The 2nd Civil War

[WinterBorn]

I wonder if Fake has let those who are going to be the privates and corporals in his "army" know that they will be the ones asked to charge Capitol Hill. I'm sure they'll meet light resistance....or at least thats what they'll tell them.

Charging Capitol Hill. What rebel group in their right minds would "charge" Capitol Hill or Washington in general? No, much better to start in the mid-west, capturing states like Iowa, major food producers. Also places like Gary, Indiana, a major steel producer. Chicago, too, to add a bit more legitimacy. Then march on the south, somewhere my message would probably be well-received. After capturing the south, take a while to consolidate my holdings, then attack west and capture up to the Rockies. Leave some men there to prevent it from be reclaimed by the US, and push up along the Atlantic Coast back east, stopping in Virginia. Also attack places like Pittsburgh and New York State. Finally, with Washington all but surrounded, the nation's resources at my back, and 99% of America (not counting Alaska) under my control, I attack Washington.

You would think starting in the South where people might support you while you built your base followers would be the better idea.
I mean I would think if you want to actually build an army? You might want to go where people are of a like mind.

If you want the south to follow you, you had better have a southerner near the top of your command. Those in the south who will listen to your message are notoriously suspicious of anyone not from the south.

Also, while leading an army "of the people" sounds grand, it would be the worst possible thing you could try to do. First of all, the logistics of gathering the people, the materials and the people with the skills is huge. To do so without alerting the authorities would be impossible.

You only hope would be clandestine propaganda and guerilla warfare. That you can gather the materials and manpower for quite easily. Every deer hunter is a potential sniper.

But trying to roll across the plains would be suicidal. Your enemy has vastly better equipment and much greater firepower. If you put your forces in the open plains they will be destroyed. Put them elsewhere and in with the population. That way your enemy will be forced to kill innocent citizens to get to you. That can be used against him. If you think there was an uproar over killing people attending an Iraqi wedding, wait until it is a Boy Scout troop in PA.

 

[candycorn]

Charging Capitol Hill. What rebel group in their right minds would "charge" Capitol Hill or Washington in general? No, much better to start in the mid-west, capturing states like Iowa, major food producers. Also places like Gary, Indiana, a major steel producer. Chicago, too, to add a bit more legitimacy. Then march on the south, somewhere my message would probably be well-received. After capturing the south, take a while to consolidate my holdings, then attack west and capture up to the Rockies. Leave some men there to prevent it from be reclaimed by the US, and push up along the Atlantic Coast back east, stopping in Virginia. Also attack places like Pittsburgh and New York State. Finally, with Washington all but surrounded, the nation's resources at my back, and 99% of America (not counting Alaska) under my control, I attack Washington.

You would think starting in the South where people might support you while you built your base followers would be the better idea.
I mean I would think if you want to actually build an army? You might want to go where people are of a like mind.

If you want the south to follow you, you had better have a southerner near the top of your command. Those in the south who will listen to your message are notoriously suspicious of anyone not from the south.

Also, while leading an army "of the people" sounds grand, it would be the worst possible thing you could try to do. First of all, the logistics of gathering the people, the materials and the people with the skills is huge. To do so without alerting the authorities would be impossible.

You only hope would be clandestine propaganda and guerilla warfare. That you can gather the materials and manpower for quite easily. Every deer hunter is a potential sniper.

But trying to roll across the plains would be suicidal. Your enemy has vastly better equipment and much greater firepower. If you put your forces in the open plains they will be destroyed. Put them elsewhere and in with the population. That way your enemy will be forced to kill innocent citizens to get to you. That can be used against him. If you think there was an uproar over killing people attending an Iraqi wedding, wait until it is a Boy Scout troop in PA.

Oh yes...by all means....Americans rallied around John Malbo (the beltway sniper). You remember...right?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Charging Capitol Hill. What rebel group in their right minds would "charge" Capitol Hill or Washington in general? No, much better to start in the mid-west, capturing states like Iowa, major food producers. Also places like Gary, Indiana, a major steel producer. Chicago, too, to add a bit more legitimacy. Then march on the south, somewhere my message would probably be well-received. After capturing the south, take a while to consolidate my holdings, then attack west and capture up to the Rockies. Leave some men there to prevent it from be reclaimed by the US, and push up along the Atlantic Coast back east, stopping in Virginia. Also attack places like Pittsburgh and New York State. Finally, with Washington all but surrounded, the nation's resources at my back, and 99% of America (not counting Alaska) under my control, I attack Washington.

You would think starting in the South where people might support you while you built your base followers would be the better idea.
I mean I would think if you want to actually build an army? You might want to go where people are of a like mind.

If you want the south to follow you, you had better have a southerner near the top of your command. Those in the south who will listen to your message are notoriously suspicious of anyone not from the south.

Also, while leading an army "of the people" sounds grand, it would be the worst possible thing you could try to do. First of all, the logistics of gathering the people, the materials and the people with the skills is huge. To do so without alerting the authorities would be impossible.

You only hope would be clandestine propaganda and guerilla warfare. That you can gather the materials and manpower for quite easily. Every deer hunter is a potential sniper.

But trying to roll across the plains would be suicidal. Your enemy has vastly better equipment and much greater firepower. If you put your forces in the open plains they will be destroyed. Put them elsewhere and in with the population. That way your enemy will be forced to kill innocent citizens to get to you. That can be used against him. If you think there was an uproar over killing people attending an Iraqi wedding, wait until it is a Boy Scout troop in PA.

It would no doubt be a guerrilla war. Who exactly you'd be fighting would be the question. I would guess the DHS. Because if it got that far something serious is going on and the local sheriff and military would probably stay out of it.

 

[WinterBorn]

You would think starting in the South where people might support you while you built your base followers would be the better idea.
I mean I would think if you want to actually build an army? You might want to go where people are of a like mind.

If you want the south to follow you, you had better have a southerner near the top of your command. Those in the south who will listen to your message are notoriously suspicious of anyone not from the south.

Also, while leading an army "of the people" sounds grand, it would be the worst possible thing you could try to do. First of all, the logistics of gathering the people, the materials and the people with the skills is huge. To do so without alerting the authorities would be impossible.

You only hope would be clandestine propaganda and guerilla warfare. That you can gather the materials and manpower for quite easily. Every deer hunter is a potential sniper.

But trying to roll across the plains would be suicidal. Your enemy has vastly better equipment and much greater firepower. If you put your forces in the open plains they will be destroyed. Put them elsewhere and in with the population. That way your enemy will be forced to kill innocent citizens to get to you. That can be used against him. If you think there was an uproar over killing people attending an Iraqi wedding, wait until it is a Boy Scout troop in PA.

Oh yes...by all means....Americans rallied around John Malbo (the beltway sniper). You remember...right?

Please point out where I said anything about shooting innocent bystanders pumping gas or mowing their lawns? If you want to discuss the issue, please refrain from attempting stupid strawman arguments. At least make them relevant. And, FYI his name was Malvo. And his accuracy was NOT impressive.

 

[WinterBorn]

You would think starting in the South where people might support you while you built your base followers would be the better idea.
I mean I would think if you want to actually build an army? You might want to go where people are of a like mind.

If you want the south to follow you, you had better have a southerner near the top of your command. Those in the south who will listen to your message are notoriously suspicious of anyone not from the south.

Also, while leading an army "of the people" sounds grand, it would be the worst possible thing you could try to do. First of all, the logistics of gathering the people, the materials and the people with the skills is huge. To do so without alerting the authorities would be impossible.

You only hope would be clandestine propaganda and guerilla warfare. That you can gather the materials and manpower for quite easily. Every deer hunter is a potential sniper.

But trying to roll across the plains would be suicidal. Your enemy has vastly better equipment and much greater firepower. If you put your forces in the open plains they will be destroyed. Put them elsewhere and in with the population. That way your enemy will be forced to kill innocent citizens to get to you. That can be used against him. If you think there was an uproar over killing people attending an Iraqi wedding, wait until it is a Boy Scout troop in PA.

It would no doubt be a guerrilla war. Who exactly you'd be fighting would be the question. I would guess the DHS. Because if it got that far something serious is going on and the local sheriff and military would probably stay out of it.

I think you would want to avoid bringing the military into it until later, when the reasons and ideologies have been well spread. I'm not sure how you would pick your targets. You would want something that is seen as a powerful oppressor, and yet not full of innocent office workers. The DHS sounds reasonable.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If you want the south to follow you, you had better have a southerner near the top of your command. Those in the south who will listen to your message are notoriously suspicious of anyone not from the south.

Also, while leading an army "of the people" sounds grand, it would be the worst possible thing you could try to do. First of all, the logistics of gathering the people, the materials and the people with the skills is huge. To do so without alerting the authorities would be impossible.

You only hope would be clandestine propaganda and guerilla warfare. That you can gather the materials and manpower for quite easily. Every deer hunter is a potential sniper.

But trying to roll across the plains would be suicidal. Your enemy has vastly better equipment and much greater firepower. If you put your forces in the open plains they will be destroyed. Put them elsewhere and in with the population. That way your enemy will be forced to kill innocent citizens to get to you. That can be used against him. If you think there was an uproar over killing people attending an Iraqi wedding, wait until it is a Boy Scout troop in PA.

Oh yes...by all means....Americans rallied around John Malbo (the beltway sniper). You remember...right?

Please point out where I said anything about shooting innocent bystanders pumping gas or mowing their lawns? If you want to discuss the issue, please refrain from attempting stupid strawman arguments. At least make them relevant. And, FYI his name was Malvo. And his accuracy was NOT impressive.

Yep...nothing impressive about hitting someone from fifty yards. You start hitting accurately at one fifty with open sights and you might get my attention.

 

[candycorn]

If you want the south to follow you, you had better have a southerner near the top of your command. Those in the south who will listen to your message are notoriously suspicious of anyone not from the south.

Also, while leading an army "of the people" sounds grand, it would be the worst possible thing you could try to do. First of all, the logistics of gathering the people, the materials and the people with the skills is huge. To do so without alerting the authorities would be impossible.

You only hope would be clandestine propaganda and guerilla warfare. That you can gather the materials and manpower for quite easily. Every deer hunter is a potential sniper.

But trying to roll across the plains would be suicidal. Your enemy has vastly better equipment and much greater firepower. If you put your forces in the open plains they will be destroyed. Put them elsewhere and in with the population. That way your enemy will be forced to kill innocent citizens to get to you. That can be used against him. If you think there was an uproar over killing people attending an Iraqi wedding, wait until it is a Boy Scout troop in PA.

Oh yes...by all means....Americans rallied around John Malbo (the beltway sniper). You remember...right?

Please point out where I said anything about shooting innocent bystanders pumping gas or mowing their lawns? If you want to discuss the issue, please refrain from attempting stupid strawman arguments. At least make them relevant. And, FYI his name was Malvo. And his accuracy was NOT impressive.

My mistake. I apologize. To me that is guerrilla warfare. Explain what you mean by it and how it won't involve innocents...

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh yes...by all means....Americans rallied around John Malbo (the beltway sniper). You remember...right?

Please point out where I said anything about shooting innocent bystanders pumping gas or mowing their lawns? If you want to discuss the issue, please refrain from attempting stupid strawman arguments. At least make them relevant. And, FYI his name was Malvo. And his accuracy was NOT impressive.

My mistake. I apologize. To me that is guerrilla warfare. Explain what you mean by it and how it won't involve innocents...

Wikipedia has a decent definition: "Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as armed civilians or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and extraordinary mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional army."

When I talked about deer hunters being potential snipers, I did not mean to infer that they would be taking random shots at innocent bystanders. They would likely be tasked with taking out specific targets, whether material or personnel. I think an effective guerilla war could be waged in the USA. The difficult part would be recruiting without getting informants.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh yes...by all means....Americans rallied around John Malbo (the beltway sniper). You remember...right?

Please point out where I said anything about shooting innocent bystanders pumping gas or mowing their lawns? If you want to discuss the issue, please refrain from attempting stupid strawman arguments. At least make them relevant. And, FYI his name was Malvo. And his accuracy was NOT impressive.

Yep...nothing impressive about hitting someone from fifty yards. You start hitting accurately at one fifty with open sights and you might get my attention.

Yeah, the ranges were all pretty short, he had all the time he wanted, picked his targets by which ones were easiest, had a rock-solid rest, and still managed to miss a few.

 

[KNB]

Guerrilla warfare is already being waged in the US. 30k gun deaths per year.

 

[WinterBorn]

Guerrilla warfare is already being waged in the US. 30k gun deaths per year.

Nice propaganda. Care to cite a source for your claim of 30k gun deaths per year?

Or would you prefer to admit, outright, that you number includes suicides, police shootings and people defending themselves?

The actual firearm homicide numbers are much lower.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yep...nothing impressive about hitting someone from fifty yards. You start hitting accurately at one fifty with open sights and you might get my attention.

I popped a 5 inch dinger with iron sights on my 1929 Winchester model 1894 30-30 about a month ago.

Has nothing to do with the subject, but it was a hell of a shot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My mistake. I apologize. To me that is guerrilla warfare. Explain what you mean by it and how it won't involve innocents...

That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard, even from a leftist.

 

[candycorn]

Please point out where I said anything about shooting innocent bystanders pumping gas or mowing their lawns? If you want to discuss the issue, please refrain from attempting stupid strawman arguments. At least make them relevant. And, FYI his name was Malvo. And his accuracy was NOT impressive.

My mistake. I apologize. To me that is guerrilla warfare. Explain what you mean by it and how it won't involve innocents...

Wikipedia has a decent definition: "Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as armed civilians or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and extraordinary mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional army."

When I talked about deer hunters being potential snipers, I did not mean to infer that they would be taking random shots at innocent bystanders. They would likely be tasked with taking out specific targets, whether material or personnel. I think an effective guerilla war could be waged in the USA. The difficult part would be recruiting without getting informants.

Basically terrorism. Nobody will know when, where, or who or if they are a target. It will be total failure unless you offer the public a convenient scape goat.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Basically terrorism.

ROFL

What a fucking moron.

No shit fer brains, not "terrorism."

Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilian targets to create, wait for it, wait,,,, TERROR.

Nobody will know when, where, or who or if they are a target. It will be total failure unless you offer the public a convenient scape goat.

You can't possible be as stupid as you present yourself and still have functional autonomic systems...

 

[Contumacious]

Oh yes...by all means....Americans rallied around John Malbo (the beltway sniper). You remember...right?

I see, so John Allen Muhammad was trying to send a political message........who would have thunketh?

.

 

[WinterBorn]

Basically terrorism.

ROFL

What a fucking moron.

No shit fer brains, not "terrorism."

Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilian targets to create, wait for it, wait,,,, TERROR.

Nobody will know when, where, or who or if they are a target. It will be total failure unless you offer the public a convenient scape goat.

You can't possible be as stupid as you present yourself and still have functional autonomic systems...

In some ways guerilla warfare is much like terrorism. The difference is whether the targets are picked based on their importance or the ability to strike fear in a population.

 

[WinterBorn]

My mistake. I apologize. To me that is guerrilla warfare. Explain what you mean by it and how it won't involve innocents...

Wikipedia has a decent definition: "Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as armed civilians or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and extraordinary mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional army."

When I talked about deer hunters being potential snipers, I did not mean to infer that they would be taking random shots at innocent bystanders. They would likely be tasked with taking out specific targets, whether material or personnel. I think an effective guerilla war could be waged in the USA. The difficult part would be recruiting without getting informants.

Basically terrorism. Nobody will know when, where, or who or if they are a target. It will be total failure unless you offer the public a convenient scape goat.

If you make it clear that you are at war with the gov't for valid reasons, then the targets will be chosen to support those reasons.

 

[Unkotare]

And I am prepared to wait years if necessary to gather enough people to put out the sun, as you put it.

Great. You'll most likely spend that time waiting in a rubber room counting off the hours between meds time.

 

[candycorn]

Wikipedia has a decent definition: "Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as armed civilians or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and extraordinary mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional army."

When I talked about deer hunters being potential snipers, I did not mean to infer that they would be taking random shots at innocent bystanders. They would likely be tasked with taking out specific targets, whether material or personnel. I think an effective guerilla war could be waged in the USA. The difficult part would be recruiting without getting informants.

Basically terrorism. Nobody will know when, where, or who or if they are a target. It will be total failure unless you offer the public a convenient scape goat.

If you make it clear that you are at war with the gov't for valid reasons, then the targets will be chosen to support those reasons.

So 1/2 of the Country is divided right now, right? How do you get the other half to believe that your murders are righteous kills?

I mean really, we're in the bizarro world here I know but hell...what are the ROE's? I recall when Mitt Romney wanted to cut 28,000 jobs which is 10% of the federal workforce. That means that the federal workforce is about 280,000 people; Roughly 8% of the nation. In other words, the DEA agent who is going to be poking around has relatives...you blow him away then what? They say, "Oh wait, we get it...daddy had to die? We're with you."

The whole enterprise is doomed from the beginning and only idiots would ever contemplate it to start with.