Ocake that very reason is why I think it makes complete sense. Sadly I see the majority of citizens complyng cuz the govt knows best. Hell we have had UN working traffic stops/road blocks on I-5 or some major highway down in LA with the USMC. “Training”
In Oregon we just voted. I refused to vote for anybody that was an incumbent. My feeling is that it don’t matter if your rep or dem, if your in office you are the problem.
If they ran for another term then you don’t seem to get that the problem is them.
Regarding the french or any other UN troops I have no elussions of a simple country ass wooping on them.
I view the situation as a goat fuck and a slow extended Gorilla warfare kinda thing. One here, one there, trashing their supply lines killing their leadership and in it for the long haul.
I hope your right I don’t want to live any part of my life like that. I WILL die a free man in my country
Literally every time something happens, it must by definition make sense, or else it wouldn’t have happened.
The key then, if you wish to predict or even control events, is to think critically and rationally about the mechanisms and processes by which things occur. If you can analyze an event or chain of events properly, with the aid of good information, even the counter-intuitive occurrences that seem odd and random begin to make sense.
I simply think that the notion of fighting French and German troops enforcing the UN’s will on American soil makes no sense, and such fantasies are the result of an irrational thought process.
PS. As I said in the other thread, I agree that the UN is collectively a massively negative force for American gun owners. But this extreme that some people are imagining is not going to happen. If you want to keep the international community out of America’s gun laws, get involved in the process. Work in the field. Let your representatives know how you feel about it and work to elect people who won’t let it happen. But sitting around on M4C daydreaming about taking pot-shots at French and German soldiers? Come on.
Even if it WAS true, the gung-ho attitude about it is also a little strange. I’ve worked with plenty of our NATO allies and they’re good men and good soldiers. Again, not that it would happen, but I know quite a few who would HALO in from 35K, land…then bang your girlfriend AND your mom before wiping out that cute little Mossy Oak cammo’d militia. Sorry, I figure as long as we’re writing fiction novels… (I’m JOKING, please don’t take this personally).
This is the line of thinking that always gets me pegged as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy wacko, “connect the dots” if you will.
IMHO the vast majority of Americans would turn to wet noodles if tracked vehicles began rumbling down Main St. and armed men in uniforms went house to house to collect any and all firearms, food, medical supplies, et al. in the name of the greater good. Such a thing would only come after America experienced some “event” that “forced” POTUS to enact EO’s, suspend the Constitution, and green light UN (and others) to occupy and police CONUS.
I have never said that any such thing WILL occur in our lifetime, I merely point out that the ground work has been laid out to make such things “legal”. While we can speculate till the apocalypse the likely hood of said events playing out the fact remains that the laws are on the books and the plans are in place.
I don’t really like that identifying language either. It’s constricting and reductionist. It creates two camps, one which will believe nearly any conspiracy theory, and one which constantly denies that things are anything but how they exactly appear.
I personally try to eliminate as many of my own biases, preconditions, and preconceived notions as possible and examine thoughts and theories on an individual basis. If this leads me to believe the official story or to an alternate position (a so called conspiracy theory), then at least I’ve arrived there honestly. I just think that this growing trend of conspiracy theorizing is more often than not an issue of belief without evidence (or based on wrong evidence), than the result of rational and informed thought.
I seriously doubt this would happen, but if it does I’ll be screwed since few in my neck of the woods would stand up to this…
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror
alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are
“Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire
that destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the
country’s military capability.
Tell that to the families of the nearly 100 French soldiers who’ve died in Afghanistan, a few of which I’ve known and worked alongside. They’re not cowards. Or tell it to their buddies and see how that works out for you.
But I know history, and I know where this anti-French sentiment comes from.
I still don’t understand your point though. So the French are afraid to fight as your quote seems to imply, which is why they would possibly be fighting on US soil against US citizens??? And at the same time it’s why you also seem to imply that you could defeat them so easily? Any of this makes sense?
OCake, why is it that if someone else’s research differs from your’s they are off base conspiracy types.
I think Moose make a solid case via a perponderance of evidence to make a factual observation. I think HOP adds to the fact based threads out there.
What is clear to many of us is that SOMEONE either in our Govt or big business has an agenda and the resources to buy or influence law which is clearly not in the USA’s best interest.
If it werent for these off the wall web sites, chances are we the people would never see the big picture, or know of our freedoms and liberty’s being encroached on by our own govt, it’s clear to me that they sure as hell are not telling us about it.
When our Govt and big business are in bed together nothing good will become of it, regarding the needs of the people.
I do agree that the answers are evident in that history tends to repeat itself. It’s not like the US has never been occupied before.
I hate the conclussions I come to after doing my daily research, via multiple web sites, and media sources.
Rather then being paranoid, I’d think it’s simply wise to be a good boy scout, remain vigilante, and be prepared for most situations …
And it would be the End of the World on so many levels. America would fall (at least in what it was set up on) and it would open so many doors. It would not be something we could recover from in our lifetime.
In this thread and the 1961 plan thread, I’ve been talking about the specific issue of UN troops enforcing an agenda on US soil through force and occupation. I’m not talking about UN initiatives that are anti-gun, corporate manipulation of government, the Illuminati, the FED, crop circles, or whatever else.
When blue helmets are running patrols in armored vehicles through the streets of US cities, you can look me up and say I told you so, and I’ll say you were right.
Until then, you do your research and apply your critical thinking skills and I’ll do the same. I’m lead to my conclusions and you to yours. In the mean time, we’ll sit here and hash it out. That’s fine. But don’t act like I’m doing something wrong by disagreeing and engaging in debate.
Ocake, Sorry about that. Wasn’t trying to offend you. Frankly I read most of your posts, and usually come away thinking. Generally your view challenges me to think and to re-think my position and to re-review my resources, which is a good thing.
I am a retired LEO with 24 years on the streets. I learned early on that I don’t believe in chance happenings or structured intel. Shit happens for a reason and that the truth is generally not in plain sight.
That out of the box style served me well, as a representitive of the people of the communities I had the honor of serving in.
I usually found the real truth in alleyways and on back streets and dirt trails, and railroad yards around the community.
Where im headed with this is that personally I haven’t had much luck getting straight answers from city hall, or the county exec’'s, or state resources, or the major 3 news sources. The info is out there, it’s just not where one would think it would be for review.
My truths have always come from the most unusal locations and from odd and interesting folks, not those who make speechs and write articles in the local rag, or stand and make self serving speech’s.
In the past few years Im finding it harder and harder to cross reference info learned from media sources of any kind for determining it’s truthfulness.
"It’s true! It’s true! Our good friends at the California Rifle and Pistol Association stuck to their guns, did their homework and won vindication. The following is a statement released by CRPA: Setting the Record Straight The Western Regional Director of Handgun Control, Inc., has contacted the California Rifle and Pistol Association in Sacramento regarding the quote reportedly attributed to Sarah Brady by the January, 1994,“The National Educator” magazine which was referenced in the January issue of The Firing Line. HCI states that “the quotation you attribute to Ms. Brady is a complete fabrication…” It was asked that CRPA publish a retraction in the next issue of The Firing Line (March 2000). There are very few copies of the January 1994, “The National Educator” magazine known to be available in public libraries. CRPA was able to locate one at the State Historical Society of Wisconsin Library and obtained a copy of the quote in question. The quote, as published in “The National Educator,” is not precisely as was referenced in The Firing Line. What the quote in “The National Educator” magazine does say is the following:“Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” According to “The National Educator” magazine, Sarah Brady made this statement to U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum while lobbying in support of a ban on semi automatic firearms. We regret any confusion this may have caused."
– Jeff82, Hampton Roads
What you found is exactly the thing that what I posted was intended to refute. I take this to mean that you agree with me. Do I miss your point? I’m not being sarcastic. If you think it’s a counter-point, the chronology is backwards.
No. I used those three sentences to explain why I DO agree with you that summarily labeling people “conspiracy theorists” or “tin-foilers” is not a good practice. Maybe if I’d used four my point would have been comprehended? :blink:
(I’m JOKING, please don’t take this personally).