The Civil War Of 2016: U.S. Military Officers Told To Plan To Fight Americans...

[BlindBoo]

"...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."

God damn right I would want the army to go in and take control of the city back from an "extremist militia. Who in their right mind would support a militia taking over a town and holding it's elected offical hostage?

A more realistic scenario would be OWS taking over Wall Street and holding traders hostage..

The Tea Party never demonstrated any sort of violence yet the Tea Party is used as the faux aggressor in this fictional scenario?

Besides, why the hell would a libertarian militia take a town when there would be no strategic point in doing such? - it would be more practical to take over the local military base itself.... The military would have big fucking problems if a base was seized....

In the senario offered by the article doesn't say it was the Tea Party but a militia motivated by their goals, seizes a town. The key here is 'Seizes a Town' I don't care which extremist group or which town they take. It would be up to the military to restore order in that town. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Lib-o-Pauli is gunning for more Fauxrageous stuff. His premise is ridiculous.

 

[rightwinger]

I think it all comes down to what would precipitate the "insurrection"

If you had a President whose favorite expression was "Bypass Congress" and the People revolted in response to Obama casting like a Dictator, then maybe the military would do their duty and defend the people against the domestic enemy, but not he one the Progs wanted

Barack Obama "Bypass Congress" Dictator? YOU DECIDE (Original) - YouTube

So your position is that a president using executive orders is grounds for a military mutiny

What other grounds are on your list?

 

[ConzHateUSA]

It's a dream of the left, it's what they say when they aren't saying the tea party is dead.

More likely is obama making a speech after he loses the election that he won't let criminals take over the government and undo everything he's done and order to immediate arrest of prominent republicans.

idiot

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.

Let's keep matters straight here.

You are merely a fun sideshow on this Board.

You're a big government authoritarian fuck that is extremely confused.

He's a useful idiot sock puppet that parrots his handlers talking points.

 

[paulitician]

I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.

Let's keep matters straight here.

You are merely a fun sideshow on this Board.

You're a big government authoritarian fuck that is extremely confused.

Not sure i would have summed it up that way, but accurate nonetheless.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"...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."

God damn right I would want the army to go in and take control of the city back from an "extremist militia. Who in their right mind would support a militia taking over a town and holding it's elected offical hostage?

A more realistic scenario would be OWS taking over Wall Street and holding traders hostage..

The Tea Party never demonstrated any sort of violence yet the Tea Party is used as the faux aggressor in this fictional scenario?

Besides, why the hell would a libertarian militia take a town when there would be no strategic point in doing such? - it would be more practical to take over the local military base itself.... The military would have big fucking problems if a base was seized....

In the senario offered by the article doesn't say it was the Tea Party but a militia motivated by their goals, seizes a town. The key here is 'Seizes a Town' I don't care which extremist group or which town they take. It would be up to the military to restore order in that town. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Lib-o-Pauli is gunning for more Fauxrageous stuff. His premise is ridiculous.

I'd have to agree with you. You don't take a town, or seize it. You let the federal government take the first act of aggression. You must get the support of the public and attacking a town is not the way to do it.

 

[grunt11b]

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.

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. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn’t a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, “Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016 - Washington Times
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

Wont happen, our military is full of troops with character, and turning their weapons inward would be an unlawful order that 90% would not agree to do. I think if anything like this would ever happen it would be UN troops that come in and do that, which would trigger a 3rd world war. Just my 2 cents, being a veteran and all.

 

[rightwinger]

Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.

Good points. It's all about forcing agendas on others. Unfortunately, that's what our Nation has become. Very few Americans fight for real Freedom & Liberty.

And today people are brainwashed into believing tyranny is liberty.... That tyrannical laws are actually liberation laws.... That eliminating liberties is actually liberating because those said liberties are occasionally abused.

I could care less if liberties are abused. You don't let a few spoiled apples ruin liberties for all...

That's why those who seek to destroy the Bill of Rights are the domestic enemy - not those defending those liberties.... Politicians that legislate tyrannical laws are the domestic enemy.... Just because 535 people all concur on a law and that said law is not challenged that doesn't mean that said law is "legal" considering that law violates the Bill of Rights - even more so those tyrannical laws set legal precedent for more tyranny.

USMB Paradox: The more a poster uses the term "LIBERTY" in their post, the less they actually support the concepts of libety

 

[BlindBoo]

awe Bezerker doesn't like the truth. What was the title of the last PDB before 9-11 that President Bush recieved? How many times did they discuss al Quada and bin Laden?

Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism Measures

While you're busy telling your lies, please tell us about how Democraps put up barriers to prevent the FBI and CIA from sharing info they had on the 9/11 terrorists.

You know, you liberal nuts that hate the intel community and FBI, that believe the FBI and CIA are nothing but troublemakers for Joe Schmoe "spying" on them 24/7.

Nevermind the handful of times Bill Clinton told the CIA to stand down on killing UBL in Afghanistan because of fear of his wives and children possibly dying in a raid. Yes, it is more important to let the #1 terrorists live than possibly harm his little kids in collateral damage.

9/11 was planned long before Bush ever took office and was in motion long before he became President. What you must have meant is if Clinton had taken the Middle East seriously.
Or are you claiming the 9/11 terrorists did not start planning until Bush was elected and did not start assembling training and intel gathering till he was in office?

Ohh and be specific what policy or policies did Bush implement between Jan 2001 and September 11 2001 that caused the attack?

Ah the old blame it on clinton routine.......

Following the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the new president sent stringent anti-terrorism legislation to Congress as part of his first crime bill, including new deportation powers and a federal death penalty for terrorists. The passage of portions of that legislation many months later was the last time he would enjoy real cooperation against terrorism from congressional conservatives. When he sought to expand those protections in 1995 after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, he was frustrated by a coalition of civil libertarians and anti-government conservatives, who argued that his “overreaction” posed a threat to constitutional rights.

No anti-terrorism legislation reached Clinton’s desk until more than a year later. Thanks to an increasingly obstreperous Republican majority on both sides of the Capitol, law enforcement officials were denied new authority for roving wiretaps and new powers to monitor money laundering that Clinton had requested. All that would have to wait until after Sept. 11.

Back then, Sullivan was among those who accused Clinton of having “shredded civil liberties in the war on terrorism,” a concern that no longer seems to disturb him. His memory of the actual legislation is pretty dim, anyway. He wrongly claims that the administration’s 1996 bill “focused on domestic terrorism” rather than “dealing with the real threat” from al-Qaida. Among that bill’s most controversial provisions were new powers to turn away suspect immigrants, swifter deportation procedures and a new deportation court that can view secret evidence.

Recalcitrant Republicans, led by then-Senator John Ashcroft, later defeated another potentially crucial White House initiative. Along with computer-industry lobbyists, they rejected proposals to tighten controls on encryption software and to ensure that law enforcement officials could crack the kind of coded messages found on the laptop owned by Ramzi Yusef, the man who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Intelligence experts believe that encrypted computer links were probably used by the Sept. 11 plotters and their masters in al-Qaida. Some Democrats, no doubt swayed like their GOP colleagues by the generosity of industry lobbyists, joined the Republicans to deny this important tool to law enforcement.

The Clinton administration’s attempts to improve airport security were similarly obstructed in Congress. The Gore commission urged U.S. air carriers to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems, to upgrade poorly trained private security personnel and to install high-tech baggage-screening equipment. But action on key measures was stalled by lawmakers at the behest of airline lobbyists, and ultimately by the sluggish bureaucracy at the Federal Aviation Administration. Key senators on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee shot down mandated changes recommended by the White House and instead urged “further study.” (Eight of the nine Republicans on the subcommittee had received contributions from the major airlines.)

While Clinton and Gore certainly share responsibility for failing to push Congress and their own bureaucrats harder, the aviation industry could rely on conservative ideologues and PAC contributions to stymie burdensome reforms.

Among those attacking the Gore Commission recommendations, incidentally, was the New Republic, which noted that “two billion dollars a year to guard against terrorism and sabotage” would amount to “a cost per life saved of well over $300 million.” The cost of such libertarian dogma must now be measured in thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Even before the Gore Commission report, the Clinton administration had moved to place bomb-detection equipment in major airports and to upgrade background checks on airport personnel. Unfortunately, as Samuel Skinner, former transportation secretary in the first Bush administration, told an interviewer in 1996: “[T]he airlines decided it was not in their short-term best interest to pay for these services from their own pocket, so they made a concerted effort to make sure that [they] didn’t have to pay for this and didn’t have to charge passengers for it.” Also unfortunately, congressional Republicans had repealed a tax on airline tickets that would have financed high-tech improvements in baggage screening and passenger security.

If corporate lobbyists pursued their own narrow interests at the expense of national security, so did Clinton’s adversaries on Capitol Hill.

Among the most egregious was Senator Phil Gramm, who blocked an administration bill to close loopholes that let terrorist groups launder money through offshore banks. The Texas Republican denounced that legislation, now belatedly endorsed by the Bush White House as necessary to dismantle al-Qaida, as “totalitarian.”

Don’t blame Clinton - Salon.com

 

[paulitician]

"...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."

God damn right I would want the army to go in and take control of the city back from an "extremist militia. Who in their right mind would support a militia taking over a town and holding it's elected offical hostage?

A more realistic scenario would be OWS taking over Wall Street and holding traders hostage..

The Tea Party never demonstrated any sort of violence yet the Tea Party is used as the faux aggressor in this fictional scenario?

Besides, why the hell would a libertarian militia take a town when there would be no strategic point in doing such? - it would be more practical to take over the local military base itself.... The military would have big fucking problems if a base was seized....

In the senario offered by the article doesn't say it was the Tea Party but a militia motivated by their goals, seizes a town. The key here is 'Seizes a Town' I don't care which extremist group or which town they take. It would be up to the military to restore order in that town. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Lib-o-Pauli is gunning for more Fauxrageous stuff. His premise is ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as your wingnuts' premise. These are your fellow Socialists/Progressives who have concocted this plan.

 

[rightwinger]

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.

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. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn’t a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, “Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016 - Washington Times
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

Wont happen, our military is full of troops with character, and turning their weapons inward would be an unlawful order that 90% would not agree to do. I think if anything like this would ever happen it would be UN troops that come in and do that, which would trigger a 3rd world war. Just my 2 cents, being a veteran and all.

Our troops have already been ordered to point their guns at US born terrorists and they had no problem doing so

 

[paulitician]

Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.

And today people are brainwashed into believing tyranny is liberty.... That tyrannical laws are actually liberation laws.... That eliminating liberties is actually liberating because those said liberties are occasionally abused.

I could care less if liberties are abused. You don't let a few spoiled apples ruin liberties for all...

That's why those who seek to destroy the Bill of Rights are the domestic enemy - not those defending those liberties.... Politicians that legislate tyrannical laws are the domestic enemy.... Just because 535 people all concur on a law and that said law is not challenged that doesn't mean that said law is "legal" considering that law violates the Bill of Rights - even more so those tyrannical laws set legal precedent for more tyranny.

USMB Paradox: The more a poster uses the term "LIBERTY" in their post, the less they actually support the concepts of libety

How so? Please explain.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I think it all comes down to what would precipitate the "insurrection"

If you had a President whose favorite expression was "Bypass Congress" and the People revolted in response to Obama casting like a Dictator, then maybe the military would do their duty and defend the people against the domestic enemy, but not he one the Progs wanted

Barack Obama "Bypass Congress" Dictator? YOU DECIDE (Original) - YouTube

So your position is that a president using executive orders is grounds for a military mutiny

What other grounds are on your list?

So if Obamafuck declared Martial Law for no fucking reason you would be fine with that?

That would only make Obamafuck president or rather dictator indefinitely.

Where do you draw the line???

Presidents just cant do whatever the fuck they want......

 

[BlindBoo]

A more realistic scenario would be OWS taking over Wall Street and holding traders hostage..

The Tea Party never demonstrated any sort of violence yet the Tea Party is used as the faux aggressor in this fictional scenario?

Besides, why the hell would a libertarian militia take a town when there would be no strategic point in doing such? - it would be more practical to take over the local military base itself.... The military would have big fucking problems if a base was seized....

In the senario offered by the article doesn't say it was the Tea Party but a militia motivated by their goals, seizes a town. The key here is 'Seizes a Town' I don't care which extremist group or which town they take. It would be up to the military to restore order in that town. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Lib-o-Pauli is gunning for more Fauxrageous stuff. His premise is ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as your wingnuts' premise. These are your fellow Socialists/Progressives who have concocted this plan.

So you'd support an extremist militia that seized a town, disbanded the City Counsel, was holding the City's Mayor hostage and were stopping an searching vehicle on the interstate?

Yeah you go with that......

 

[Mr.Nick]

Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.

And today people are brainwashed into believing tyranny is liberty.... That tyrannical laws are actually liberation laws.... That eliminating liberties is actually liberating because those said liberties are occasionally abused.

I could care less if liberties are abused. You don't let a few spoiled apples ruin liberties for all...

That's why those who seek to destroy the Bill of Rights are the domestic enemy - not those defending those liberties.... Politicians that legislate tyrannical laws are the domestic enemy.... Just because 535 people all concur on a law and that said law is not challenged that doesn't mean that said law is "legal" considering that law violates the Bill of Rights - even more so those tyrannical laws set legal precedent for more tyranny.

USMB Paradox: The more a poster uses the term "LIBERTY" in their post, the less they actually support the concepts of libety

Really motherfucker???

Name one position that I have taken that is not classical liberal??

Oh yeah, you're just talking out your ass now...

Now spare me your irrelevant one-liner response that will offer zero evidence to claim I don't understand or support liberty...

 

[paulitician]

Wait till the shoe's on the other foot. I'm pretty sure the Socialists/Progressives here defending this, will have a much different opinion. Once they're labelled "Anti-American Terrorists", you can bet they'll want to talk about Freedom & Liberty and the Constitution. Wait till others get a crack at their OWS movement. Their shallow dishonesty & hypocrisy will then be on full display. Give it some time. Just wait.

 

[Douger]

"OMG ! OMG ! Why did you shoot him ? He was unarmed !"
Sorry mom, just following orders. Dad was on the terruh watch list.
Chukluk-chuklunk.....and you're a known accomplice.
Gawd Blass murka.
BANG !

Yes, how many in the Military would follow these orders? Personally, I think a great many would.

Why would you expect murkin meatheads to act any differently than any other meathead in world history ?
What murkins have been being entertained by(shown their future) happening"somewhere else" would also surely happen in da land of the fee-home of the slave.
Meathead types are genetically pre-programmed to do anything they are told to do.
Remember that lunatic that dove into a bullet meant for Reagan ? Those types. The world is full of them.
murkins call them heroes.Intelligent people call them fools.

 

[paulitician]

In the senario offered by the article doesn't say it was the Tea Party but a militia motivated by their goals, seizes a town. The key here is 'Seizes a Town' I don't care which extremist group or which town they take. It would be up to the military to restore order in that town. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Lib-o-Pauli is gunning for more Fauxrageous stuff. His premise is ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as your wingnuts' premise. These are your fellow Socialists/Progressives who have concocted this plan.

So you'd support an extremist militia that seized a town, disbanded the City Counsel, was holding the City's Mayor hostage and were stopping an searching vehicle on the interstate?

Yeah you go with that......

Again, a ridiculous wishful thinking premise. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending this Bullshit.

 

[grunt11b]

Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.

And today people are brainwashed into believing tyranny is liberty.... That tyrannical laws are actually liberation laws.... That eliminating liberties is actually liberating because those said liberties are occasionally abused.

I could care less if liberties are abused. You don't let a few spoiled apples ruin liberties for all...

That's why those who seek to destroy the Bill of Rights are the domestic enemy - not those defending those liberties.... Politicians that legislate tyrannical laws are the domestic enemy.... Just because 535 people all concur on a law and that said law is not challenged that doesn't mean that said law is "legal" considering that law violates the Bill of Rights - even more so those tyrannical laws set legal precedent for more tyranny.

USMB Paradox: The more a poster uses the term "LIBERTY" in their post, the less they actually support the concepts of libety

That's odd coming from a person who supports a president who strips more liberty from the people daily through executive orders and failed legislation.

 

[grunt11b]

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.

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. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn’t a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, “Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016 - Washington Times
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

Wont happen, our military is full of troops with character, and turning their weapons inward would be an unlawful order that 90% would not agree to do. I think if anything like this would ever happen it would be UN troops that come in and do that, which would trigger a 3rd world war. Just my 2 cents, being a veteran and all.

Our troops have already been ordered to point their guns at US born terrorists and they had no problem doing so

Where "In America" has this happened?