Col. Writes Article on how U.S. Military Might Squash Tea Party Type Insurrections
This is a discussion on Col. Writes Article on how U.S. Military Might Squash Tea Party Type Insurrections within the Off-Topic forums, part of the General category; Saw this link on the Savage Nation: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...l-war-of-2016/ At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled ...
08-08-2012, 03:15 PM #1
Col. Writes Article on how U.S. Military Might Squash Tea Party Type Insurrections
Saw this link on the Savage Nation:
At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens.
Normally, such talk would be tinfoil hat nonsense. But there have been so many swirling stories about DHS targeting right-wing returning vets, domestic drones, DHS prison facilities, heavy firepower for paramilitary forces... makes one wonder. When Ron Paul talks about walls at our border being used to keep the population in -not foreigners out. ??
Bottom line -I become disgusted when I ponder the possibility that our awesome armed forces might be used against the citizenry who are only trying to go back to our founding principles. We need to eviscerate all these new homeland security protocols.
08-08-2012, 03:29 PM #2
Well, there are lots of articles published and lots of contingencies to plan for. Every angle needs to be examined. Remember that first and foremost the Army's oath both enlisted and officer says something about protecting against all enemies foreign and domestic. Now we can debate until the cows come home what a domestic threat is...needless to say, however, the vast majority of the American people are not ready for some kind of "Go-Time" whatever that means.
You are also switching horses in the middle of the stream. You are talking about an article written by a retired Army colonel and then you start referring to DHS.
DHS should be of greater concern than the US military, although now that the wars are winding down, the DOD will be looking for new threats and domestic terrorism could fill the bill. The idiots in Arizona, Colorado and Wisconsin have only reinforced that.
And...just how do you eviscerate these new homeland security protocols?...
Do I think that the US will implode? Most definitely, but not the way you think it will. Eventually government will get so gridlocked that it will cease working, and regional "autonomous associations" of states might form based on political philosophy, perhaps ethnicity and race, and resources unique to a particular region, but I won't see it in my lifetime, you might. We will clunk and clamor around a while longer.Member, Gun Owner's Action League
Patron Member, National Rifle Association
Adam Lanza was not a gun owner.
08-08-2012, 03:50 PM #3
The problem is that too many people buy into the perception that is laid out before them. Long before the 'homegrown terrorist' became a household buzzword and associated with rampaging psychopaths with tactical vests, I had pointed out repeatedly that both the USG and the media intended to shift the focus on 'terrorism' away from the terrorists 'out there' to those among us. It did not make a difference that such terrorists did not exist at the time, or at least not in the sense they do today, because that is their very job- shaping perception. Convincing people that Taliban is good against the Soviets, but bad afterwards. That Al Queda was bad then, but okay now since they've assisted the insurrections in Syria and Libya. Really? Give me a break. What's the new flavor of the day? Oh yeah, Constitutional supporters. This is just another way of blanket designating those opposed to the trampling of our liberties as potential terrorists, and we know it, and yet we allow it to happen.
For those people still living in fear wake the hell up. The terrorists are among us, but they're not the ones who support the Constitution. The actual terrorists occupy some of the highest positions of government and influence. They are the same ones who created Al Queda and allowed it to thrive as a 'terrorist network' to allow them to expand their sphere of control and dominance over the entire globe using fear and violence. Full spectrum dominance, isn't that the term? And what more, they have us all fooled because they are the ones in power, supposedly enforcing the laws while doing the complete opposite. Opium production up nearly 70% in Afghanistan since we invaded more than 10 years ago, the CIA having a field day exporting drugs from Mexico and South America and running underground child sex slave operations, all while using taxpaying dollars and black funding from the drugs they sell throughout the world to monitor our every step.
The point is, the whole myth of the 'homegrown' terrorist is nothing more than that- a contrived trap for us to walk right into. Just like Al Queda, who is now no longer our enemy but our ally? You can't make this stuff up. Just refuse to buy into it. When people try to use terms like Homegrown Terrorism laugh at them, it's a story being told until people actually believe it, so don't.
Last edited by Zarathustra11; 08-08-2012 at 03:52 PM.
08-08-2012, 04:33 PM #4
Non-Com Oath of Service:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”Support Comm2A
ageres proprias tuas (in case you are to damn lazy to look it up, it's Latin for MYOFB)
A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. - Mohandas Gandhi
Math always wins in the end. - calsdad
08-08-2012, 05:35 PM #5
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Grid 17S with bugout longterm shelter and great fields of fire if needed
08-08-2012, 06:12 PM #6
Still have to be lawful orders.
08-08-2012, 08:59 PM #7
The Army writes contingency plans for just about every possible scenario imaginable, from obvious ones like military invasion of Iran or Syria, to the most off the wall weirdest stuff like how to seize control of Luxembourg in 2 days or repel an Australian invasion of the California coast. Doesn't mean they believe it'd happen, just that they are professionals of warfare.
08-08-2012, 10:04 PM #8
A citizen group setting up roadblocks to check the immigration status of people driving on the road? Yea, I'll stop for em. This specific case sounds like a domestic threat to me not coming from the gov. Just my .02
08-08-2012, 10:18 PM #9
08-08-2012, 11:10 PM #10
Given the path this country is heading in, I think many who support the goals of the tea party do not count out a revolution. The best way to right the course is through the voting booth, but if the elections are tainted and Marxists like B.H.O. keep overriding the Constitution, then there may well be secessionist sentiments. Historically, I can't think of a Revolution that occurred to go back to a government's founding ideals, but this wouldn't be for a radical new set of ideas. Or maybe all Revolutions try to harken back to the primordial goals of liberty -in the beginning. They often lead to a centralization of power, but sometimes leaders of foresight like George Washington give the power back to the people.
Judging by the article, it looks like that South Carolina town chose to secede. It's possible states could secede. And I'd hate to see a socialist government try to squash the breakaways. There are too many "ifs" to know how the future and any of these scenarios would play out, but the military had best not be preparing to stop large numbers of pro freedom secessionists.