Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Will our soldiers defend a tyrannical government?

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 



The "Lame stream media"(mature) is one of the biggest cheerleaders for the army. It doesn't bring up the drone strikes often, which have killed many innocent people, including children.

Yes, they are puppets pushing the NWO agenda, but they are often sensationalizing stories of perceived misconduct. If it’s not the MSM pushing this propaganda then who is it???




Perhaps I should post the Apache footage, the "brave men and women" in that situation decided to fire upon un-armed civilians with a AC-130. The "MSM" didn't show that too much. Of course not all of the army kill civilians, but there have been far too many instances.

Were any of those civilians AMERICAN because that’s the subject of this thread?




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Wait, so in the same sentence you claim that the "MSM" are nwo puppets, you say that they overblow negative stories about the military which you think is ran by the same nwo. You contradicted yourself in one sentence, impressive.

No, they wern't American, I was backing up my post about the military killing innocent people overseas you tool, the same post you took offense to. Judging by your posts I presume they recruited you after you flunked school?
edit on 25-2-2013 by Cynicaleye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 



Wait, so in the same sentence you claim that the "MSM" are nwo puppets, you say that they overblow negative stories about the military which you think is ran by the same nwo. You contradicted yourslef in one sentence, impressive.

HELL YA! Where have you been? They are playing the tune, bro. Didn’t you know that veterans are the new domestic terrorists? The MSM do the patriotic ass-kissing for ratings and to keep the sheeple waving flags. Apparently some of you fell for it.





No, they wern't American, I was backing up my post about the military killing innocent people overseas you tool, the same post you took offense to. Judging by your posts I presume they recruited you after you flunked school?

Of course they weren’t Americans, you tool. Why then are you presenting examples of crap like that to show that American troops would fire on Americans??

Do you know the topic of the OP?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





Well, I must tell you, professor, I do have firsthand experience. I’ve seen firsthand how people respond to orders (both good and not so good) and I’ve been the one giving orders, too. I understand what motivates people and what people will/will not respond to. I’m a former NCO and currently a degreed business manager. My background isn’t in academia (though I’ve spent years there); it’s in the real world rather than secondhand info. I'm not a 20-something kid on here bloviating. I'm a 39 year old grown man with some life experience.


Seems like we are both just all about assmuptions then . . . However, I'm not a twenty-something college blowhard either and have you beat on age and "life experiences" besides wearing a uniform. And, officer or not, you were still at pawn level. I'm not claiming to be a king or a queen, and quite frankly, they are not the one's deciding the moves either, in most cases. But, keep puffing out your chest and telling me I don't know anything . . . I was somewhat annoyed with your condescending tone, from your first post, but I now find it amusing since you have so much of life conquered at the "old" age of 39!




Corps IS people. Country IS people. Everyone has choices. I’m telling you that the character of the people I served with is, for the most part, above reproach. Especially from people who have no firsthand knowledge to back up their lame assertions.


And this gets to the heart of the problem . . . You lack the perspective of distance.

Nothing I have said is about people being reproachable . . . and that is the point. It's about good people doing evil acts, that they normally would not do. It can be exemplified by the fact that to a man/woman they never would admit the ability to do these things. I have plenty of firsthand knowledge in this subject with members of civilian society, LEOs, and military . . . whether I served as a member or not. I have given you examples and a documentary that shows, in an hour, what it would take me days to write. You choose to disregard these and the other examples I've provided. The only lame assertions are the ones coming from someone that thinks tried, true, and tested elements of human psychology/behavior . . . that have existed since before there was a word for war . . . don't apply to American military personnel.

I get it . . . you feel a little tighness in your chest when someone accuses the military of being able to kill Americans. You think this means I'm claiming they are mindless, heartless drones. That's not what I said in any post . . . look it up. I also never claimed it would be across the board . . . there would be dissenters, if ever turned against their own populace.

I also never claimed conditions were right for soldiers to go along with such orders . . . because currently they are not. But, if they were . . . you would be proven wrong very quickly and as ex-military you would be one of the first one's on the list.

How do we get to those conditions?
1. Us vs Them - use prejudice to foster the (fictional) notion of the existence of superior and dominant in-groups and inferior and powerless out-groups . . . if you haven't seen this ramped up between gov and dissenters since 9/11 . . . you haven't been watching.
2. Obey Orders - gov insists people obey or suffer the consequences . . . again, already taking place . . . do your own research.
3. Dehumanize the outgroups - if you really were an officer in the Marines, this should be second nature to you and need no further explanation.
4. "Stand up" or "Stand by" - if our soldiers haven't "stood up" yet . . . this is the last station to dissent (but, will our current men or women make that "life on the line" decision against our government (this is the hardest part for military members, obviously).
5. Suppress Individuality - for civilians this is the last hurdle to face before killing your own . . . unfortunately, for the military this has already been accomplished and why they rarely refuse to kill their own. You have demonstrated this tenent quite well in the thread. Semper Fi!

When you can argue against the easy of implementing these steps . . . or tell me how LEO abuse at US riots differs from Marines at Abu Ghraib . . . or how Jane Elliot's studies don't show children are born ready to turn on their own . . . or how 18yr old grunts are any different than the kids at Stanford that took part in the Prison Experiment . . . or how the media has no way of fostering a Rwanda-situation in the US . . . we can talk more on the subject. Until then, never the twain shall meet . . .

edit on 2/25/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 


Critical . . .

You have to realize that Seabag thinks Americans are totally unique from other humans on this planet. Makes sense when you see he claims the great country of Tejas as his proud home.

If it didn't happen here in the last couple years, apparently, it is incapable of happening . . . and the rest of the Limbaugh/Beck fans will give him plenty of stars for stating so.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


But you didn't answer my question. Will you sacrifice your family for a revolution?

The point of the post was that some will fire upon citizens but the majority won't. 67% of the Guardsmen did not fire their weapons. Those Guardsmen were most likely ill trained and inexperienced, they were in a very confused situation and, when they heard the first shot, some opened fire. Some, not all. Others chose not to fire, they disobeyed their SGT and their training.

So, the point being is that not all of the soldiers would fire upon civilians, a majority would refuse those orders.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I have faith that the U.S. will not degenerate to third world conditions as a result of third world like governmental issues. To ensure our survival as a whole, everyone needs to be alerted to the realization of tyranny and corruption in all facets, no sugarcoating. If the mindset is oriented to the genuine pursuit of divine liberty and freedom, then those with the military upperhand and other authority figures will resist being used for what would then be considered unjust purposes.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsAConspiracy
 


Your question reeks of logic.

You will find that is frowned upon here far too often. S&F


That kind of thinking will get you no where.
edit on 25-2-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


But you didn't answer my question. Will you sacrifice your family for a revolution?

The point of the post was that some will fire upon citizens but the majority won't. 67% of the Guardsmen did not fire their weapons. Those Guardsmen were most likely ill trained and inexperienced, they were in a very confused situation and, when they heard the first shot, some opened fire. Some, not all. Others chose not to fire, they disobeyed their SGT and their training.

So, the point being is that not all of the soldiers would fire upon civilians, a majority would refuse those orders.


Honest to goodness, I'm not sure what you mean by sacrificing the family and how it fits in. As for the rest of it, all I'm saying is that the odds aren't good if that many would fire and the end result was the death of 4 and wounding of 9 others, all unarmed. My point is that it should have been 0. You can minimize the participation all you want, but it doesn't matter much to the dead guy.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The government already fooled people into this "War on terror." We invaded Iraq for basically no reason. They were looking for any reason to go into Iraq.

Iraq, nor Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Most of the highjakers were from Saudi Arabia. Once people started realizing we shouldn't of been in Iraq the government came up with saying they had WMD's, which were never found.

If the government can fool people into going into a war. I'm sure they can come up with ways to demonize certain groups of american's. Especially gun owners.

In some peoples minds they refuse to believe the government will try to deceive us, and will follow orders expecting it to be for the greater good.

I'm sure some may stand with the people. But I'm sure just as many will side with the government.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


People on this board think that a soldier can simply get up one day, desert his post and join a revolution. Well, they can't, a lot of them have families and they need to think about them as well as doing what's right. How many could just up and leave their families to fend for themselves? That was my point.

As for Kent State. In a perfect world, it would have been zero deaths and zero soldiers firing on the crowd. Unfortunately, it's not perfect and neither are the soldiers. From what I know of that day, a SGT fired first into the crowd, the other soldiers most likely got spooked when they heard the gun fire and thought they were being shot at...it was a mistake...a deadly mistake. These Guardsmen were inexperienced and ill-trained.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


On your first paragraph, I understand your point now. Thanks for clarifying.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsAConspiracy

Or am I wrong? Will soldiers just blindly accept orders and that they're just mindless killing drones?



From 1z observations of how the consciousness can be COLLECTIVLEY manipulated. 1 feels it would require some type of unseen activity to pull the Troops into locations and their Ranks into ACCEPTANCE or ok-Go mode. Those scenarios 1 will allow your imaginations to evaluate.

But it seems the Troops would have to be placed or located first then something happen to trigger a immediate conscious/physical RESPONSE to SOMETHING and then the Soldiers would be already in engage mode consciously and physically dealing with (whatever scenario) In turn the tyrannical government system as shared in OP would basicall implode from within being controlled from out... Which in the end may serve a or one of potential many HIDDEN AGENDA unaware of by those that some may feel are or should be aware..

Interesting OP ItsAConspiracy, Shivery code ORIGINAL;GOLDEN RULE DNA codes within the many & ranks included is why a conscious SHOCK is or would need to be provided to orchestrate.. (whatever scenario)

NAMASTE
LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 



Seems like we are both just all about assmuptions then . . . However, I'm not a twenty-something college blowhard either and have you beat on age and "life experiences" besides wearing a uniform. And, officer or not, you were still at pawn level.

Well now that we know each other, let’s sort this out.




And this gets to the heart of the problem . . . You lack the perspective of distance.

I have plenty of perspective. I could elaborate more but don’t feel the need.


Nothing I have said is about people being reproachable . . . and that is the point. It's about good people doing evil acts, that they normally would not do. It can be exemplified by the fact the to a man/woman they never would admit the ability to do these things. I have plenty of firsthand knowledge in this subject with members of civilian society, LEOs, and military . . . whether I served as a member or not.


But you quickly cast an entire group into your study set. That’s not the case…people are different. The article you presented was more about the propensity to kill rather than the propensity to do the right thing. When it’s on American soil against American people (that hasn’t been the case in our lifetime and wasn’t covered in your study) it’s less about posturing and more about peer pressure, family and constitutional principles. I’ll give you the fact that new recruits don’t know the true magnitude of their oath but EVERYONE knows their bond with their fellow Marines (or soldiers, sailers, airmen, etc) and with their family. Who is going to fire on their family???? Would your numerous relatives fire on you??




I get it . . . you feel a little tighness in your chest when someone accuses the military of being able to kill Americans. You think this means I'm claiming they are mindless, heartless drones. That's not what I said in any post . . . look it up. I also never claimed it would be across the board . . . there would be dissenters, if ever turned against their own populace.

I also never claimed conditions were right for soldiers to go along with such orders . . . because currently they are not. But, if they were . . . you would be proven wrong very quickly and as ex-military you would be one of the first one's on the list.

I’m on every list…I expect that.




How do we get to those conditions?
1. Us vs Them - use prejudice to foster the (fictional) notion of the existence of superior and dominant in-groups and inferior and powerless out-groups . . . if you haven't seen this ramped up between gov and dissenters since 9/11 . . . you haven't been watching.
etc

Let me start by saying I was not a Marine Officer. I was an enlisted man who re-enlisted once to finish my 8 year obligation actively. I had full intentions of doing 20. I got out because I had serious problems with what I saw and the way things worked. I’m not going to get into the whole thing but I will say that it opened my eyes and made me more of a critical thinker. I went to college at 28 and already knew critical thinking.


As far as your list, I know what you’re saying and there is truth in what you say. You’re right but you fail to realize that individuality is ALWAYS maintained throughout the brainwashing. I’m a better man for what I’ve seen and done IMO. I know the psychology involved ESPECIALLY in making Marines.




When you can argue against the easy of implementing these steps . . . or tell me how LEO abuse at US riots differs from Marines at Abu Ghraib . . . or how Jane Elliot's studies don't show children are born ready to turn on their own . .


In response to your scenarios full of bad acts I’ll tell you this…it was my unit that rescued a young female soldier from a very nasty fate in 2003. We care…almost all of us….and everyone I served with would have died any day we served if it meant defending our country, which at the time was what we (at least I) thought we were doing. In the Marine Corps it’s GOD, COUNTRY and CORPS. For most of us, it’s GOD, FAMILY, COUNTRY and CORPS. Don’t let what you’ve heard skew your perception of our ability to think. Nobody I know would take up arms against American citizens unless the conditions were perfect. I don’t think TPTB could ever create the conditions necessary. If they do, you need to remember that there are @ 22 million veterans with the same training as that total active force right now - currently @ 1.5 million active duty.

Don’t let the gray haired men fool you either…they know what’s up!



They’re more effective in combat than that National Guard boot in the videos earlier.


{sorry - had to edit your posts for space otherwise I would have included everything you said}

edit on 25-2-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


You don't give our servicemen/women enough credit. I'm sure they will realize that if it got to the point of shooting ANY Americans, it would only be a matter of time before the rest follow as targets.

edit on 25-2-2013 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Will our soldiers defend a tyrannical government?

Well personally I think they have been doing that for the last 250 years.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Yes, they will just look at other countries in turmoil.

However, it seems they can be persuaded to switch sides.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I think we are just missing each other on the comprehension of our points . . .


I have great respect for those who serve . . . very little respect (and even less trust) for the bureaucrats who put them in situations that even call for them to make the type of decisions we are discussing.

I also realize that, individually, many members of our armed services will act according to their oath and not act on immoral orders. And, I'm quite certain those that are no longer active will not fall in line with any orders given to active members.

That said, let me give you a domestic situation where I can see the military acting against Americans The following is about a West Point Center for Terrorism paper that outlines a new danger to America. (I thought I had a link to the actual paper, but I guess not . . . You may have seen this, as I know this has been posted on ATS at some point, as well.) In the report it talks about "far-right anti-federalists", their love of individual freedoms, and the silly notion of self-governance:
West Point Study

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.


So, one of our own academies has now likened those that believe in the bill of right as domestic terrorists and I'm sure you are familiar with the DHS's definitions on possible domestic terrorists. Now, the us vs. them and an inferior outgroup has been created. You are in line with the current gov . . . or you are a terrorist. No longer just an American who disagrees with policy. This study came about the same time the current firearm hysteria started.

So, if we do have something like economic collapse due to our crushing debt and the gov decides to move troops inland to "keep the peace". Obviously, the first thing will be to secure the cities by disarming "potential threats". I think we both know if this happened, many citizens and vets would not comply?

Now it's just not the military taking out Americans on a bureaucratic order . . . it's them doing their job to "keep the peace" or "restore order" when people rebel or riot. The rhetoric they receive will not be . . . "take it easy on your fellow citizens". Those orders would put them in harms way. Their directive will be to take care of those that don't comply.

Sure, no one would fire on their own family. However and barring that, I don't think a ground level soldier would hesitate to fire on American's who may be doing nothing more that trying to survive or defend their property. From then on . . . the average citizen will not view the military has being on their side, but as an extension of the gov. The military will see civilians as "threats" and any hesitation to the orders will disappear in the interest of self preservation. It would escalate from there and if you add in armed drones, where kids are pushing the "red button" from hundreds of miles away, things would get nasty.

This is the reason I say that the miltary will fire on Americans. Not simply an order to protect the gov against citizen's rebellion. The lines would be drawn and the dehumanizing rhetoric would become more devisive.

Worst case scenario, maybe, but not hard to imagine. Now, do I think we are headed for civil war? No, but it seems the gov sure wants to goad the populace (at least a certain segment) into action and I'm not sure why. If there was action, the current members would have a hard and quick decision to make. I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes, nor do I trust those in Washington to put the breaks on them if it escalates.

As I said, it's too easy to get good people to do evil when you are taught to trust in the decisions of the authority figures. And once given the authorization to do what's necessary against the "enemy", there will be a lot of abuses (as in any war).

My hope, as always, is that we are never in that situation to begin with and, if so, you are more correct than I.
edit on 2/25/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


And for some reason I can't "quote" any of your last post . . . but, we are in full agreement on the "old guys"!

I shoot with those guys, everyday, at the range!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by skorpius
A lot of times the Gov will lie to the troops and make them believe the enemy is a real threat.


In today's "connected" world they would need to shut down the net, and that would start all kinds of mayhem.

I don't see gun grabs in our future, at most they'll ban a few scary looking features like bayonette lugs or flash hiders.

Just like the Brady Bill, whch was a giant waste of paper and peoples time.






top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join