly why US soldiers will shoot at US civilians. If Marshall law comes about the Military will be the police, pretty much all of your rights will be gone. It will be a punishable offense to be out after curfew, hoarding food or water, possessing guns. So when the Army finds out you did, or are doing any of that they will come for you. IF you are a potential threat to them or others they will act as such, and they are far better trained than 99% of the civilian populace.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
You guys are out of your minds.

I am a former infantry Marine, my little brother is a medic in the Army. There is no way my platoon and myself would have shot on innocent Americans. Not to say there aren't people who will in the military, but that is just the 1% of all people that are just insane and ruin # for everyone.

The US military isn't made up of cold hearted evil war mongers who are just looking to drop bodies anywhere we can. It is made up of 18-20somethings who are just normal kids, criticizing them for volunteering to do a job that had to be done, that nobody else wants to do.

In my opinion conspiracy theory nuts that run rampant on ATS are more likely to fire on their fellow Americans than any US military unit.
edit on 10-2-2013 by Skagnetty because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Skagnetty
 


now there's two of us. suddenly, we've stopped fitting into the nice little picture they're trying to paint....



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skagnetty
You guys are out of your minds.

I am a former infantry Marine, my little brother is a medic in the Army. There is no way my platoon and myself would have shot on innocent Americans. Not to say there aren't people who will in the military, but that is just the 1% of all people that are just insane and ruin # for everyone.

The US military isn't made up of cold hearted evil war mongers who are just looking to drop bodies anywhere we can. It is made up of 18-20somethings who are just normal kids, criticizing them for volunteering to do a job that had to be done, that nobody else wants to do.

In my opinion conspiracy theory nuts that run rampant on ATS are more likely to fire on their fellow Americans than any US military unit.
They were the same at Kent State, at the DNC convention in Chicago, during the Whiskey Rebellion, etc... It has happened many times in the past. It will happen again. I am not saying "all", I am ex-military myself and I would not have followed such an order. However, many will.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Kent State = National Guard

DNC Chicago (I assume you meant 1968?) = National Guard

Whiskey Rebellion = local militia attacks a US Marshal at his home after he's attempted to serve writs....

seeing a pattern here?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Kent State = National Guard

DNC Chicago (I assume you meant 1968?) = National Guard
This was before the end of Posse Comitatus. Now that it no longer applies, you can expect regular army troops to fulfill those roles. They were still mainly 18-20 year old troops "following orders" to shoot fellow Americans.


Originally posted by Shamrock6Whiskey Rebellion = local militia attacks a US Marshal at his home after he's attempted to serve writs....
You definitely look at the Whiskey Rebellion through the eyes of a "statist". President Washington called out the "militia", there was no "US Army" yet, for use against farmers who were unwilling to pay Alexander Hamilton's whiskey tax. The whiskey tax was actually the nation's first attempt at an income tax. Washington committed treason by using troops against citizens and should have been stood against a wall along with Hamilton. Had that been done, I doubt the statists would have nearly as much power as they do now.
edit on 10-2-2013 by DarthMuerte because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


you can't have it both ways dude. you're citing examples of the US military acting against citizens as a warning against future actions, but the examples you're citing are of National Guard units which are STATE MILITIA being used, and NOT federal military forces.

as for the rebellion, you're right. Washington raised a militia.....IN RESPONSE to the already formed militia that had acted against the Marshal. I'm not debating the tax issue, I'm pointing out that you're citing examples of military action against citizens that are not what you're trying to paint them out to be.

and I notice you've now contradicted yourself, because in response to my post you said you'd absolutely return fire if fired upon in the circumstances I outlined in reference to Katrina, then in response to Skagetty's post you said you wouldn't fire on citizens. make up your mind dude.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock6
 
If you cannot understand the difference between the 2 situations, I can't help you. I will always defend myself, but I would not go and harm my fellow citizens under aegis of an unlawful order. Clear enough?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


you can't have it both ways dude. you're citing examples of the US military acting against citizens as a warning against future actions, but the examples you're citing are of National Guard units which are STATE MILITIA being used, and NOT federal military forces.

as for the rebellion, you're right. Washington raised a militia.....IN RESPONSE to the already formed militia that had acted against the Marshal. I'm not debating the tax issue, I'm pointing out that you're citing examples of military action against citizens that are not what you're trying to paint them out to be.
.
The marshal was acting illegally trying to enforce an unconscionable law. The farmers rightly resisted implementation of Hamilton's unjust law. Washington called up national troops, THE ARMY DID NOT EXIST THEN, to squash the tax resistors.





top topics
 
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join