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.

 

Veterans surround Washington D.C. President orders military intervention.

page: 3
40
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

mysterioustranger
reply to post by bbracken677
 

Heard of Kent State? The military DID fire on us protesters...and shot and killed 4 of us. FOR protesting...peacefully. (Actually, the National Guard fired...on orders).

Not new or recent. Like the videos here portraying it as its now and our president ordered...etc. Didn't happen anytime recent.


ROFL

Heard of Kent State? I guess there is no reason that you would know how old I was, so no worries. Just laughing my a$$ off over that question.

The same Kent State that spawned a number of songs, most notably "Ohio" by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young?

The same Kent State that resulted in students across the US protesting and wearing black armbands?

Yeah, probably that one. I was one of those wearing the black armbands for days afterwards.

Not all the National Guard members there fired shots, in fact, only a small percentage of them did. I am not going to excuse their behavior, not by a long shot but in the interest of truth there are factors that lead up to the shooting that are usually not mentioned.

Such as many of the National Guardsmen were younger than the protesters. Such as buildings had been set on fire, threats made etc etc most notably: "Bring the war home". There was much, much anger on the side of the protesters...with good reason. So, given the explosive nature of the situation the fact that shots were fired (rocks and tear gas cannisters being thrown at the Guardsmen) was not wholly surprising. There was no experience, no real procedures at the time for handling such a situation in a way that would diffuse the confrontation. Much was learned that day by both sides.

This was a horrid day in American History. There were many whose perception of life and liberty were changed that day. I was one of those, as well. You could say that many in the US lost their innocence that day.

I can also tell you that the guardsmen were severely affected by the events of the day. Check it out.

OH, and I never stated that the military would not fire on Americans....never. Perhaps you should re-read the post in question.

This is the song: just cause I like it

► 3:51► 3:51






edit on 21-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: added last line.

edit on 21-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: added song link

edit on 21-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I watched this and made the mistake of thinking on it and then researching further. Aside for the anger I have for the way these Vets were treated, I am astonished at the names involved in this incident, MacArthur, Eisenhower and the one that used to be my personal favorite Patton.

Just imagine what could have been done had we had the internet back then, good chance Eisenhower would never have been president.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

HandyDandy

hounddoghowlie


On July 21, with the Army preparing to step in at any moment, Glassford was ordered to begin evacuating several buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue, using force if necessary. A week later, on the steamy morning of July 28, several Marchers rushed Glassford's police and began throwing bricks.


Did you miss the part where it states "using force if necessary"? If so, you may want to read that again and think about what happened.


the key word is "if. no where and i repeat no where do ever see or find any reports of the police attacking first. from either the government or the marchers. as a matter of fact, the only reports of federal government violence from the eye witnesses who were in the marcher camp, came from the camp, they only speak about the army which this thread is about. remember this was not one fluid event it took place over a matter of days then on it took place it was hours and in different locations.

second it makes no sense for glassford to attack them, it is stated time and time again he was one of them. unless you believe him to be a real judas. which reading the reports of him giving aid before July 28 show him to be quite concerned about them.

do a search and research,there is all kinds of info out there. if you find a link that says the police beat the marchers first post it. i have posted sources to back my position, you on the other hand have only expressed your opinion. which i don't think you will find any sources to back it up. and i don't believe you will, for the simple fact that all sources that i have seen or read from the most liberal sources such as PBS to the most biased like the government and or the msm's.

third, no matter how you try to spin it, how can you say that the police attacked them first. when it plain to see from the sources i posted the marchers attacked first. just a example from the PBS link




On July 21, with the Army preparing to step in at any moment, Glassford was ordered to begin evacuating several buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue, using force if necessary. A week later, on the steamy morning of July 28, several Marchers rushed Glassford's police and began throwing bricks.


did you notice that the beginning of the sentence in red said "A week later" which seems to indicate the police waited before they did anything. that's seven days, if glassford and his people were so interested in attacking the marchers why wait seven days. again as i said he was one of them and didn't want any violence.
[snip]

last, before you go calling someone a sheep, you might want to go and look at some of their posts on similar subjects, and also look at other posts to see if they do indeed trust TPBs' on their profile page.

i'm one of the last ones that would fit the sheep billet, go check my postings. maybe ask some other members about what side i fall on.
i'm one who looks at everything and doesn't follow what someone tells me on either side. in other words i use common sense and don't follow the crowd.

also i found what i think the source the op used. i think it's this wiki below. i do use wikis' but, just because it's fast. don't really trust something that can be edited so much

Bonus Army

just a couple of jokes for the word if.

if a frog had wings , he wouldn't bump his a@@ when he hopped.

is a grasshopper could fire a .45, the birds would ( explicative deleted) him.
[snip]


edit on 21-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2014 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

bbracken677

Expat888
Even with the event shown here there are still many foolish enough to think troops wouldnt fire on them.. history always repeats boys and girls .. remember you have the right to free speach but you better not use it .. big brother does not like any form of dissent.


Once the military began firing on civilians I would foresee a fracturing of the military structure. I believe Generals would take sides along with major portions of the troops they command.

The question is: How much support would Obama command once the military began to take sides?

There would also, likely, be many AWOLs.


Sorry, had to put in my two cents - The military would take the side of whoever is cutting the paycheck.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   

eManym

bbracken677

Expat888
Even with the event shown here there are still many foolish enough to think troops wouldnt fire on them.. history always repeats boys and girls .. remember you have the right to free speach but you better not use it .. big brother does not like any form of dissent.


Once the military began firing on civilians I would foresee a fracturing of the military structure. I believe Generals would take sides along with major portions of the troops they command.

The question is: How much support would Obama command once the military began to take sides?

There would also, likely, be many AWOLs.


Sorry, had to put in my two cents - The military would take the side of whoever is cutting the paycheck.


Nice...lump them all in the same basket.

I suppose you also believe that all blacks like fried chicken, watermelon and have IQs of less than 90?

Cynical and ignorant is no way to go through life....



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

HomerinNC

If this happened back then, troops attacking possibly fellow troops they SERVED WITH, makes me think that our current trroops WILL turn on us if ordered to


Absolutely. For every "patriotic" solider who would refuse to fire on an American citizen, there are at least a thousand that would if ordered to do so. Anything else is just wishful thinking.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Anonex

HomerinNC

If this happened back then, troops attacking possibly fellow troops they SERVED WITH, makes me think that our current trroops WILL turn on us if ordered to


Absolutely. For every "patriotic" solider who would refuse to fire on an American citizen, there are at least a thousand that would if ordered to do so. Anything else is just wishful thinking.


I see...so you are saying that out of 77 soldiers then, say, 76 of them would fire on fellow Americans?



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   

hounddoghowlie

Ironclad2000

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by ItCameFromOuterSpace
 



yep, patton loved a good fight.


He would have jumped at the chance to go into battle against a marching group of mothers pushing prams, and would have taken no prisoners.

He and the rest of them were douchebags, regardless of how Hollywood portrays them.



yea what ever help you sleep at night, keep on believing it.


sorry son, Patton and the rest of em were highly respected long before hollywood ever thought of trying to make a buck off of their names.


edit on 21-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


They were butchers and some of em' were outright kooks.

Patton thought he was the reincarnation of a roman general ffs..!!
edit on 21-2-2014 by Ironclad2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   

bbracken677

Anonex

HomerinNC

If this happened back then, troops attacking possibly fellow troops they SERVED WITH, makes me think that our current trroops WILL turn on us if ordered to


Absolutely. For every "patriotic" solider who would refuse to fire on an American citizen, there are at least a thousand that would if ordered to do so. Anything else is just wishful thinking.


I see...so you are saying that out of 77 soldiers then, say, 76 of them would fire on fellow Americans?



There are many other factors to consider, such as the context of the orders and the situation, and exceptions to every rule, but if those 77 are reasonably convinced that those fellow Americans are "the enemy" then yes I have no doubt that number is at least in the ball park. "The enemy" is whoever they are told it is.
edit on 21-2-2014 by Anonex because: grammer and speeling



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   
The police don't care who or what they shoot, some I presume are ex service personnel, the police even turn on their own, remember the policewoman? so I expect serving service personnel will open fire, or get shot by their own officers, strange times.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Expat888
.. remember you have the right to free speach but you better not use it .. big brother does not like any form of dissent.





yeah... pseudo 'free speech'...but only in designated areas

"areas" just-around-the-corner from the area targeted for protests, i.e.: WH, SCOTUS, Capitol ....

the Pens provided for 'free Speech' are chain-linked areas which are basically off-limits to the press (except when propaganda to demonize the free-speech protesters is an opportunity)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


Well, let's put that reading comprehension to work now shall we.....

If I just got back from WW1 knowing full well that the constitution of the united states clearly says that a citizen has the right to protest (the rights these gentlemen fought AND DIED FOR) and then some cops come and tell me (and use force IF NECESSARY) that I have to move and can not protest, I would be throwing bricks in their fascist faces too.

Now, if you call that "starting" the violence, I would have to argue that the cops started the violence by disregarding these people's constitutional rights.

You can't treat people unconstitutionally and then cry foul when they retaliate for it.
[snip]




edit on 22-2-2014 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

HandyDandy
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


Well, let's put that reading comprehension to work now shall we.....

If I just got back from WW1 knowing full well that the constitution of the united states clearly says that a citizen has the right to protest (the rights these gentlemen fought AND DIED FOR) and then some cops come and tell me (and use force IF NECESSARY) that I have to move and can not protest, I would be throwing bricks in their fascist faces too.

Now, if you call that "starting" the violence, I would have to argue that the cops started the violence by disregarding these people's constitutional rights.

You can't treat people unconstitutionally and then cry foul when they retaliate for it.

[snip]





Well, let's put that reading comprehension to work now shall we..... If I just got back from WW1 knowing full well that the constitution of the united states clearly says that a citizen has the right to protest (the rights these gentlemen fought AND DIED FOR) and then some cops come and tell me (and use force IF NECESSARY) that I have to move and can not protest, I would be throwing bricks in their fascist faces too.


yes it does, but it doesn't say you can break laws to do so. no matter what any one says. if your on property that is private and do not have the owners permission, public proptery that does allow camping, your breaking the law. you also can't just start grabbing stuff to set up your camp. which these people were doing.
and here is one biggie, they were also camping in condemned buildings that were scheduled to be torn down. which can be and is a safety hazard, and is against the law to do so. the police city government and the federal government showed great restraint in letting them stay there for over a month. just like they did with the OWS protest before they made them leave. again the cops did not use force until the marcher attacked them. it then became necessary, because they feared for their life's, because they were out numbered.
[snip]




BTW....son, junior, boy etc. are all derogatory towards black people. Just so you know and can now stop looking like a racist (or one who thinks he is above another). Call me it again and get reported.


listen whiner, i have lived in the south for well over 50 yrs, expect when i was in the Marine Corps, where the two best friends i had were black men one from detroit one from la, they both called me redneck and i called them, well t&c want let me say that but you get my drift. as a matter of fact my whole barracks were racist, we were all green and held all other skin tones in disstain.

i'm about as far from a raciest as you could ever be. and as far as the words son, jr. boy, being derogatory, being from the south and in a time when the word boy was used in a derogatory way, i have never heard the words son or jr. used as a racial slur or as being derogatory towards black people.
even if some black folks think they are now, it's only because they want them to be so they can whine about.
it's 2014, time to let that sh@@ go, and come into the modern world.
[snip]


edit on 22-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


ETA: as you see i don't take threats to well.
edit on 22-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2014 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

HomerinNC

If this happened back then, troops attacking possibly fellow troops they SERVED WITH, makes me think that our current trroops WILL turn on us if ordered to



You don't know anything Homerin. I've been in the Marines going on 4 years here now (Free man in 5 months woohoo!) and I can gurantee you no 'real' amount of service members would "turn" on us if "ordered" to.

#1: Their commander would have to issue the order, that in itself is a stretch, our Battalion Commander has told us himself that our Second Amendment rights are being threatened, he didn't name names, but I think everyone knew who he was talking about.

#2: Based on personal experience, a huge majority of US service members are Conservative leaning and very opposed to the President. They aren't in the military because they love the Prez, they are there because their parents were in, or they wanted to do their bit (like me), some wanted to travel, etc. Don't you dare accuse my fellow service members of being mindless drones who will follow wild orders on a whim, pull your head out of the clouds. The world is a very very different place in 2014 than it was 60 or more years ago, the President doing something like that would itself be a catalyst for Ukraine style rioting that I would be all in on.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 

Im greatful you wore black armbands the next day. The day before you did...I was at Kent State... ducking gunshots.

So...we have much in common. And that's good. We can both relate from being on the same side...



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

chuck258

HomerinNC

If this happened back then, troops attacking possibly fellow troops they SERVED WITH, makes me think that our current trroops WILL turn on us if ordered to



You don't know anything Homerin. I've been in the Marines going on 4 years here now (Free man in 5 months woohoo!) and I can gurantee you no 'real' amount of service members would "turn" on us if "ordered" to.

#1: Their commander would have to issue the order, that in itself is a stretch, our Battalion Commander has told us himself that our Second Amendment rights are being threatened, he didn't name names, but I think everyone knew who he was talking about.

#2: Based on personal experience, a huge majority of US service members are Conservative leaning and very opposed to the President. They aren't in the military because they love the Prez, they are there because their parents were in, or they wanted to do their bit (like me), some wanted to travel, etc. Don't you dare accuse my fellow service members of being mindless drones who will follow wild orders on a whim, pull your head out of the clouds. The world is a very very different place in 2014 than it was 60 or more years ago, the President doing something like that would itself be a catalyst for Ukraine style rioting that I would be all in on.


Gotta agree with you here. The majority of the military today is not as bowled over by blind obedience like they were back in the day. Considering Obama's military budget cuts now and in the past year, the forces fondness for their executive authority probably sank a few more points.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
With the currdent and ongoing state of affairs in D.C..
I fear this may be more true and come to pass then we think.
Sad that we and I mean we "all of us 18 and over" have let it get this far. All by doing nothing at all......



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
THIS STOPS NOW !!!!

Discuss the topic.

STOP THE NAME CALLING.

YOU WILL BE BANNED.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Anonex

bbracken677

Anonex

HomerinNC

If this happened back then, troops attacking possibly fellow troops they SERVED WITH, makes me think that our current trroops WILL turn on us if ordered to


Absolutely. For every "patriotic" solider who would refuse to fire on an American citizen, there are at least a thousand that would if ordered to do so. Anything else is just wishful thinking.


I see...so you are saying that out of 77 soldiers then, say, 76 of them would fire on fellow Americans?



There are many other factors to consider, such as the context of the orders and the situation, and exceptions to every rule, but if those 77 are reasonably convinced that those fellow Americans are "the enemy" then yes I have no doubt that number is at least in the ball park. "The enemy" is whoever they are told it is.
edit on 21-2-2014 by Anonex because: grammer and speeling


And yet, when 77 guardsmen felt threatened by the protesters at Kent State, only 25 of them actually fired their weapon. A total of 67 shots were fired according to the investigation.

If it came down to shooting American citizens, would you, as a member of the Armed Services fire when given the order with no soul searching before, during or after the incident? Would you not consider the ramifications?

Those of you who have never been in the service can make all the opinionated remarks you want to, but bottom line is: if you haven't been there, you do not know. Granted, there are some nutcases in the military, but many are just like you and I and would have grave misgivings if it came down to making war on Average Americans.

If the military is full of murderous psychos, as many would have us believe, then why is there such a high rate of PTSD with veterans? And the people they are shooting at are foreigners shooting back.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


IDK. Back then information was not as free flowing. Anyways, if the military were to begin firing on civilians protesting, there would instantly be videos posted online.

After the first shots were fired, everyone would have to pick a side. But the thing is, there would be no battle lines. In a country with this many guns...

If ground troops were brought into the cities of America to establish tyranny, they would be suicidal to side with those telling them to fire on civilians. Even if they had no moral qualms with it, their survival instinct would kick in pretty quick. Iraq and Afghanistan would be child's play compared to what you are talking about. Entire squads would be getting wiped out left and right.

You would have to be one dumb MF to give the order to fire on civilians. It's simply suicide. All of these preppers and all of these guns around...this is one big piece of real estate.

The 2nd Amendment seems to protect us from this. Some kind of experimental or at the least as of yet classified technology would be needed to subdue the population.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join