How the U.S. Military Would Crush a Tea Party Rebellion

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by TheAngryFarm

 

I can tell you from personal experience, that a vast majority of the military would not do this. I was in Katrina, my unit was sent to New Orleans, the governor told us " shoot anyone you guys see stealing on site".

The quickly rushed him from the room amongst a chorus of soldiers about to lose their "military bearing" about his comments. Most of the things I heard yelled, and yelled myself were " we didnt join up to shoot Americans!" " are you effing crazy?" " our effing stupid if you think I am going to shoot Americans"...etc.

Wasn't the governor of Louisiana during the Katrina disaster a woman... Mrs. Kathleen Blanco? Just wondering...

Kathleen Blanco

Originally posted by meticulous

I just can’t fathom or justify what I was reading about the scenarios being run in this article. Have things really escalated to the point that we need to be running scenarios on our own citizens? How can they continue operating within the letter of the law while twisting the laws true intent to protect our citizens into something so far from the original intent that it is clearly illegal? This clever ruse to circumvent our personal freedoms and liberty is not something that any American should take lightly.
All I can say is everyone needs to completely read the linked article for a reality check.


www.forbes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 11/15/2012 by meticulous because: typo

The PATRIOT act has already circumvented most of the personal freedoms and civil liberties that you think you have, for at least 10 years.

"I swear to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC".

Good article, worth a read. And an entirely plausible scenario given some of the crazies out there.

I can only speak for myself, but I swore and oath to defend the country and the constitution, not the government. I did not swear to commit treason or to prop up a government that was committing treasonous acts. I swore to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In my opinion, the domestic part would come into play when you defied the constitution and committed treason against it. I would never fire on a law abiding citizen, and almost without exception, every soldier I have ever met or was under my command would not as well, nor would they allow a commander to continue his command after giving such and order.

Having said that, revolutions happened before, and will happen again. It will be up to each person soldier or citizen to be responsible for their own actions " i was just following orders" does not fly. You will have to choose the side you are on and bear the consequences. A just rebellion to overthrow a corrupt and runaway government is one thing, a rebellion because you do not like who was elected is something else. No military person should ever fire upon a lawful peaceful us citizen, ever. And the only such time as I could see it happening would be in a situation where for sake of argument, there was attempt at a coup to replace the current government with a dictatorship or what have you.

I have a nasty sinus infection right so my post is kinda rambling and I may have lost my point somewhere in there, for that I apologize.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
American troops will not open fire on American civilians.

Those who do, or would are traitors.

Methinks you'd see a lot of commanding officers shot with side arms from their subordinates after these sorts of orders were given.

~Tenth

I'm sure that a few "domestic terrorist" attacks, wheather they be real or false flags, would be more than enough to deem certain Americans as a "domestic enemy" and would justify the murder of American Citizens by military. It's happend over and over in American history, I think to assume that military would be non-compliant is being nieve to American history. Absolutley there would be enough compliant officers to begin a wholesale massacre of American citizens.

Originally posted by badpuppeh
I can only speak for myself, but I swore and oath to defend the country and the constitution, not the government. I did not swear to commit treason or to prop up a government that was committing treasonous acts. I swore to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In my opinion, the domestic part would come into play when you defied the constitution and committed treason against it. I would never fire on a law abiding citizen, and almost without exception, every soldier I have ever met or was under my command would not as well, nor would they allow a commander to continue his command after giving such and order.

Don't you think that a rebellion by the people in itself would deem certain Americans as "domestic enemies"? After all, you, and all other soldier salso took an oath to defend from all enemies foreign and domestic.

And on the subject of your oath, aren't you and other soldiers who have served in oversees already in breach of your oaths when you go on the offensive against and "enemy" group? Let us not forget that the story goes Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. Not the Taliban, not the Iraqi Army, hell, not even other sub groups of Al-Qaeda (should it actually exist as an organized group). Mounting an offensive against those groups is in violation of your Oath, as I understand it.

I don't expect you to agree with me concerning this. What I'm doing is opening up the idea that YOUR oath is subject to YOUR interpretation only. And YOUR interpretation, as much as it makes sense to YOU, is NOT necessarily the ACTUAL interpretation that is written down. Therefore, with that in mind, don't you believe this oath that you and other soldiers take really means nothing when it comes to shooting Americans? Can't you agree that many, if not, MOST soldiers would in fact comply and go on the "defensive" against American citizens?

I believe that non compliance by officers and enlisted men would be a small "hiccup" at best.

The military makes plans for all kinds of things. All kinds of "what if's" or "what would we do if.." type of situations. Its part of the whole "prepared and ready for anything" mentality.

Heck remember the ATS thread - US Plans to Invade Canada. That one was likely on declassified because it had been replaced by a newer one (that is likely still classified).

The military have a plan for something can be a long way from them actually doing it.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Police fire on American Civilians all the time. All one would have to do, is make the Civilian look like the threat, and the Army will do what it's meant to do when a threat comes along. Whether it's by another civilian or foreign threat. If the soldier believes his life, and the life of innocent individuals are on the line I doubt he would hesitate.

Neither the author of the article or the study have a clue.
Consider the following:

Yet this scenario could just as easily be applied to radical left violence like the 1999 Battle of Seattle riots.

He must've missed the part about the police wading into the protesters and pepper spraying them while they sat peacefully in the street. There was no radical left violence - it was all done by the police.

As for the study they are worried about laws concerning intelligence gathering yet completely ignores Posse Commitatus?

Thus U.S. forces begin, as any combat forces would, by attempting to collect intelligence on enemy forces – but then has to erase the intel within 90 days after operations are completed, in order not to run afoul of federal privacy laws.

Right, I'm sure they'll give a crap about privacy laws when being shot at.

The entire gist of the article about an uprising by Tea Party advocates reeks of demonizing the American people. Throwing in the "disgruntled veterans" stinks as well.
We know who the truly violent members of this society are and they're the ones giving the orders from Washington,

The American people have shown amazing restraint in face of increasing Federal abuse.
They deserve credit rather than having targets painted on them by these bozos.

Enough!!!

Wow....

Where has the TEA party been through all this secessionist talk?

How are they involved with any of this?

Why not the occupy revolution? If the postings of this site are to be believed then they are closer to what America really believes.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by TheAngryFarm

 

I can tell you from personal experience, that a vast majority of the military would not do this. I was in Katrina, my unit was sent to New Orleans, the governor told us " shoot anyone you guys see stealing on site".

The quickly rushed him from the room amongst a chorus of soldiers about to lose their "military bearing" about his comments. Most of the things I heard yelled, and yelled myself were " we didnt join up to shoot Americans!" " are you effing crazy?" " our effing stupid if you think I am going to shoot Americans"...etc.

I see no truth in this story.

Cool story Bro.....

but I doubt if it is true.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
American troops will not open fire on American civilians.

Those who do, or would are traitors.

Methinks you'd see a lot of commanding officers shot with side arms from their subordinates after these sorts of orders were given.

~Tenth

I always wondered if these types of sentiment was prevalent among the regular standing army of the United States just before April 12, 1861. Hell, not only was it American soldiers killing "former" citizens but in some cases, fathers against sons, and brothers against brothers.....and you say it will never happen.....

While I would like to believe that a solider would remember what their Oath entailed, to think they would never is being shortsighted.

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
This article assumes the willingness of a large number of the military to turn their guns on American citizens, and in some cases their own relatives.

It would never happen.

Why not?

It assumes that many citizens have already done so - the premise is of a right wing militia in armed revolt against the US Govt - that's not quite the same thing as fighting against "civilians".

there is ample evidence that Americans are hapy to shoot at each other in all sorts of circumstances - from the revolution through to teh civil war, to military strike breaking and various other conflicts, and the constant implied threat of militias to inflict violence on others.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
American troops will not open fire on American civilians.

Those who do, or would are traitors.

Methinks you'd see a lot of commanding officers shot with side arms from their subordinates after these sorts of orders were given.

~Tenth

Kent State, Ohio.......Vietnam era protests....

They've already shot on American civilians and would do so again. Humans listen to authority, especially military conditioned personnel.

Originally posted by CrisMajor
reply to post by Trustfund

 

Tea partiers are surviving on food stamps and gov. Aid? What is this, Opposite Day?

No. It's reality day.

Originally posted by Trustfund

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
American troops will not open fire on American civilians.

Those who do, or would are traitors.

Methinks you'd see a lot of commanding officers shot with side arms from their subordinates after these sorts of orders were given.

~Tenth

Kent State, Ohio.......Vietnam era protests....

They've already shot on American civilians and would do so again. Humans listen to authority, especially military conditioned personnel.

Amazing how an issue, absent of the entrenched "left" and "right" issues brings those together that hold common sense. While I would generally agree that a large portion of the "rank-and-file", being different that previous persons, would stay their weapons, I also understand history, as you and I have pointed out.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
This article assumes the willingness of a large number of the military to turn their guns on American citizens, and in some cases their own relatives.

It would never happen.

threat of militias to inflict violence on others.

Really? Please elaborate. I've never heard of this..

reply to post by foodstamp


While speaking out of turn, I do believe the poster was pointing out the fact of the Federal Government's actions of the past. Starting from mainly the Civil War on through various actions (pointed out by other posters) on which the standing army has indeed opened fire upon its own citizens.

The notion that no soldier would ever take an order to "charge their weapon" is putting ones head in the sand. Kent State being the obvious...

reply to post by Trustfund

Tea Partiers are far too fat and old to start any sort of rebellion. Plus they greatly live on foodstamps, SS, and farm subsidies..... they love the government, just for them.

When you marginalize any peoples value, you are also marginalizing you and yours as well.

reply to post by meticulous


My opinion ...

Folks like the colonel and professor think in terms of structure--the boundaries of structure & how to uphold the structure. And I'm sure there are moral pinnings to their outlooks, but underneath the hood is the engine of structure. That's all they're really concerned about--that the engine keeps running.

Looking at this more big-picture like the scenario described by the colonel and professor seems very risky. Not so much from the militant reaction side, for the U.S. military could lay waste to a city block in no time at all. But I think of it like this: the U.S. Government is sort of like a non productive firm that is reliant on individuals, businesses, corporate incomes and etc. to sustain its operation. Now imagine if a walk-out happened--a walk-out not unlike that planned by Wal-Mart employees on Black Tuesday, but on a nation-wide scale where people refused to fund the government. People across the country might look at a military operation within CONUS and think, "I can't beat with them my fist, but I can sure as hell beat beat them with my pocketbook." If a critical mass of the producing, U.S. population elected to fight with their pocketbooks, such action could lead to an outcome no one can predict. This inability to predict an outcome is, I think, where the risk analysis for military operations within CONUS shoots to the stars in terms of hazard. I mean it's one thing if the U.S. military destroys an economy and peoples' will not their own, but to operate against its own risks cannibalizing on itself (i.e. biting the hand that feeds you).