No, You are NOT a Warrior/Operator/Revolutionary!

a reply to: Masterjaden

I can't tell if this is a joke or not.

6 on 1 - True. How many of those 6 have LMG's or M-4's, grenade launchers, f-16's, A-10's, etc etc. How many of them can actually USE them successfully? How many of them are willing to pull the trigger? It was shown in prior wars that a percentage of soldiers...the people TRAINED to fight...were unable to muster the courage to pull the trigger when combat conditions rose.

And I hate to break it to you, but while it would be long and bloody, the number of combatants you have in this day and age do not measure your ability to win. IED's aren't going to level the playing field. And I am not sure where you get this idea that they cannot use a JDAM or a C-130. I'm sorry who made that rule? A nuke? Yeah likely that wouldn't happen. But if the entire military stayed under gov control and had no issue killing other Americans, WHY are they magically unable to use a bomb? Also, regarding uniforms. Other clothes do exist. When you see special forces men in combat scenarios (hell even in training) you almost never see them in uniform. I realize of course that the entirety of the military is NOT special forces, but it isn't that hard to take off a uniform and put on civvies.

And yes there are MILLIONS of ex-military and veterans with the know how. Many of them (sadly) are not able bodied these days. I REALLY wish that wasn't the case and I am NOT insulting them. Just making the point. Where is said tank commander going to procure said tank? Is it in his back yard? What about that kick as A-10 pilot? Does he/she have one laying around?

How about a personal example? I am an ex-2W2. If I shook a little rust off I bet I could get my hands right back inside an RV for a MMIII. Where exactly I am going to get one? Where will I get that missile while I am at it?

a reply to: projectvxn

I have a question that I would like a former military members honest opinion on. You mention PT. Whats with all this crossfit craze? They claim it's a military invention for warriors to get fit. All I see are people spazzing out doing pullup and a bunch of other stuff incorrectly and basically working on their cardio but not their bodies actual ability to do real world work. I have a friend who does cross fit. Talks about how it's the truth to working out and that every one else is stupid for how they work out. He looks like a athletic adonis. we brought him down to work on a house demo job. Helping use a jackhammer to break up concrete. He flubbed out when he realized we expected him to consistently lift 100+ plus slabs or concrete and toss it into the 40 yard bin. You know gritty real world work. And we expected him to do for 8 to 10 hours. Like all of US were. Where was that crossfit diesel? Meanwhile 40 year old tinsy dayworkers we got for the job were having no problem at all. what gives. to me it seems like other than for great cardio crossfit people are deluding themselves. Maybe that one guy was a pussy or something but I've gotta wonder. Crossfit people market their stuff as "developed by the military" or invented by some ex special forces guy or whatever. But I just see a marketing sham. Any opinions. Are these people becoming "urban warriors." Or is the warrior mindset really in the mind and the intention of the individual and their will. Not in their looks, fads, and tacticool toys. I mean this guy could swing a kettle bell but not a sledge hammer. WTF.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: MrPlow

As much disdain as I have for the Taliban, you cannot compare ANY American civilian to them.

The comparisons you have drawn make no sense at all. Happy, comfortable mall ninjas might be deluded, but they aren't killing other civilians for political gain. They aren't torturing people, they aren't oppressing anyone.

It makes perfect sense. I don't care what either peoples ideological motivations are...the point is, whether its the Taliban, or local insurgencies, or American self-trained "mall ninjas" - they are still all just civilians who are learning on their own and in groups in order to defend their country.
I find it offensive that you give more credit to enemy civilian fighters than you do to your own fellow countryman.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: MrPlow

As much disdain as I have for the Taliban, you cannot compare ANY American civilian to them.

The comparisons you have drawn make no sense at all. Happy, comfortable mall ninjas might be deluded, but they aren't killing other civilians for political gain. They aren't torturing people, they aren't oppressing anyone.

Furthermore, please realize that if it wasn't for civilians paying their taxes, you wouldn't have all the nice, fancy, official stuff to prance around in. Show some respect.

a reply to: MrPlow

I pay taxes too.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: MrPlow

I pay taxes too.

Great! So live and let live.

originally posted by: KyoZero
a reply to: Masterjaden

I can't tell if this is a joke or not.

6 on 1 - True. How many of those 6 have LMG's or M-4's, grenade launchers, f-16's, A-10's, etc etc. How many of them can actually USE them successfully? How many of them are willing to pull the trigger? It was shown in prior wars that a percentage of soldiers...the people TRAINED to fight...were unable to muster the courage to pull the trigger when combat conditions rose.

And I hate to break it to you, but while it would be long and bloody, the number of combatants you have in this day and age do not measure your ability to win. IED's aren't going to level the playing field. And I am not sure where you get this idea that they cannot use a JDAM or a C-130. I'm sorry who made that rule? A nuke? Yeah likely that wouldn't happen. But if the entire military stayed under gov control and had no issue killing other Americans, WHY are they magically unable to use a bomb? Also, regarding uniforms. Other clothes do exist. When you see special forces men in combat scenarios (hell even in training) you almost never see them in uniform. I realize of course that the entirety of the military is NOT special forces, but it isn't that hard to take off a uniform and put on civvies.

And yes there are MILLIONS of ex-military and veterans with the know how. Many of them (sadly) are not able bodied these days. I REALLY wish that wasn't the case and I am NOT insulting them. Just making the point. Where is said tank commander going to procure said tank? Is it in his back yard? What about that kick as A-10 pilot? Does he/she have one laying around?

How about a personal example? I am an ex-2W2. If I shook a little rust off I bet I could get my hands right back inside an RV for a MMIII. Where exactly I am going to get one? Where will I get that missile while I am at it?

Who made that rule???

UMMM it isn't a rule...It's the reality. A civil war would be an insurgency with no clear targets. You bomb some place, you just created 500 more people who will join the fight.

Where are they gonna strike??? Who are they gonna strike??? How do they know who their enemies are???

You know nothing about insurgencies based on what you are writing here.

If it got to that point in modern times what would happen would be forced curfews, door to door illegal searches, etc..

All this does is increase the number of people willing to fight and of course, they still wouldn't know who their enemies are...

It amazes me that lack of understanding most people have.

Someone with knowledge could go down to ace and riteaid and for $35 have what was necessary to take out a tank.

As far as where you're going to get the equipment? There are many in control of the military that would NOT support the govt in the event of civil war, it would splinter and much of the armed forces would be on the side of the people and the constitution that they swore to defend.

People don't swear to protect the politicians, they swear to defend the constitution against all enemies (TO THE CONSTITUTION, not enemies to the govt) , foreign and DOMESTIC...

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden

Who made that rule???

UMMM it isn't a rule...It's the reality. A civil war would be an insurgency with no clear targets. You bomb some place, you just created 500 more people who will join the fight.

Where are they gonna strike??? Who are they gonna strike??? How do they know who their enemies are???

You know nothing about insurgencies based on what you are writing here.

If it got to that point in modern times what would happen would be forced curfews, door to door illegal searches, etc..

All this does is increase the number of people willing to fight and of course, they still wouldn't know who their enemies are...

It amazes me that lack of understanding most people have.

Someone with knowledge could go down to ace and riteaid and for $35 have what was necessary to take out a tank.

As far as where you're going to get the equipment? There are many in control of the military that would NOT support the govt in the event of civil war, it would splinter and much of the armed forces would be on the side of the people and the constitution that they swore to defend.

People don't swear to protect the politicians, they swear to defend the constitution against all enemies (TO THE CONSTITUTION, not enemies to the govt) , foreign and DOMESTIC...

Jaden

If EVERY single armed forces personnel in the US fought FOR the govt and NONE/ZERO/NADA turned and fought for the people and constitution they swore to defend

Your quote. So I was going by your scenario. Meaning, said equipment is now under control of the men/women/soldiers who swore to protect because as you stated it, NOBODY defected or turned.

And yes I am sure you are just the pinnacle of expertise in insurgency. As I stated above, it would likely be long and bloody. I am willing to admit a good deal of that blood would be from those soldiers who stayed.

Who made that rule???

UMMM it isn't a rule...It's the reality. A civil war would be an insurgency with no clear targets. You bomb some place, you just created 500 more people who will join the fight.

Again I am going off what YOU said. YOU said in your scenario, "They aren't just going to drop a 5000lb bomb or nuke a city" (paraphrase sorry)

And I replied...Why not? If these soldiers made no attempt to defect and they are following orders, why would the gov NOT do that? Sure hasn't stopped us before when we vaporized two cities. As I stated, I don't believe we'd use a nuke but as far as not dropping a JDAM or 5k on a city? I see no reason why a corrupt government WOULDN'T do that. All your talk about "reality" is frankly just as uninformed as my own responses. This government has shown time and again that we are not always terribly concerned for civilians or looking like a terrorist ourselves. Soldiers have raped and pillaged their way to the top (or bottom) and while it may have won the war (and no I am not trying to start the whole "should we have nuked Japan" argument) we DID annihilate a whole city and a couple hundred thousand people. Shall I add the tons of people poisoned and burned in Vietnam with Napalm? How about more recent and more relevant? Look all over ATS and see how many innocents have been killed by drones.

My Lai, Pacific theater killings of surrendered or unarmed and citizens/survivors, European theater massacres and killing of unarmed/survivors, No Gun Ri, Abu Ghraib and the idea that habeus corpus can just sort of be "gone" when our "leaders" feel like it. Maryland in the Civil War. People wanted to protest the war and destroyed supply lines. SCOTUS said "nope!" When Congress "fixed" it we did it again against the "opposing army" (Confeds). Damn touchy subject but they sure do try.

All that and more and you think the government is going to follow some "reality" you cooked up where they don't harm innocents? How long I ask? If it kicked off tomorrow and let's say you and I were manufacturing weapons outside of Chicago. How long until someone high enough orders a drop on that building? How long until that drone looks for me and OOPS! There goes some kid.

I agree with your point about no clear targets and THAT is the part that worries me even further! If there are no clear targets, what is to keep an itchy government finger from pulling the trigger on anyone that even looks like they might fight back? I mean we seen cops kill innocents all the time. Yes in some cases they were quite right. But in many they aren't. And you think they will just sort of be like.."eh leave him be"?

Yeah forced curfews are great until suddenly an insurgent group breaks out...now stuff gets violent fast and we return right to shoot what moves.

And yeah you are right. Got to RiteAid and destroy a tank. Nice...now your village/family/city/whatever is a target for the next TEN tanks or whatever they bring.

Look...

All I am saying is people get way too excited about the idea of an us versus them scenario. I agree 100% that nothing is impossible. I mean look what we did to England and we didn't have much to work with. The difference to me is that now our own government is the tyranny. When we battled back at England, the technology obtained by the average colonists/defender was not a far cry from what the aggressors had. Now is a much different story IMO. We have a good deal of men and women who have some high powered weaponry. Absolutely. But when you compare to what the average military unit has, the gap is so much wider between us versus them.

But even if you forget a good deal of all that, my biggest concern is that the average citizen is going to do a whole lot of nothing except following said curfews and tyrannical rules.

Then what? How many freedom fighters are left? Once the gov boils down a lot of those fighters, and then finally average Joe fights back, you haven't got a ton to deal with.

But to think that our government wouldn't do some tyrannical, horrific stuff and shrug off causalities is premature and foolish to me. We sure have a history of it.

ETA: None of this is to put down the average citizen, soldier, whoever.

I'll repeat what I said above. I'd probably be one of the first to go if I tried...all I was good at was building things...WHEN I had said items

a reply to: circuitsports

and a salute to him. I was military and I couldn't do what he did. I don't know many that can.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Not a vet am an amateur mma fighter going pro in a few months. Crossfit is a horrible fad and even worse; it's dangerous, irresponsible and far more prone to injury than most other forms of working out. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Just look up crossfit injuries on YouTube.

a reply to: MagnaCarta2015

MMA injuries don't look to promising either who would've thought???

a reply to: Brotherman

Lol, you have a point. We try to minimise those in training though.

High reps heavy weights as fast as possible is a bad idea all round.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Crossfit is the idea that you can do a little of everything and as long as you break a sweat it is considered a "workout".

Nothing beats good old fashioned workouts. Crossfit is just another gimmick.

a reply to: projectvxn

I was expecting a MBest 11x video....

a reply to: wondering5740

I'm sorry...The How to be Tacticool one would have fit here perfectly.