Missouri National Guard's term for Ferguson protesters: 'Enemy forces'

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: beezzer

Oh how about something like
angry citizens
rampaging citizens
outraged locals
rebellious locals
because that's what they are.

Anything but the enemy! To brand one's fellow countrymen as the enemy is seriously disturbing.

Any time the National Guard is called to face a foe, guess what, they are the enemy. Take it up with the governer for calling them out because the opposing forces will always be the enemy in military terms.

Yep, and this is why it is not the President's call as to whether or not the National Guard goes into any situation. They are called in by the governor of the state.

If the Nat. Guard is called in, it is calling in the US Military to deal with the situation at hand. We tend to not think of them that way because we almost always only see them active in disaster relief work where they are helpful, not wearing their combat face.

And this is also why we have the 2nd Amendment. If you are uncomfortable with the idea that the Nat. Guard could be called in to deal with you in the event you felt a riot was your only option ... remember, you are the enemy in that situation, and if you feel justified, the 2nd Amendment is you only chance to equalize the ground.

Maybe people should stop worrying about labels and worry about the real problems we face.

a reply to: Ancient Champion

Real problems like... oh I dont know... tanks and gas attacks on midwest towns? Did we lose a war while I was drunk or what?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: beezzer

Oh how about something like
angry citizens
rampaging citizens
outraged locals
rebellious locals
because that's what they are.

Anything but the enemy! To brand one's fellow countrymen as the enemy is seriously disturbing.

Any time the National Guard is called to face a foe, guess what, they are the enemy. Take it up with the governer for calling them out because the opposing forces will always be the enemy in military terms.

Yep, and this is why it is not the President's call as to whether or not the National Guard goes into any situation. They are called in by the governor of the state.

If the Nat. Guard is called in, it is calling in the US Military to deal with the situation at hand. We tend to not think of them that way because we almost always only see them active in disaster relief work where they are helpful, not wearing their combat face.

And this is also why we have the 2nd Amendment. If you are uncomfortable with the idea that the Nat. Guard could be called in to deal with you in the event you felt a riot was your only option ... remember, you are the enemy in that situation, and if you feel justified, the 2nd Amendment is you only chance to equalize the ground.

The bastards who want to take your property and life are the enemies, and odds are it won't be the national guard. That is what the 2nd amendment is for.

a reply to: whyamIhere

It's a candyass nation. The only safe term to have used is "victim".

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: Ancient Champion

Real problems like... oh I dont know... tanks and gas attacks on midwest towns? Did we lose a war while I was drunk or what?

Those tanks were taken off the streets because people spoke up and tear gas isn't something that's new to riots. Stop drinking and pay attention.

a reply to: Ancient Champion

So I can bring a tank to your house, and as long as I eventually leave that will cause no problems?

Edit to add: Let's ask about the gas actually too. I've been gassed. How about you? We may as well find out who knows what they're talking about before you try to convince me that I really can threaten you with war machines and make everything cool with a word or two.

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: Ancient Champion

So I can bring a tank to your house, and as long as I eventually leave that will cause no problems?

Do you even read post before you reply to them?

a reply to: Ancient Champion

Yes. And yourself?

You say there's not a problem. I say not a problem required tanks and gas. Please explain how tanks and gas come into play neither as cause nor effect of a problem. We're not talking about a veterans day parade. You seem to be ignoring the obvious implications of real situations- its not JUST on your TV- these are things that happen. Are you so hard to impress when you step away from the screen?

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: Ancient Champion

So I can bring a tank to your house, and as long as I eventually leave that will cause no problems?

Edit to add: Let's ask about the gas actually too. I've been gassed. How about you? We may as well find out who knows what they're talking about before you try to convince me that I really can threaten you with war machines and make everything cool with a word or two.

Do you even have a point or do you just want to rabble on? By your logic the police should let the rioters burn the city down.

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: Ancient Champion

Yes. And yourself?

You say there's not a problem. I say not a problem required tanks and gas. Please explain how tanks and gas come into play neither as cause nor effect of a problem. We're not talking about a veterans day parade. You seem to be ignoring the obvious implications of real situations- its not JUST on your TV- these are things that happen. Are you so hard to impress when you step away from the screen?

I never said it wasn't a problem. I said the problem was taken care of because people spoke up. Pay attention.

a reply to: Ancient Champion

Then why are the people still speaking up and why are they still being referred to as the enemy?

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: Ancient Champion

Then why are the people still speaking up and why are they still being referred to as the enemy?

Why are they burning buildings that have nothing to do with what they are protesting against?

One argument at a time. I'm just gonna sit back and enjoy the win until I get an intelligent answer to the question still standing. Then I'll post a link to the video of cops setting the fires.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: beezzer

Oh how about something like
angry citizens
rampaging citizens
outraged locals
rebellious locals
because that's what they are.

Anything but the enemy! To brand one's fellow countrymen as the enemy is seriously disturbing.

Any time the National Guard is called to face a foe, guess what, they are the enemy. Take it up with the governer for calling them out because the opposing forces will always be the enemy in military terms.

When Perry joked about Texas seceding from union in 2008
the National Guard in other states were mobilized... if they
had rolled in the Lone Star State would everyone in Texas
be called an enemy? I wonder.

originally posted by: The Vagabond
One argument at a time. I'm just gonna sit back and enjoy the win until I get an intelligent answer to the question still standing. Then I'll post a link to the video of cops setting the fires.

Go back and read my first post again and you'll see I don't care about your problems with labels, the country has bigger issues going on.

Ferguson was stupid, scary, and forever changed my perception weather or not we have any rights as a people.

The police and the national guard stood down to the rioters, they let them burn the place up and did nothing.

Then the police aimed guns at peaceful protests for not hours but days, then they forced them to march. I watch live on livestreams the police open fire on large peaceful protester because i guess your rights are suspended at midnight. They gasses the crowds more than once even driving the crowds into local neighborhood gassing as they pursued. All this from police departments that now have fired people for racism and now the cities in the area have been exposed for oppressing the people with the same police departments and the crony courts in the area.

The national guard wasn't the only force there referring to the people as the enemy...the police the city government and the courts have the same view.

Too much to refer to the people as people.

a reply to: soulshn

Yes, it is disturbing. On the one hand, it seems logical that a military force, which the National Guard is, would think in terms of "enemy forces." But it's not harmless by any means. The American people are not the enemy. Not even the looters, arsonists, and other rabble rousers. We hire, train and pay our National Guardsmen to protect us and the Constitution, and the includes our right to peaceably protest. Those who commit crimes are criminals, not enemies, and retain their right to due process. In theory at least, as the protectors and defenders of the Constitution, their job is to protect and defend the peaceable protestors from the agent provocateurs and others -- including elected officials and bureaucrats.

There was good reason for posse comitatus laws, as the founding fathers well knew.

Moving back to the main flow of the conversation, I'm just curious about the national guard's previous application of the term enemy to the general public. What about airline passengers after 9/11, or people who have to be prevented from driving their pickup across fast moving flood waters? Surely there have been many cases where the national guard has been called on to provide the public with order and security without declaring them the enemy. What then would distinguish these protesters from other groups? Were other populations divided between the innocent and the guilty while the protesters were all alike perhaps? It does seem to be implied, I'm just curious if anyone has the gall to say it.

a reply to: The Vagabond

I don't see you differentiating between protestors and rioters.

Are they synonymous, in your opinion?