It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Except it was police, not NG doing the knocking down doors, confiscation, and so forth not the national guard. The video shows NG patrolling the streets, but only the cops actually entering dwellings.

Ahhh, sooo...
I hadn't noticed. Thanks for clarifying it for me. I respect that coming from you. They won't allow cameras along next time either.

That next time was Sandy Hook?




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by xedocodex

The Military has it's reputation for a reason...I'm sorry you don't like it.


The supposedly peaceful left has that reputation as well. Lee Harvet Oswald was a socialist, SirHan SirHan supported the Palestinien cause, I can go on and on. Just look at the OWS movement that lasted about what? Maybe a year, if that?

Jared Loughfner was a leftist as was the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building not to long ago. The list goes on.

You are buying into the divisiveness. Think for yourself please. There are bad elements out there and there are good. And both believe it or not are armed and ready to do battle. Though I hope it never comes down to that.

I know of no US troops that will fire upon anybody unless fired upon first. That's called Rules of Engagement. But once fired upon, they will respond with overwhelming firepower, that is a given.


Yeah, their reputation depends on who you talk to. Many on the left view the military as blood thirsty killers while many on the right view them as infallible defenders of freedom. I think most people sit somewhere in the middle, realizing that the military is just made up of ordinary men and women, some good, some bad.

As to your other point about not shooting first. They don't have to literally shoot first. Since we're talking hypotheticals here .......

Let's say the economy keeps getting worse and worse. Cities and towns keep making cuts. Less police, low morale, high unemployment, high inflation, increasing crime ... things get bad. It reaches a point where it's dangerous to go outside in many areas. Forget about 'it won't happen here'. It IS happening here, slowly but surely.

Cities and towns start requesting national guard and military assistance to keep the peace. Some people decide to take matters into their own hands and form mini militias to protect themselves and their neighborhoods.

Because of rampant crime, the military is instructed to confront and/or disarm anyone seen with a weapon. The government DOES NOT like people taking care of themselves. That diminishes their power over them. So, they are told to disarm these 'rogue' militias. The average military guy may not want to but, hey, it's better than a military prison .. so they go along for now. After all, they are just going to go keep the peace, right? Word gets out to the various groups that the military is coming.

There is a standoff. The ordinary military guy thinks he's going to diffuse a potentially dangerous group. The civilian sees the military as coming to take away his means to defend himself and his family. Military says put down your weapons, civilians say FU, we got this ... go away.

NOW what happens? Not one shot was fired, but we have a problem. The citizens ARE NOT going to trust the military patrolling the streets of America, no matter how well intentioned it may start off. Anyone who studied history knows that a military patrolling their own streets turns out bad much of the time.

In this hypothetical standoff someone is getting shot and killed. A spark. It doesn't matter if the military shoots first. Just the fact that they are there threatening to shoot first is enough. They have now lost the trust of the people and are viewed as an enemy. If the people say no, is the Army just going to say, ok nevermind, and turn and leave. Not likely.

And the government who sent them there knew it would be this way.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I agree OP.
I wonder if the 1,500,000 million ready to fight American Soldiers
know that the 88,000,000 million American citizens with 300,000,000 weapons
may do something wacky like, fire back?

Hell, let the 2.2 million ready to fight Chinese soldiers join them.
4 million vs 88 million? That's a fight all armies in the world combined wouldn't want.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by teamcommander
 


Teamcommander, the main reason why America invaded Iraq was because of the WMD. When this wasn't found the government changed the story. I believe myself that the reason was something entirely different, but that is not related to this topic.
I think the US army will shoot on it's own citizens. The government will come up with a lie, the MSM will follow this up, most of the people will believe this and the shooting will begin. I was afraid it was going to happen during the occupy movement.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I don't know what to say to you, it is the reputation the Military has.

And it is not the same as stereotyping African Americans, because that is not an organization that people join, stereotypes against African Americans are solely based on their skin color. But the Military is an organization people join...and they join knowing that the Military kills people...this attracts a certain type of person.


The Military has it's reputation for a reason...I'm sorry you don't like it.


That would be a false assumption. Most people join the military out of an idea of service to their country. Sure, killing is at times part of that, however, killing can and has been justified. Might I remind you that the only way we got the Nazis to stop their genocide was to kill them--an aweful lot of them.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamrock6
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?


DNC Chicago - A great deal of returning Vietnam vets were placed in the Guard upon their return home to the states to finish out their draft hitch. These Guard units were comprised of US soldiers... regardless of what their uniforms happened to say at the time.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



That would be a false assumption. Most people join the military out of an idea of service to their country. Sure, killing is at times part of that, however, killing can and has been justified. Might I remind you that the only way we got the Nazis to stop their genocide was to kill them--an aweful lot of them.


I have no problem with the Military killing people...but it does attract a certain type of people.

Again, I don't know what to say to you, if you want to deny that the Military has a certain bad reputation...then that is fine...but it won't make it go away.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
First, break the economy and eliminate jobs, then ask the military and police to confiscate America's weapons. You need no other "loyalty" to get the military against US citizens then the PAYCHECK they'll receive by doing so. If there are no JOBS for them to consider and they need food on the table, their loyalty will turn from the US Constitution and WE, THE PEOPLE to the almighty dollar, in an instant.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 


It would be like Jackie Chan versus a class of kindergarten children. Although there are more, and sure they will hit him, the odds are stacked against the untrained side.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



That would be a false assumption. Most people join the military out of an idea of service to their country. Sure, killing is at times part of that, however, killing can and has been justified. Might I remind you that the only way we got the Nazis to stop their genocide was to kill them--an aweful lot of them.


I have no problem with the Military killing people...but it does attract a certain type of people.

Again, I don't know what to say to you, if you want to deny that the Military has a certain bad reputation...then that is fine...but it won't make it go away.


Shrug, I think the bad reputation is because of a media that focuses on the negative and ignores the positive. You hear one side of the story.

Military is a miscrocosm of society--you have all types.

I think they divide into three general groups.

First of all, you have the idealists. They join because they beleive in service and believe in the Constitution and believe in protecting their fellow Americans. I think that this group will side on the pro-liberty camp and would not shoot their fellow citizens.

Thenyou have the careerists: those people who will do anything, including kicking thier own grandmother in the teeth if it meant promotion. These are the type to blindly shoot their fellow citizens and the type that led the attack on the bonus marchers.

Then you get those that just signed up for benefits/money for college, They just want to do their hitch and then get home in one piece. They don't have ideals one way or another--it's jsut a job for them. They could go either way. Some would obey any order if it meant they could go home and forget about everything. Some would not because "I didn't sign up for this #."

Realistically, if it ever came down to brass tacks, IMHO, the military would be as divided as the populace.

It is one thing to go to another country and kill strangers, it is another to go to your hometown and shoot people you grew up with. Ask a troop to shoot uncle Bob or cousin Sam, calling him a terrorist, when you know that they can't possibly be terrorists, and there is going to be a kickback. Our military does not exist in a vaccuum. Our families, our friends, are here. Our neighborhoods are here. Our kids go to school here. We live here. We eat in the same restaurants and shop in the same stores and do the same things for fun everybody else does. This all makes bringiing war upon our fellow citizens much more problematic than you think.
edit on 11-2-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
I agree OP.
I wonder if the 1,500,000 million ready to fight American Soldiers
know that the 88,000,000 million American citizens with 300,000,000 weapons
may do something wacky like, fire back?

Hell, let the 2.2 million ready to fight Chinese soldiers join them.
4 million vs 88 million? That's a fight all armies in the world combined wouldn't want.


You're, unfortunately, under the impression anything would happen under a "FLASH" pretense. That "suddenly" and "rapidly" we'd be at war with the US Military. Buddy, I hear your passion and 88 million of us appreciate it, but...They're going to slowly and surely drag those bullets out of your collection...slowly make us criminals and steadily break the economy, leaving us starving and ill equipped to fight.

Share with us your plan to combat THAT tactic.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eldensword

Originally posted by sealing
I agree OP.
I wonder if the 1,500,000 million ready to fight American Soldiers
know that the 88,000,000 million American citizens with 300,000,000 weapons
may do something wacky like, fire back?

Hell, let the 2.2 million ready to fight Chinese soldiers join them.
4 million vs 88 million? That's a fight all armies in the world combined wouldn't want.


You're, unfortunately, under the impression anything would happen under a "FLASH" pretense. That "suddenly" and "rapidly" we'd be at war with the US Military. Buddy, I hear your passion and 88 million of us appreciate it, but...They're going to slowly and surely drag those bullets out of your collection...slowly make us criminals and steadily break the economy, leaving us starving and ill equipped to fight.

Share with us your plan to combat THAT tactic.


That's the thing...death by a thousand cuts. If their was a major uprising, all at once, there would be a lot of military defectors, so the balance of power would not be as drastic as imagined. Also consider that the military does not run unless civilians supply them with fuel, food, ammunition. The military does not run without civilians to fix their tanks and aircraft. On some bases, military contract maintenence civilians actually outnumber soldiers and airmen.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 


false. the Guard units were Guard units. OP is trying to make the case that it was US Soldiers. he didn't specify that it was former US soldiers who are now state militia. he stated US (federal) military. just because they were at one time federal has no bearing on the fact that when the examples he cited they WERE NOT FEDERAL. they were under STATE orders.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I wonder what those who claim to be soldiers who would "not shoot" American citizens (and lets not talk about the "soldiers" piloting drones who are "shooting" at all kinds of people right now, they know or care not who) would do when the orders are not to shoot, but to round up, arrest, detain, or otherwise grab with force and put into a cage.

Would you refuse that?

Because, to my mind, there's not a lot of open space between shooting a guy and throwing him in a clod dark cage forever.

There is simply no reason to think that your average soldier would resist that kind of activity. Today, this very day, and for a long time now, active duty military folks have been engaged in setting up and (happily) manning the police state. No qualms, no orders refused.

Waco.
Ruby Ridge.

Men with uniforms and guns (and there is ZERO difference between an FBI SWAT Team "soldier" and your average USA Private as far as their moral code goes) always justify to themselves what they do to other people. Most often it involves a process of dehumanization, or of some other type of characterization that allows them to avoid the plain facts of what they are doing. This is why the tough guys who beat up citizens at poilitical protests always wear masks nowadays. It is not to hide their identities from the cameras. Rather, it is to hide their faces from themselves and from each other so they can do the evil they plan on doing.

Stanford Prison Experiment. It's all you need to know.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by xedocodex
 


clearly you've never served a day in your life, and if you did (which I strongly doubt), you were an REMF to the extreme. perhaps get off the MSM bandwagon that all military are borderline psychotics who love nothing more than dropping napalm on babies and putting rounds into bodies.


No, I never served, I had other options in life.

And sorry, but US soldiers don't have a good reputation for a reason. If you don't like it, work to change it.


this is comical. I joined the military because I CHOSE to, not because I had no other options. get your mind out of the rut you're so clearly stuck in when it comes to the military. you're buying in to the same old pathetic refrain that other "enlightened" people try to use. thats cool and all, I'll just fall back on the old military refrain of yea, I chose the option of having a pair of balls.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Great. now you're comparing the ENTIRE military to a broken individual,brilliant.
Not a perfect example AT ALL.
I hope they got rid of all of their combat people who disagree, then we'll just have more on our side to kick their butts.The best talent is already out of service because THEY HAVE THE SKILLS.Less DELTA in service than out SEALs, special forces,spooks and excellent field officers trained in MOUT ops.
WAY more than under federal command.Most like me who love their country and have American pride.
What will the attackers be proud of? What will they believe in? A paycheck? Just to survive? Then they are reduced to hostages,that won't work for a warrior mindset to win. You have to believe to create the will to drive.
As a side note I hear marksmanship is suffering in the ranks these days.


Yeah, you completly missed the point.

Not comparing the Military to Dorner...more like comparing the LAPD to the Military and how the public supports them going after him.

Just like if a group of "patriots" decided to take the law in their own hands and start killing politicians because they weren't abiding by the Constitution, the Military would be all over that group and the public would support them.

The Military will shoot Americans...they will shoot whatever and whoever they are told to shoot (or allowed to shoot, since many of them are trigger happy).


WOW. You obviously have zero military experience...I have a suggestion for you, turn off your TV.

Trigger happy? Yea you definitely watch too much TV.

You sound like the type of person who would be spitting on the troops coming home from Vietnam



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock6
 


The question wasn't who was issuing the orders (Fed or State) but what US soldiers would do when those orders were given. In Chicago, they may have been guard units, but they were populated with US soldiers transitioning home.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
People of honor will never break an oath given honorably. Ever. That being said most people have no honor and many don't even know what honor is. I will be saddened to kill my fellow Marines, the ones with no honor, but if we are forced to fight to remain free i will be honoring my oath to defend the Constitution. History will show the ones who choose to be on the wrong side of this battle to be without honor.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 


no, the issue is the OP is putting forth examples carried out by Guard units under state orders as being examples of US troops firing on civilians, under federal orders, and he's giving erroneous statements to do so. clarity, my friend. clarity.
edit on 11-2-2013 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I don't trust people in the military. I probably sound like a b*tch saying that. Oh well.
edit on 11-2-2013 by starrysatya because: (no reason given)







 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join