Connect the dots, do the comparison, US is preparing for civil war

Governments are always making contingency plans for civil unrest.

They'd be crazy not to.

Anything can suddenly turn sideways and become a chaotic nightmare in an instant, spreading like wildfire.

Our governments are also fully aware of the fact that the public is becoming more and more disenfranchised with their leadership and less inclined to believe anything coming out of their mouths anymore.

So perhaps they are putting more priority on making those little extra preparations for 'just in case' purposes... it wouldn't be surprising at all if they were.

But are they preparing for something specific right now ?

Not likely. But then again... not completely inconceivable either.



Quite frankly, I don't put anything past our governments anymore.

Lot's of posters have come in to this thread to debunk your theory. Clearly you are on to something big. Good OP.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
In principle I'm inclined to agree with you however I don't believe it will be a Civil War but rather a homegrown fight against a Globalist takeover via the UN. I'm sure the PTB would like nothing better than to have Americans going after each other first until exhausted making us all easy pickings..

Never looked at that way, you might be right.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Lot's of posters have come in to this thread to debunk your theory. Clearly you are on to something big. Good OP.

Yup, noticed that too.

I really hope it doesnt descend into an armed conflict, but one side has already started shooting--how many people are gunned down by the police for no reason? Everyday there is another death on the news from someone being gunned down by police, and this is not a symptom of a stable society.

People no longer trust their government, and so there are two options: elect a government you can trust OR overthrow the government you dont. Due to the corruption in the political process and general apathy towards politics, the former is unlikely, which makes the latter more probable.

You will start seeing a mass exodus before anything big goes down, the elites wont hang around to be caught in the thick of it.

I am undecided on the subject, but I will say this. This generation has the most bizarre sense of entitlement that I have ever seen. I cant see a bunch of people who freak out when the line at Starbucks is too long sit quietly by in an economic collapse and accept the fact that all the money they have is worthless and they are no better off than the guy living in the dumpster down the street. Combine that with a fairly significant portion of the US that is completely and totally fed up with crooked politicians and administrations and I guess it could be possible.

All the conditions our founding fathers feared seem to be present right now. And there are a bunch of opportunists in other countries who would love to take a shot at us when we seem our weakest. Its no secret the economy is propped up and destined to fail at some point, without major change anyway. Is it enough to mobilize the masses? I don't know...

How many police don't gun down people? How many people gun down their fellow citizen for any number of reasons?
To the OPs point, Jade Helm is labelled a military exercise. As a 15 year Marine Veteran, 9 of those years in the infantry, we NEVER conducted training of this kind in view of the public. We have our military bases for that. Every climate, environment and landscape is represented on one of our bases. If we need aggressors, up until recently, we used another infantry unit or a different branch. After 2003-4 we started hiring actors to be aggressors and stayed on base. So no. I see no valid reason for this. Not to say there isn't a valid or credible reason, I just haven't heard or read one yet.

Civil war? No. Mass civil unrest? Possibly. Our police are being militarized and some politicians and those with influence have been calling for police to become federalize do. That still doesn't negate Posse Comititus because it only applies to the U.S. Military. Not federalized police forces, no matter how much they militarize them. The only way it would apply to our police is if the DoD takes over policing down to the local communities.

There is mass distrust between the government and the people. The fault in my opinion is with the government and media working together for the most part, instead of working for the people.

a reply to: ItVibrates

a reply to: TorinoFer

It seems to be that certain problem areas such as racially-tense ghettos in specific cities in America, as well as areas that are prolific for fundamentalist extremists (with guns), are the places of concern and that have probably been on the radar for quite some time. Texas has always been a problem state.

The other day this Jade Helm thing was mentioned in international news headlines, fairly briefly. But another story breaking that day was related to a very massive bird flu that threatens to destroy practically all of America's turkeys by Thanksgiving. It was also mentioned that there was a concern that the bird flu could mutate and infect millions of people.

I see a connection to these things...

originally posted by: LDragonFire

Many citizens not related to conspiracy theory sites disagree with you and so do I.

Okay, in a few months I can come back to this thread and put up a massive I TOLD YOU SO pic and you'll all gladly concede that you were all paranoid and ranting about nothing at all, and you'll all change your thinking and perhaps reconsider how irrational you've all been, right?

No, of course not.

Nothing will happen, people will ignore that nothing happened, then a month later you'll all be back claiming that something else is a "terrifying plot by the NWO" to "enslave the population" and "steal all our gunzzzzz!!!!!"

No one here will accept that they were irrational, they'll just pretend that it never happened and move on to the next irrational conspiracy theory.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Rocker2013

Just to play devils advocate, our forefathers did say violence is needed from time to time to keep democracy going.

They also said that all people had the right to own weapons - without stating what weapons or under which circumstances. Why? Because when those forefathers formulated these plans it took 30 seconds to load a rifle, it only reached a limited distance, and there was only limited forms of ammunition capable of only limited damage.

This constant desire to force a historical document around modern life is one of the biggest problems with the US. It's great to have a history, but you guys seem to believe that it can be applied just as easily to modern society when clearly it can't, and hence you have amendments, new laws, adjustments, reiteration, translation and so on just to be able to pass a relevant law able to function in your modern society.

I agree that sometimes violence might be needed in the democratic process, but only when the government is no longer working for the people, and working AGAINST them.

A good example would be Ukraine.

They attempted a peaceful change, they demanded democratic process, the leadership rejected that demand and instead used violence against those people. Now, if America goes down the same path, many around the world would agree with the process and suggest that violence is necessary for defense. The problem in this current state of affairs is that there are entire swathes of people who seem to think they can go straight from wanting change to firing guns, and all based on nothing more than what they want.

There are too many people (here and elsewhere) who seem to think their constitution allows them to overthrow their government when it doesn't conform to their personal and individual demands. This is really absolutely no different to any other radical group in any other country wanting to use violence to inflict their will on society and remove the democratically elected representatives of their society.

The only way to create change in our societies is through democratic process. If someone can't get the support for the changes they want to make, if society doesn't agree with their notions of how people should live, they need to deal with it and move on. Being told that the public doesn't agree with what they demand does not give them permission to use violence to get it, that would be terrorism.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Lot's of posters have come in to this thread to debunk your theory. Clearly you are on to something big. Good OP.

Or there are just sensible people here who can see through the same old paranoia.

Like I said, we'll all be back in a few months when nothing at all happened and no one claiming this is the "end times" will want to admit it or engage in the debate about what they irrationally ranted about.

I'll be back, and I'll start a thread to dissect the opinions/fears of those who all believed this was some kind of attack on the people. Lets see how many people here right now will be willing to come back and discuss their thinking again.

I am on the fence about Jade Helm . However , when the military holds normal training exercises they are usually of a short duration and only encompass at most 1 state (mostly just a city or 2). This one is months and encompasses multiple states. Very out of the ordinary. Usually the longer and/or larger operations ARE a prelude to a engagement somewhere in the world . And the training is held in a place that as close as possible reflects the surroundings where the upcoming operation is going to be.

originally posted by: TorinoFer
I just can't believe the stuff debunkers are trying to have us believe.

That it is normal US government ordered tons of bullets for all kinds of domestic agencies, 10 year war worth of bullets.

That it is normal to have black choppers fly at night through the city.

That Jade Helm is a normal exercise.

You can know great many things if you employ critical thinking. Both Russia and China have military, both China and Russia are more authoritarian as we are told.

And yet they do standard military exercises always aimed at fighting external enemy which is what military is for.

Painting is on the wall, US government is preparing for either a false flag or economic reset/collapse, or announcement of world war, or alien something.

They are preparing for something JOE SIX PACK AIN'T GONNA LIKE or support.

Let me give you an alternative theory. One of the main jobs of a government is to ensure the continuance of government. It is the peak of responsibility to make sure that if a disaster hits we still have a chain of command, military, law and order, and all the rest. What the government is doing here is making sure they have the bullets, the ability to respond, and the training incase they have to.

So here's the question. Do you want government, particularly in their role as our first, middle, and last line of national defense to not be responsible and not have ammunition and training in the event that they need it?

Could they use the training for something else? Yes... but they could use that lack of training for the exact same thing.

It does seem to me that a lot of effort is going on to be prepared for civil unrest - and more than in the eighties or nineties, at least.

I suspect it was the events of 9/11 that stirred the concern, that is when I watched big changes in our people, in my own family. The rise of internet probably influences that too.

The fear of more terrorist attacks could be sited accurately as the main concern.

But then, terrorism and civil uprisings can be tightly intertwined! Scared people get irrational, reactive. They will see the danger coming from every direction, focusing it on anyone..... even their own leadership. It was very important, right after those events, for the leadership to point somewhere and give that energy a direction, so it didn't just start exploding within in a chaotic manner (neighbor against neighbor, people against government). Iraq did this! they pointed - and the energy flowed out there.

Terrorism is one way of even turning peoples against their own government - they can come to the conclusion that it is responsible in a hidden, direct or indirect way. They can just turn against them in anger for not having protected them enough.

In this way, whether they are trying to be prepared for terrorist attacks from outside sources, or for civil uprising, is pretty much indistinguishable for me.

On the other hand, I have serious doubts that our people would rise up against the government. Our conditioning plus the huge might of the military makes that unlikely.

I do consider it the people turning against one another violently (because they respect those in power, not those below, they do not have much sense of solidarity in the working class) is a real possibility. That would still require some force to keep everyone from killing one another.

a reply to: Rocker2013

I would agree with you, at least in theory, except for one thing. None of the legislation that is ever proposed says anything at all about how they will take the guns away from criminals. The only thing the legislation addresses, by the very nature of legislation itself, is how to take guns away from law abiding citizens. You can pass a hundred laws against any kind of gun you want today and tomorrow there will be just as many criminals with guns as there are today. Why? Because criminals break the law. That is why we call them criminals. The only people who will obey those hundred new laws are, by definition, the law abiding citizens. That solves nothing. I live near Chicago, Mayor Daley's "gun free zone". Look at the effect years of anti-gun legislation have had. There is proof, not conjecture, theory or ideals, proof.

The idea of the average citizen owning firearms is critical to function and measure of our constitution. Our forefathers didn't state what kind of guns or how many or any other limitations because they expected their progeny to be armed with the best, most efficient weapons of the time and not let themselves get outpaced by government.

Take the fangs from the snake and all that is left is a swirling ugly hissy fit. Even the weakest of aggressors will learn in time not to fear an opponent who is defenseless. Absolute power does only reside in better weapons than your opponent. Even the most meek of combatants can wield absolute power over a foe too afraid to fight.

Stand up for your freedom of sit in shame in the shadow of tyranny.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Legislation seldom if ever mentions taking guns away from anyone; usually they just ban the sale of specific types of weapons or ban the sale of weapons to particular classes of people (ex-cons, mentally ill, etc.)

a reply to: DJW001

The legislation in Illinois went much farther than affecting the sale of certain types of weapons to certain people. Limiting the sale of weapons to felons, etc, has always been the appropriate thing to do. I have no issue with that. But the extent of the legislation and the effect is has had on law abiding citizens is the problem. It has no effect on criminals, which ultimately is what is necessary to solve the problem of violent crime. If you have no effect on the people committing the crimes, how can you possibly think anything will change?