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.

 

How will they get the Troops to Turn against us?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
With the recent revelations that now 20,000 uniformed troops could be on our streets, wasn't it supposed to only be 3-4,000 back in October. Anyways how will they get the troops to turn against there own people. I wouldn't think it'd be easy.

But I assert that massive and random terrorist attacks, like the recent one in mumbai only in cities coast to coast, were used as a pre-tense to put troops on our streets. Then using paid instigators planting IED's on americas own streets, aimed at the troops, would only harbour the same uncertainty troops feel on patrol in Iraq, except now in there own nation.

Which would also lead to something akin to McCarthy-ism except on a much larger scale.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
They already did... The whole "To fight enemies foreign and demestic"...

It's not to say that the soldiers would. But it is an oath we pledged. If we don't comply we are going to prison.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I don't know about the good ol' US of A, but here in Blighty they'd have a bloody hard job stopping the soldiers from whingeing about the government, drinking tea and buying large quantities of German porn before getting them out on the streets.

Seriously there is no chance of martial law of any kind in the UK without a major (and I mean major) disaster and a complete breakdown in law and order. The first thing we'll be doing if disaster strikes is filling sandbags, not butt-stroking civilians; unless society breaks down like Zimbabwe and the police are overrun we will not find ourselves stalking the streets.

I would suggest that your soldiers would have to see first hand the devastation of a disaster, natural or man-made, before they agree to martial law (New Orleans anyone?). In case of national crisis the soldier's first response is to help his countrymen, regardless of what you may think.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
simple.

1st, it's the members of radical muslim mosques which are the enemy, get them.
2nd, it's all muslims
3rd, it's the anti-government militias.
4th, it's the gang members.
5th, it's the illegal immigrants.
6th, it's the legal immigrants.
7th, it's the intellectuals.
8th, it's the conspiracy theorists.
9th, it's the non-politically affiliated.
10th, it's the wrongly politically affiliated.
11th, its the people rioting for food.
12th, it's the dis-loyal members of the military.
13th, it's the dis-loyal people that remain.

if you need to find more details, study hitler or stalin or any other dictator you choose. the only difference in this case is that there is an executive dictatorship rather than a single dictator.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma
 


But the whole point of starting this topic is how would they get soldiers to distrust there own countrymen? Like those in the NWO/Alex Jones mind set would have us believe.

reply to post by pieman
 


While much of that is obvious, I'm more concerned in how they will get everyone, general population, to distrust there own neighbors. Would it be more mall/school shootings done by our own country men. Or would it be more devistating attacks like Oklahoma city(which I believe was the first seed planted for the fear of modern 'domestic' terrorism).

[edit on 2-12-2008 by djpaec]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
www.cnn.com...
Biological terror attack likely by 2013, panel says

And what will the troops do in a situation like this?
When the orders are to Quarantine the area.



That's how hey treat us like we are the enemy... Fear of spreading the Biological Agents to other locations.




Two cards are played... Epidemic and Center for Disease Control.



or another card is played... Civil Unrest. (Kill for Peace)



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by djpaec
 


How would they?
Well...do you remember the Kent State shootings?

The scenario you present is certainly possible and even now many police officers and government agents have been convinced into spying on and beating up peaceful protestors. My state is going through a bit of contreversy over unnecessary spying on peace groups right now.

Spin is the best way to turn those that are sworn to protect us into viewing us as the enemy. Protestors will be terrorist sympathizers, or anarchists. It has happened all throughout history and surprisingly many citizens will support the unwarranted accussations. Mostly because they are going through rough economic times (which is usually when these situations occur) and the chance to have a focus for thier hardships are not readily passed up. So we get Salem witches, pinko communists, terrorist sympathizers, homosexual subversives or a minority group as the hidden enemy that needs to be drawn into the light.

People already are saying, "if they have nothing to hide, then why should they mind if the government listens to their calls and reads their emails? They must have something to hide!"

The officers and soldiers will view thier actions as honorable and patriotic.
That will be that.

- Lee



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
be informed,google vid. zeitgeist addendum and esoteric agenda.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I think they would use foreign troops and they would use ours.The chinese would go door to door if its not their people and vice versa.
Just my opinion.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
as per the OP...

by branding you a "domestic insurgent".

The dictionary defines an insurgent as:


a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.





[edit on 2-12-2008 by warrenb]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Why use Army/Marine troops when you can "Federalize" security contractors; (mercenaries).

We are seeing a disturbing trend toward outsourcing security personnel, many of which are foreigners. A security contractor from another country, particularly one that served in a authoritarian regime prior to his/her hiring as a contractor is much more likely to pull the trigger than a citizen-soldier.


Blackwater has relied upon mercenaries that had served under brutal military dictatorships. Nearly 1,000 Chileans, many of whom were part of the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet have been trained by Blackwater and deployed to Iraq. Other recruits have come from members of the military of apartheid South Africa.


One hundred fifty heavily armed Blackwater troops in full battle gear including automatic weapons were deployed to New Orleans by the Department of Homeland Security. Scahill writes, “what was desperately needed [in New Orleans] was food, water and housing. Instead what poured in fastest was guns. Lots of guns.” A Blackwater mercenary is quoted as saying: “The only difference between here [New Orleans] and Iraq is that there are no roadside bombs.”



You will see more of a move toward security contracting in the years ahead. It is a very dangerous trend.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by clay2 baraka]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Lee, that was my first thought when I saw the title of this thread. Kent State was an excellent expirement into how to get our troops to turn against us. A couple of plants in any groups could create the same outcome.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Apologies for not making myself clearer earlier, but I do not think it possible to get the soldiers of a liberal democracy to act in the way most posters envisage. To enable a transition as detailed by other posters requires a dictatorship and the complicity of the entire state, politicians, civil servants &c to be achieved. Even then atrocities have historically been carried out by "specialist" units trained in a particular fashion from the start of their careers. Where regulars have been involved (Rwanda, Darfur, Zimbabwe) it is because they do so to avoid their own or their families' deaths at the hands of the regime or because resources have become very scarce. In short they do it only for survival.

Were some level of martial law to be initiated then it is likely we would see abuse of power on a small scale (e.g. Abu Ghraib), but your troops have shown little short of exceptional conduct in trying circumstances policing the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq. If they act responsibly policing citizens of a foreign country in an insurgency, why would they treat their own citizens badly when no insurgency is present?

Whilst America remains a Democracy it is free from the risk of martial law imposed purely for the control of the populus at large and is free from the risk of crimes against humanity.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
naboo, that's rubbish. so long as a government doesn't oppress all of the people at the same time they can quite easily create a widely oppressive regieme.

the soviets were masters of the art as can be viewed in the recent past in the USSR before it's collapse. after stalin, there wasn't any real dictator to speak of yet the federal institution remained dictatorial in nature. there was even the illusion of democracy, in a form which isn't a million miles from the current american system.

frankly, this institutional dictatorship would be an easier task in the US as it is already quite a divided society. every group has it's own culture, language and sensibilities. yet it also has quite a high level of cohesiveness and nationalism.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
this thread should be how will we get the troops to turn against them

the troops are already on their side, i dont care who these soldiers are, when it comes down to it, theyre going to follow orders

if you think when the time comes the troops are going to say "oh no my superiors are wrong im not going to do this"

then you're sad

it doesnt matter that these people are all someones sons daughters brothers sisters mothers fathers

because its not going to be son against his family, its going to be somebody elses son against me and my son against another family etc etc



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I think the answer is much more simple than most seem to come up with. The troops will be a unit together against "the people."


The easiest justification for fighting "the people" is already in place and being used...

It's so simple...

Non-lethal weapons.

Then they won't see it as them killing us. They will be "protecting us and society from the people" and not killing, but rehabilitating the citizens.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
It's really simple. 20% of our armed forces are currently comprised of foreign nationals.

That and also many of the troops that they use will be mercs. "Contractors" if you will.

So those guys and the UN guys are going to be the ones you want to avoid, and or engage.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


You don't create a dictatorship overnight. A dictator needs a large number of people under his direct command and willing through coersion of some kind to perform acts at his direction. By virtue of changing the POTUS a maximum of every 8 years you already limit the power of one individual to become synonymous with the state. By making the POTUS answerable to a bicameral political system you limit his power to make unilateral decisions and by electing the members of the the two houses you choose who he runs the country with. Without significant constitutional change investing all power into one individual and removing opposition parties you will not establish the environment required for tyranny to flourish.

Both Hitler and Stalin needed significant changes in their countries to achieve what they did and each governed countries which were at low points in their history. Hitler in particular used the "persecution" of Germany after The Great War by the allied powers as a rallying call for an impoverished nation and united them with a common enemy, the Jews and the Communists. Eventually he persuaded the German people that he was the only choice for the future of Germany. Syria does much the same with Israel, focussing public opinon on a common enemy to detract from its own failings.

If you combine the liberal democratic process in the USA with the independance of the judiciary, freedom of the press, freedom of worship and comparative prosperity then you are a very long way from a dictatorship or widespread crimes against humanity.

Ultimately the Government does not need to control the populous by force.

[edit on 2/12/08 by Naboo the Enigma]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Get them use to being police officers and upholding the law. They will have to get them into the cities so that citizens and troops can get use to each others presence. Once it becomes normal to see troops in the area, people become oblivious to them. Then the troops are given more responsibility similar to those of police officers helping to clean up the city of its thugs, rapist, and murderers. After this the troops are conditioned to go after whoever the government declares the bad guys.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
A third of the world's population will die.

Hey isn't this type of stuff prophesized in the Bible?



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join