Genuine U.S. Military questionnaire: Would you obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens ?

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Hi all,

I just stumbled across what seemed to be initially a rather innocuous questionnaire/survey that Lt. Cmd. Ernest Guy Cunningham gave on May 10, 1994 at 29 Palms Naval Base in California.
It's aim (as a COMBAT ARMS SURVEY) was to gather data concerning the attitudes of U.S. combat trained personnel with regard to non-traditional missions. However, some of the questions and especially the last one, gave me pause for thought. So I thought I'd throw it out there and see if anyone else thought as I did that something seemed a little "off".

Source: Combat Arms Survey


39. I feel the President of the United States has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander- in-Chief to the U.N. Secretary General.
(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion


then there's ...

I would swear to the following code:
"I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense."

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion



And they kept the best question for last ....


The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these fireamis (sic) to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to tum over their firearms. Consider the following statement:

I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion



So, placing one's tinfoil hat securely on one's head .... could one interpret the above as:

1. The U.S. President surrenders his military command over to the U.N. military authorities
2. The U.S. military swears allegiance to the U.N military authorities and pledges to fight to the death if required
3. The U.S. military would consider (and treat) U.S. citizens as enemy combatants and use deadly force if ordered


It would have been most informative to see the responses to that last question. How many taking the survey would have agreed ? How many would have disagreed ?
edit on 27-9-2013 by afoolbyanyothername because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by afoolbyanyothername
 


What people think about this subject on ATS is irrelevant. Go ask the guys and gals on Active Duty. More than 85% of them would obey if the populace was defined a threat to the national security.

ETA: The outward attitude of most soldiers towards civilians is frightening. That's the voice of (daily) experience speaking, friend.


I've been retired from active duty for 15 years. Times have definitely changed.
edit on 2792013 by Snarl because: ETA



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
The title of the thread is worded quite differently from what is actually in the document.. why?

Also, this question may very well be trying to see how the person reacts to the question, if they say they would fire if the person refused to hand over their non-sporting arms, then that might be a call to investigate that person more closely because that's the wrong answer.

I'm just saying.. you seem to be assuming way too much, and since the title of the thread is different than what is actually said, not to mention, way out of context.. that's probably the case.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Snarl
reply to post by afoolbyanyothername
 


What people think about this subject on ATS is irrelevant. Go ask the guys and gals on Active Duty. More than 85% of them would obey if the populace was defined a threat to the national security.

ETA: The outward attitude of most soldiers towards civilians is frightening. That's the voice of (daily) experience speaking, friend.


I've been retired from active duty for 15 years. Times have definitely changed.
edit on 2792013 by Snarl because: ETA


More than 85%? where do you get your figures? I live near a major base and most of my friends are military.. none of them would ever turn on their own people.. they scoff at the very mention.. I hope you have something to back up that high number.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Questionnaires like this are pointless. Most people fill out the answers that they think the person giving wants to hear. So when someone asks the question "As a U.S. Soldier, would you fire upon U.S. citizens given the order?" most people will answer no, because that is the accepted norm. Not to mention they are using their thought processes to think about and answer the question.

However, when actually putting the same soldier in the middle of a city with unhappy citizens and a trigger happy CO who gives this order things will turn out very different. First, the soldier's years of training to follow orders kicks in. Second, it is the heat of the moment so they won't be utilizing their brain at full capacity either, instead relying on instinct. Third, these soldiers will most likely be deployed to areas of the country where they shouldn't have family or friends. Fourth, the citizens in question will have been vocally demonized by military and government propaganda to make them seem less than human. The result of all this is that many soldiers would end up firing on U.S. citizens if given the order.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Their little blindly obeying brains are kept quiet by the documents they sign to say they wont talk about the documents they have signed.

If a random guy runs at a military base and tries to break in, he will be shot. questions asked later. this is standard policy in any country, the miltry are just streching it out as far as they can and use NDA's to keep things as quiet as possible.

Your friends dont tell you because they dont want to freak you out - "you are my buddy Miniatus, but if i get ordered to shoot you i will, im just not allowed to tell you that"



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


This isn't true. I was in the military we didn't sign any documents swearing to secrecy that we would fire on U.S. citizens. Besides, read my first post, the government doesn't have to rely on stupid contracts (that would hold zero merit on a battlefield). The melting pot of correct circumstances will come together to let them fire on U.S. citizens anyways.

ETA: I'm going to give an example of how following orders becomes ingrained. While in my unit we used to do all this training for various things. We would go through processes step by step. For instance first aid treatment. There are a bunch of different things you have to treat and look for when encountering a wounded soldier on the battlefield. All of which are supposed to be done in order (for good reason you don't want to be treating a broken leg while the person isn't breathing or has a sucking chest wound). I used to wonder if I'd remember all the steps and things to check for when the time came. There was just so much to remember. Well the time did come while I was in Iraq, and instead of stopping and thinking about it, we just reacted. Things just fell into place, put a tourniquet on the man's leg and had him Medivaced rather quickly. Once it was all over I couldn't believe that I had done all that I had. Granted performing first aid is a little different than shooting at someone, but the idea is the same. Soldiers will just react when put into the right situations. If they survive that situation, they can regret their choices later.
edit on 27-9-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
That is scary1
I just learned from someone who is active duty that while standing in formation not so long ago they were asked by their commander "would you fire on American citizens if I gave you the order to"?


Also it was explained to them that the number one enemy is biker gangs? Apparently because they are better ogranized I never even thought of them as a possible enemy of the state.

They are being warned and being prepped to prepare to fire on American citizens....moms, dads, kids, doesn't matter an order is an order.

Oh and I was told that only one person broke formation and said no. One person out of about 60 I believe. So quickly they forget what they signed and what they agreed to when joining the Military in the first place. They are suppossed to be our protectors.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   


The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms.

Not going to happen since that decision would be against the Constitution.
Therefore question is irrelevant and stupid.
Oh, I'm not an American citizen, but I strongly believe in your Constitution.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

More than 85%? where do you get your figures? I live near a major base and most of my friends are military.. none of them would ever turn on their own people.. they scoff at the very mention.. I hope you have something to back up that high number.


The OP asked for thoughts, he got mine. They're apparently in conflict with yours. So I'll ask you, since you have friends in uniform: Who were the folks disarming people in Katrina? What has your government been doing over in the ME these days ... fighting another uniformed army ... or conditioning people to go door-to-door in search of weapons? Who was questioning the most senior leaders of the military on this same subject, and purportedly, letting the ones unwilling to provide a satisfactory answer go?

I'm sorry we're in disagreement here. I have an opinion based on an overwhelming amount experience, daily interaction with soldiers (who I am not personally acquainted with), routine discourse with my son who has spent the last six years in uniform (let me not fail to mention his three tours to the ME), and a hefty distrust of the government's fear of its own citizens and disregard for the Bill of Rights and a clearly defined SCOTUS decision on the 2d Amendment.

You have what? A couple of friends in a non-hostile environment who "scoff at the idea?" Have you asked them about mandatory training schedules to define what is legal and not legal? Are their officers and noncommissioned officers reinforcing this knowledge in their office spaces? I bet the 'honest' answer to that question is, "No." I can assure you it's not on the training schedules of the soldiers in this theater of operations.

You want to challenge me on my belief that it's as high as 85%? I'll admit I'm probably off, because I didn't take into account the 'herd mentality' which would be prevalent in such a dramatic situation. It'll probably be an even 100% after the first few shots are exchanged. My bad.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
You are fooling yourself if you think that military personnel won't follow orders to occupy,,, so, if they are put in harms way they will protect the lives of themselves and their fellow soldiers. And given the right demographic of opposition they would in fact desire to waste some hippies much less those who oppose their authority, I believe their has been at least one president who warned us against the military industrial complex ( hint hint JFK) (cough) most soldiers are not soldiers as such but support personnel , the guys who pull the triggers are not always so peace loving fellows. As an ex medical mos in the army you see a lot and hear even more. I imagine if there is anything to this posts thread validity , the medical personnel who are currently active would know , they almost always are briefed on any action that may result in mass casualties. The only way to avoid such a travesty is if all people stand up , the discipline and brainwashing never fully goes away for some military( a small part of me would love to kill every fat lazy gay long haired greasy hippie spoiled brat punk gang member wall street over privileged self important and most of all those who lack respect for the military community as a whole )
You would do good to understand this: the us gov is a fascist management corporation and will do anything to preserve the corporation , that's what being fascist means , the state not the individual is necessary. However despite all that is supposed , I believe much of the support persons would revolt and take up arms with the people. Only a very few are true trigger men in the military. Most of this statement is opinion, not fact. Look for yourselves the circumstances we find ourselves in---- it only takes a button push and k blewy , mushroom cloud.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Thats great and all but if you had signed something you co9uldnt tell us. so... thanks.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by zilebeliveunknown
 





Not going to happen since that decision would be against the Constitution


Yes, because we all know our government and its representatives have been working just so darn hard to keep in line with our constitution. Oh, wait. They've been doing just the opposite.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarl
 



What people think about this subject on ATS is irrelevant. Go ask the guys and gals on Active Duty. More than 85% of them would obey if the populace was defined a threat to the national security.


I'd just say that despite having a family strong with military service and tradition? I've never met one of those 85%. I've met a few people who I think a psych examiner was wasn't paying attention with. Maybe hungover from the night before when they came up for the checkout. That's psychos though, and the military does attract that sort. They try and keep them out...but some get through.

Regular serving military? I don't buy it. The whole American military doctrine is set up and established on the idea of each man being capable of functioning independent from command or to assume command of the position above, on demand. It's not like a good % of the world's militaries that way ...but it means we don't train our people to be robots. ....close perhaps...but still?

Then, the more highly trained and more advanced they are? The less likely I think they'd follow it. Special Forces would tell them to get stuffed if the people I've run into in my life are any indication. Just my take on it.
edit on 27-9-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Biigs
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Thats great and all but if you had signed something you co9uldnt tell us. so... thanks.


There is nothing in the paperwork that says anything about shooting civilians. If you knew our laws you would know that it is against the law for the military to police the population.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarl
 


That is completely wrong.

I have spoken to many US military personnel .....if they were ever given that order....they would wait until they were armed and once fully armed they would turn their weapons on the commanders issuing those orders.

You have lied man. Most military would turn on commanders giving those type of orders ....most commanders would sooner die than give those orders...

What BS.

You obviously don't know a single military service person very well or at all......



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Doesnt really matter how anyone answers the question. They'll do what they're told when told. Especially when given just enough information to rationalize what they are doing.

Send a bunch of guys stationed on the east coast to the northwest to put down a violent insurgency and retake a town or two and plenty of people will end up dead before any one of them takes a minute to think about what they're doing.

Eventually I believe the vast majority of enlisted would do the right thing but at the beginning you'll have enough blind order followers being duped and plenty of young kids all itchy for any action then can get that the first few weeks or months they will be more than happy to mow down Mr. and Mrs. Smith in Anytown, USA.

Considering it illegal to use the military to police the citizenry is laughable. Since when has legality affected any decision of the government? They just make up laws they need and ignore the ones they dont.
edit on 27-9-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
Just my take on it.


Oh yeah!!?? You tell that to John Rambo and see if he agrees.


In all seriousness, I hope you're right and I'm wrong ... but I'm not.


Best for everyone if the situation has no reason to develop.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by afoolbyanyothername
 


Now that the establishment has successfully designated anyone who disagrees with this administration a terrorist then I guess all that is left is to only allow mindless drones into the military.

I would ask these people what there thoughts are on when you are attacking someone's family what do you think is happening to your family, I mean is there a question as to weather your family owns guns in this test?
I guess they could just put you in one state while someone else is doing your family.

Something to think about before you become the agenda Pit-bull.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

tadaman

they would wait until they were armed and once fully armed they would turn their weapons on the commanders issuing those orders.

You have lied man.


I have no reason to lie on this forum. I did express an opinion based on long-term, developed, personal observations. Here's my last one in this thread: Soldiers don't plan to wait until they're armed and then attack their fellow soldiers. Just remember what happened during Katrina. I'm sorry you took offense.
edit on 2792013 by Snarl because: comma





new topics
top topics
 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join