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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Excuse me, but now we're terrorists for targeting the corrupt and picking them off? On a battlefield (albeit one of our time and choosing)? We'd be fighting trained soldiers, not someone's grandma.
Hold on...
Did you just say that you are 20 years old?
Yeah. So?
It explains your cartoonish outlook on warfare.
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.
Sorry. The Great Plains should be latter. But I fully intended to use guerilla warfare. Divide the military into small familiar groups in forested regions, where a hunting rifle might do more good than an assault rifle. Regardless, you're right. I hate thinking of strategies for plain war. To much open space. To much visibility. Not enough terrain to make use of to even the odds.
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.
Excuse me, but now we're terrorists for targeting the corrupt and picking them off? On a battlefield (albeit one of our time and choosing)? We'd be fighting trained soldiers, not someone's grandma.
Yup.
A terrorist is one who terrorizes. And your "patritotic" way of murdering the corrupt (as if corruption was a capital crime) without a trial is pretty much what they do in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What if the "corrupt" government official is someone's grandma? You don't think there are grand parents serving in the military? Really?
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.
I could probably get 60-75% of my city's adults to join up. And my city has 300-400,000 people in the surrounding counties. Anyway, the movement would be nationwide, so the south would still be in it. My list just organizes significant pushes. But you bring up a valid point. After securing the Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana tri-state area, I might be tempted to go south instead.
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.
Sorry. The Great Plains should be latter. But I fully intended to use guerilla warfare. Divide the military into small familiar groups in forested regions, where a hunting rifle might do more good than an assault rifle. Regardless, you're right. I hate thinking of strategies for plain war. To much open space. To much visibility. Not enough terrain to make use of to even the odds.
You hate thinking period. Got any NVG's? The average grunt comes equipped with them. Hiding in the woods won't save you.
Sorry. The Great Plains should be latter. But I fully intended to use guerilla warfare. Divide the military into small familiar groups in forested regions, where a hunting rifle might do more good than an assault rifle. Regardless, you're right. I hate thinking of strategies for plain war. To much open space. To much visibility. Not enough terrain to make use of to even the odds.
You hate thinking period. Got any NVG's? The average grunt comes equipped with them. Hiding in the woods won't save you.
Night vision goggles don't tell you everything, A shot from behind, or from the side, for example.
Yeah. So?
It explains your cartoonish outlook on warfare.
Many people who fought in WWII were 18 or 20. Many people in the Civil War were 16. They did it, why can't a determined youth fight today?
You hate thinking period. Got any NVG's? The average grunt comes equipped with them. Hiding in the woods won't save you.
Night vision goggles don't tell you everything, A shot from behind, or from the side, for example.
If you can't see what you're shooting at (i.e. at night dumb fuck), you're not going to hit something whether you're behind them or from the side. Hence the NVG. As for being in the woods--you know where you said you'd be--you're one advantage is stealth and concealment which is gone once you fire a shot so, again, at night when the better trained, better equipped, and better staffed adversaries are coming at you... yeah sure squeeze off a shot and see what the response is.
You're a fucking idiot. And yes, you're a fucking idiot in every sense of the word.
It explains your cartoonish outlook on warfare.
Many people who fought in WWII were 18 or 20. Many people in the Civil War were 16. They did it, why can't a determined youth fight today?
They didn't run the war...
Really? How far do you think you see at night? What range? Give us a number in feet or yards....Night vision goggles don't tell you everything, A shot from behind, or from the side, for example.
If you can't see what you're shooting at (i.e. at night dumb fuck), you're not going to hit something whether you're behind them or from the side. Hence the NVG. As for being in the woods--you know where you said you'd be--you're one advantage is stealth and concealment which is gone once you fire a shot so, again, at night when the better trained, better equipped, and better staffed adversaries are coming at you... yeah sure squeeze off a shot and see what the response is.
You're a fucking idiot. And yes, you're a fucking idiot in every sense of the word.
Can't see what you're looking at. Lord, you're an idiot. I see perfectly fine at night without goggles.
If you're in the woods, at night....good luck running very far. You see, there are these things called trees....they can get in your way junior.And why would we stick around after firing? Makes more sense to turn tale and flee.
Besides, if you have a small team of men unseen in the woods spontaneously open fire into a group of unaware soldiers in the middle of the night, there will likely be chaos. And not for the rebels.
Yeah. So?
It explains your cartoonish outlook on warfare.
Many people who fought in WWII were 18 or 20. Many people in the Civil War were 16. They did it, why can't a determined youth fight today?
Really? How far do you think you see at night? What range? Give us a number in feet or yards....If you can't see what you're shooting at (i.e. at night dumb fuck), you're not going to hit something whether you're behind them or from the side. Hence the NVG. As for being in the woods--you know where you said you'd be--you're one advantage is stealth and concealment which is gone once you fire a shot so, again, at night when the better trained, better equipped, and better staffed adversaries are coming at you... yeah sure squeeze off a shot and see what the response is.
You're a fucking idiot. And yes, you're a fucking idiot in every sense of the word.
Can't see what you're looking at. Lord, you're an idiot. I see perfectly fine at night without goggles.
If you're in the woods, at night....good luck running very far. You see, there are these things called trees....they can get in your way junior.And why would we stick around after firing? Makes more sense to turn tale and flee.
Besides, if you have a small team of men unseen in the woods spontaneously open fire into a group of unaware soldiers in the middle of the night, there will likely be chaos. And not for the rebels.
If you're in the woods, the only reason the "enemy" will be there is because you're being hunted like a dog. Otherwise a patrol isn't randomly sent out to just walk into the woods for no reason; regardless of what you see on television or on Playstation which is where you seem to have gotten your military training.
This is just one of several things you simply don't understand...Not just combat tactics but simple strategy that is apparent to anyone who gives it more than 5 seconds of thought.
After the first shot, your ass is grass.
Your entire squad is either dead or begging for clemency.Really? How far do you think you see at night? What range? Give us a number in feet or yards....Can't see what you're looking at. Lord, you're an idiot. I see perfectly fine at night without goggles.
If you're in the woods, at night....good luck running very far. You see, there are these things called trees....they can get in your way junior.
Besides, if you have a small team of men unseen in the woods spontaneously open fire into a group of unaware soldiers in the middle of the night, there will likely be chaos. And not for the rebels.
If you're in the woods, the only reason the "enemy" will be there is because you're being hunted like a dog. Otherwise a patrol isn't randomly sent out to just walk into the woods for no reason; regardless of what you see on television or on Playstation which is where you seem to have gotten your military training.
This is just one of several things you simply don't understand...Not just combat tactics but simple strategy that is apparent to anyone who gives it more than 5 seconds of thought.
After the first shot, your ass is grass.
Being hunted. Luring the US into an ambush. Obviously, a small patrol is mince meat to a team of woodsmen or hunters armed with semi-auto hunting rifles or even bolt ones. And after a few ambushes, guess what?
The only advantage you have is that it isn't too late for you to shut the fuck up.The rebels would have the equipment of the US "grunts" and the guerilla fighters would have a distinct advantage.
Back in the days of Van Gogh trees were often used as tombstones. That is the only help they'll give you...a cheaper burial.NVGs might work once, but after losing once, the rebels have the weapons, ammunition, NVGs, vests, etc of the US soldiers. It's called guerilla warfare. And those things called trees also help the rebels.
NVGs don't exactly see through trees last time I checked. And blowing through several trees to catch a rebel is completely inefficient. Besides, if the rebels exit the way they came, they know the way better and are thus less likely to run into trees.
Maybe you should give it 5 seconds of thought next time.
Really? How far do you think you see at night? What range? Give us a number in feet or yards....Can't see what you're looking at. Lord, you're an idiot. I see perfectly fine at night without goggles.
If you're in the woods, at night....good luck running very far. You see, there are these things called trees....they can get in your way junior.
Besides, if you have a small team of men unseen in the woods spontaneously open fire into a group of unaware soldiers in the middle of the night, there will likely be chaos. And not for the rebels.
If you're in the woods, the only reason the "enemy" will be there is because you're being hunted like a dog. Otherwise a patrol isn't randomly sent out to just walk into the woods for no reason; regardless of what you see on television or on Playstation which is where you seem to have gotten your military training.
This is just one of several things you simply don't understand...Not just combat tactics but simple strategy that is apparent to anyone who gives it more than 5 seconds of thought.
After the first shot, your ass is grass.
Being hunted. Luring the US into an ambush. Obviously, a small patrol is mince meat to a team of woodsmen or hunters armed with semi-auto hunting rifles or even bolt ones. And after a few ambushes, guess what? The rebels would have the equipment of the US "grunts" and the guerilla fighters would have a distinct advantage. NVGs might work once, but after losing once, the rebels have the weapons, ammunition, NVGs, vests, etc of the US soldiers. It's called guerilla warfare. And those things called trees also help the rebels. NVGs don't exactly see through trees last time I checked. And blowing through several trees to catch a rebel is completely inefficient. Besides, if the rebels exit the way they came, they know the way better and are thus less likely to run into trees.
Maybe you should give it 5 seconds of thought next time.
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.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.
Sun Tsu had some thoughts on it that are summarized here (the author applies the master's teachings to our misadventure in Iraq:
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.
Sun Tzu Quotes Pertaining to Current Events
Ambushing weapon and supply trains or blowing up rail lines and bridges would be more along the lines of true guerrilla type actions.
And you don't think that will have some adverse psychological effect on a
population that just wants you to go away or one that has no strong love of either party?
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.
Voting doesn't do any good when no matter who you elect, the people are victimized by the wealthy. What good is a Constitution when the very people elected to enforce it are the very ones who consult it the least. And as for the "light and transient" causes, the American people have lost the ability to control the government. They take away our freedom and invade our privacy, doom us to economic failure, support the fundamental decline, endorse laziness, voting doesn't help, the poor only get poorer and the rich richer, the middle class is slowly disintegrating, etc. And you want things to get worse before anybody does anything?
