Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Terror is the result of such acts. The only thing you can do to pacify the terror you create is to shift the blame for the acts. Since it's going to be very hard to say that you gunned down someone's daughter or son for a just cause, you'd better have some heavy duty PR in place to shift the blame, torches, and pitchforks that will be coming your way.
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.
This whole argument is stupid, you & the OP are not going to do anything...
Stupid statements merit idiotic responses.
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.
Terror is the result of such acts. The only thing you can do to pacify the terror you create is to shift the blame for the acts. Since it's going to be very hard to say that you gunned down someone's daughter or son for a just cause, you'd better have some heavy duty PR in place to shift the blame, torches, and pitchforks that will be coming your way.
As I said before, the entire premise of this revolution or civil war is the federal gov't refusing to abide by the US Constitution and removing the people's rights and freedoms.
If you do not feel those rights and freedoms are worth fight for, then there is no point in continuing the discussion. The question in my mind is whether we have reached the critical stage at which the revolution is the only viable option.
But yes, if there is an armed revolution people will die. Just like they have died in every revolution since the beginning of time. And yes, those people will have families. Just like the british soldiers in 1775 had families. And someone had to tell their families that they died because the colonists wanted to have their own country. And during the entire American Revolutionary War, at NO TIME were the majority of the people living in the colonies in favor of independence.
Terror is the result of such acts. The only thing you can do to pacify the terror you create is to shift the blame for the acts. Since it's going to be very hard to say that you gunned down someone's daughter or son for a just cause, you'd better have some heavy duty PR in place to shift the blame, torches, and pitchforks that will be coming your way.
As I said before, the entire premise of this revolution or civil war is the federal gov't refusing to abide by the US Constitution and removing the people's rights and freedoms.
If you do not feel those rights and freedoms are worth fight for, then there is no point in continuing the discussion. The question in my mind is whether we have reached the critical stage at which the revolution is the only viable option.
But yes, if there is an armed revolution people will die. Just like they have died in every revolution since the beginning of time. And yes, those people will have families. Just like the british soldiers in 1775 had families. And someone had to tell their families that they died because the colonists wanted to have their own country. And during the entire American Revolutionary War, at NO TIME were the majority of the people living in the colonies in favor of independence.
The premise of this "revolution" is that a dingbat with delusions of grandeur suddenly decides that the government no longer represents the people, declares himself something pretentious like "the son of liberty" and goes stark raving mad.
Viability? Viability becomes convenience in about 2 milliseconds when the alternatives are not exhausted but simply look too hard to go through. Those who yearn for armed conflict are not patriots or heroes or anything of the like. The word that best describes them is this: lazy. Lazy in mind. Lazy in spirit. Lazy in civics. Lazy in body (most likely). And above all else, lazy in concern over the nation.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.
Terror is the result of such acts. The only thing you can do to pacify the terror you create is to shift the blame for the acts. Since it's going to be very hard to say that you gunned down someone's daughter or son for a just cause, you'd better have some heavy duty PR in place to shift the blame, torches, and pitchforks that will be coming your way.
As I said before, the entire premise of this revolution or civil war is the federal gov't refusing to abide by the US Constitution and removing the people's rights and freedoms.
If you do not feel those rights and freedoms are worth fight for, then there is no point in continuing the discussion. The question in my mind is whether we have reached the critical stage at which the revolution is the only viable option.
But yes, if there is an armed revolution people will die. Just like they have died in every revolution since the beginning of time. And yes, those people will have families. Just like the british soldiers in 1775 had families. And someone had to tell their families that they died because the colonists wanted to have their own country. And during the entire American Revolutionary War, at NO TIME were the majority of the people living in the colonies in favor of independence.
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.
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.
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.
Terror is the result of such acts. The only thing you can do to pacify the terror you create is to shift the blame for the acts. Since it's going to be very hard to say that you gunned down someone's daughter or son for a just cause, you'd better have some heavy duty PR in place to shift the blame, torches, and pitchforks that will be coming your way.
Those wars were not applicable to the cartoonish arcade warfare you guys are talking about. For one thing, you aren't legitimate. For another thing the tactics of the allies were to oust invaders; not overthrow the legitimate government.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.
Terror is the result of such acts. The only thing you can do to pacify the terror you create is to shift the blame for the acts. Since it's going to be very hard to say that you gunned down someone's daughter or son for a just cause, you'd better have some heavy duty PR in place to shift the blame, torches, and pitchforks that will be coming your way.
What the hell are you even talking about?
We killed crap loads of civilians during one and two,was that terrorism?
Terrorism is targeting civilians with the sole purpose of breaking the will of the people.
With the bonus of screwing up the economy.
This quote frequently appears in guerilla fighting manuals. It means that to protect everything, the defending force in Iraq, now primarily the U.S. Army, must divide itself among many places to protect those many places with the result that it becomes easier to isolate and attack those smaller parts without facing the rest of the U.S. Army. By the guerilla fighter's further staying amongst the population, the guerilla fighters create the effect that any action by the U.S. Army to find and root them out will tend to alienate the population and spur the guerilla fighter's cause. The ease with which guerilla fighters can leverage religious fervor in this situation to further turn the population against U.S. forces, plus the ease with which imbedded guerillas can terrorize the rest of the population into not helping or even harming the U.S., means that the U.S. Army faces some real difficulty going forward. In an environment with more potential guerilla fighters from Iraq and abroad than the U.S. Army can kill or capture, the only way to succeed is to create the effect whereby the population of Iraq itself quells the guerilla movement. That is not an easy task, and certainly not a task the conventional U.S. Army is trained or equipped to do.
Ambushing weapon and supply trains or blowing up rail lines and bridges would be more along the lines of true guerrilla type actions.
Nonsense.
There is nothing broken with regard to the government.
The only problem with government is you and other Americans who refuse to get involved in the political process at the very local level to make the needed changes.
Instead you whine about broken government, refuse to lift a finger to do anything about it, and come up with these ridiculous notions about a second civil war.
Refuse to lift a finger. I hand-peck, so that entails a lot of finger lifting. On a different level, I am on a political forum at the ripe old age of 20 trying to learn people's opinions and tell them about my opinion and spend about an hour or two on the site just about every day. On a different note, apparently corruption and decay are what makes a government fixed. A clean and selfless government would be "broken" then.
Hold on...
Did you just say that you are 20 years old?
Refuse to lift a finger. I hand-peck, so that entails a lot of finger lifting. On a different level, I am on a political forum at the ripe old age of 20 trying to learn people's opinions and tell them about my opinion and spend about an hour or two on the site just about every day. On a different note, apparently corruption and decay are what makes a government fixed. A clean and selfless government would be "broken" then.
Hold on...
Did you just say that you are 20 years old?
Yeah. So?
In the academic sense, yes. Yes I do. You couldn't care less either way. "I attack Washington"Sure, sounds easy....
Nothing sophomoric about that "plan" at all.
candycorn, do you think I like the idea of potentially sending thousands of Americans to their deaths?
Meh...only if they die laughing at you would you be involved in their deaths.
I literally am speechless...Do they deserve it, really?" and I almost believe people like you might be right about a war, nut then I see a little child and think, "Look who a war would save. And all the unborn generations. It is worth it," and my resolve comes right back even stronger than before.
Have you thought about it that way, candycorn?
No. Then again, I don't have these bizarre illusions that you have in some world where you matter.
I started the Post Revolt several weeks ago because I feel a sense that people are feeling the way this post shows.
This is it with the regime in the white house prior to 2008 and now the regime in the white house presently it is obvious the USA is more divided than it has been in the last 100 years.
Of the 125 million people that voted in the last election 65 million Obama received and 60 million Romney received...This does lend itself to a divided nation. Is it just a racist thing
HARDLY oh yes there is always a racial component when you have black and white but this is not the driving force.
Money and possession is the driving force and always will be and has been the reason any war comes to be.
In a simple form 65 million people think they can get more of what the 60 million have. Well the 60 million do not have as much as the 65 million think and they are not going to make more under the present political environment.
Could this cause a civil war--well maybe not a physical one but for sure a political one.
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 will start in open plains? Where your technological disadvantages will do you the most harm?
Sounds like a short revolution.
Obviously nobody in their right mind would ever take your crazy ass seriously....but don't you worry about sponsoring armed treason in an open forum such as this?
As I have repeated constantly, I am advocating the people to rise up against the government peacefully and with protests as guaranteed by the First Amendment. If the government then refuses to heed such protests and condemns us for exercising the 1st Amendment, as well as continues to take away the rights of the people, then it will be my duty to take up arms against the government, for they would no longer represent the Constitution that gives them power, making them illegitimate. So I am technically not for armed treason.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. -The Declaration of Independence.
Why stop there? Here's the next line in that famous document. " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
They were fighting a King, an absolute despot, a ruler for life. So far, the Constitution is still in effect and it is by the ballot that we ensure a government of and by the people. Go out and rise up, protest your cause all you want. And when you have enough people to influence a vote then your revolution is on the road to success. Unless someone unjustly suspends the Constitution taking up arms against the government is not a duty, imo.
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.
