Please Tell Me How A Civil War Will Be Fought?

[Tigerace117]

The insurgents in the Philippines and Lebanon were not Irish ? Who except you thinks that anyone said they were ?
You've passed the point of pretending to be a sincere poster now

The Irish Republican terrorists were supplied ArmLites direct from the USA though...



So once again :

***IF*** federal law enforcement officers were also members of the KKK, ***WOULD*** this demonstrate US government support for the KKK ?

AND

How come Loyalist terrorists were jailed ?
How did Loyalist terrorists come to be killed by the security forces ?
How come suspected Loyalist terrorists were interned without trial ?


It does indeed, from your refusal to answer, show some deep emotional investment in this - why do you want to believe it so badly ?

So no, your claim that only Irish insurgents used the Armalite is an outright falsehood.

The British government proudly backed the “Loyalist” terror groups and went so far as to engage in target selection for them, yes. As I proved.

So once again: demonstrate the supposed support for the Klan from the CIA or FBI. Your inability to do so renders your sputtering meaningless.

We all know why you can’t bear to face the facts about how brutal and tyrannical British rule in Northern Ireland was.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

A must see movie for 2024.

Unfortunately yes.

 

[Rich2018]

So no, your claim that only Irish insurgents used the Armalite is an outright falsehood.

Nope, you're being deliberately dishonest
Irish Republican terrorists sourced theirs from the USA - the difference between using what you randomly pick up and being supplied them

Stop lying.

The British government proudly backed the “Loyalist” terror groups and went so far as to engage in target selection for them, yes. As I proved.

So once again: demonstrate the supposed support for the Klan from the CIA or FBI. Your inability to do so renders your sputtering meaningless.

We all know why you can’t bear to face the facts about how brutal and tyrannical British rule in Northern Ireland was.

One more time:

***IF*** federal law enforcement officers were also members of the KKK, ***WOULD*** this demonstrate US government support for the KKK ?

AND

How come Loyalist terrorists were jailed ?
How did Loyalist terrorists come to be killed by the security forces ?
How come suspected Loyalist terrorists were interned without trial ?


What do you think your refusal to answer signifies ?

 

[Tigerace117]

Nope, you're being deliberately dishonest
Irish Republican terrorists sourced theirs from the USA - the difference between using what you randomly pick up and being supplied them

Stop lying.



One more time:

***IF*** federal law enforcement officers were also members of the KKK, ***WOULD*** this demonstrate US government support for the KKK ?

AND

How come Loyalist terrorists were jailed ?
How did Loyalist terrorists come to be killed by the security forces ?
How come suspected Loyalist terrorists were interned without trial ?


What do you think your refusal to answer signifies ?

You made the claim that Irish Republicans were the only insurgents to use the Armalite. That is blatantly false, and no amount of denial can change that.

One more time: provide evidence for that ever happening. There’s boatloads of evidence of British military and intelligence personnel being complicit in the “Loyalist” atrocities, after all....and none whatsoever for your narrative.

Which makes your denial all the more comical. The British were an oppressive force in Northern Ireland, reacting to calls for peaceful change with brutal force.

 

[Rich2018]

You made the claim that Irish Republicans were the only insurgents to use the Armalite. That is blatantly false, and no amount of denial can change that.

No it's true, and I was referring to the kind of firearms with which terrorist organizations were supplied or sourced....not what they could scavange
But then you knew that and decided to be blatantly obtuse rather than argue sincerely.

One more time: provide evidence for that ever happening. There’s boatloads of evidence of British military and intelligence personnel being complicit in the “Loyalist” atrocities, after all....and none whatsoever for your narrative.

Which makes your denial all the more comical. The British were an oppressive force in Northern Ireland, reacting to calls for peaceful change with brutal force.

One more time:

***IF*** federal law enforcement officers were also members of the KKK, ***WOULD*** this demonstrate US government support for the KKK ?

AND

How come Loyalist terrorists were jailed ?
How did Loyalist terrorists come to be killed by the security forces ?
How come suspected Loyalist terrorists were interned without trial ?


Questions that you cannot answer (without derailing what passes for your "argument" that is).

 

[Tigerace117]

No it's true, and I was referring to the kind of firearms with which terrorist organizations were supplied or sourced....not what they could scavange
But then you knew that and decided to be blatantly obtuse rather than argue sincerely.



One more time:

***IF*** federal law enforcement officers were also members of the KKK, ***WOULD*** this demonstrate US government support for the KKK ?

AND

How come Loyalist terrorists were jailed ?
How did Loyalist terrorists come to be killed by the security forces ?
How come suspected Loyalist terrorists were interned without trial ?


Questions that you cannot answer (without derailing what passes for your "argument" that is).

You made a blatantly false claim and were exposed as being totally clueless, yes. And not for the first time either.

So no, unlike the British government, which proudly supported the Loyalists, the CIA did not, in fact, arm and support the KKK. Your desperate attempt at a equivalence is a complete flop.

But I get that you don’t actually know anything about Northern Ireland, as proven when you demonstrated your complete unawareness of the fact peaceful protest for civil rights there was met with nothing but complete brutality from the British authorities.

 

[Rich2018]

You made a blatantly false claim and were exposed as being totally clueless, yes. And not for the first time either.

Nope, since I was referring to the kind of firearms with which terrorist organizations were supplied or sourced....not what they could scavenge
But then you knew that and decided to be blatantly obtuse rather than argue sincerely.

So no, unlike the British government, which proudly supported the Loyalists, the CIA did not, in fact, arm and support the KKK. Your desperate attempt at a equivalence is a complete flop.

But I get that you don’t actually know anything about Northern Ireland, as proven when you demonstrated your complete unawareness of the fact peaceful protest for civil rights there was met with nothing but complete brutality from the British authorities.

Still waiting for answers:

1. ***IF*** federal law enforcement officers were also members of the KKK, ***WOULD*** this demonstrate US government support for the KKK ?

2. If successive British governments were so pro-loyalist:
How come Loyalist terrorists were jailed ?
How did Loyalist terrorists come to be killed by the security forces ?
How come suspected Loyalist terrorists were interned without trial ?


Questions that you cannot answer (without derailing what passes for your "argument" that is).

 

[Tangmo]

A must see movie for 2024.

Prescreenings of Civil War say it has Texas and California joining to fight the evil president and the rest of the states united against the two outlier states each of which wants independence. And the story is about two middle aged female journalists making their way across the country with all kind of explosions going on around 'em, ie, it's more about journalism than war and it targets an older audience. All the same the most commented scene is the Lincoln Memorial getting blown up. One reviewer said the movie is for "internet intellectuals." Another said it's "dystopian" at exactly the time we don't need any more dystopian stuff.

This movie definitely gets a pass as a fail.

 

[Rich2018]

Prescreenings of Civil War say it has Texas and California joining to fight the evil president...

An unlikely alliance...obviously the producers don't want to inflame existing Republican-Democrat divisions

...and the story is about two middle aged female journalists making their way across the country with all kind of explosions going on around 'em, ie, it's more about journalism than war and it targets an older audience. All the same the most commented scene is the Lincoln Memorial getting blown up. One reviewer said the movie is for "internet intellectuals." Another said it's "dystopian" at exactly the time we don't need any more dystopian stuff.

This movie definitely gets a pass as a fail.

Two strong female characters....are they also from diverse ethnic backgrounds ?
I bet they're not both white

I also bet they kick ass in the best Mary Sue traditions of today's Hollywood, for "modern" audiences.

 

[Tangmo]

An unlikely alliance...obviously the producers don't want to inflame existing Republican-Democrat divisions

Two strong female characters....are they also from diverse ethnic backgrounds ?
I bet they're not both white

I also bet they kick ass in the best Mary Sue traditions of today's Hollywood, for "modern" audiences.

"Violence erupts from sea to shining sea" is the way the Army Times put it, mocking the tune as presented in the movie.

And yeah, more than one reviewer said the movie would sell more popcorn if instead of California & Texas taking on the rest of the states led by the evil president, it would have CA, OR, WA pitted against TX, LA, OK fighting their little civil war.

The producers who want a box office swindle of $18m to $24m when it opens in theaters April 12-14 released a new Trailer given the first one didn't win many recruits....




Soldier: "Stop or I'll shoot."
Journalist: "Don't shoot, I'm American."
Soldier: "What kind of American are you?"

Barf

 

[Rich2018]

"Violence erupts from sea to shining sea" is the way the Army Times put it, mocking the tune as presented in the movie.

And yeah, more than one reviewer said the movie would sell more popcorn if instead of California & Texas taking on the rest of the states led by the evil president, it would have CA, OR, WA pitted against TX, LA, OK fighting their little civil war.

The producers who want a box office swindle of $18m to $24m when it opens in theaters April 12-14 released a new Trailer given the first one didn't win many recruits....




Soldier: "Stop or I'll shoot."
Journalist: "Don't shoot, I'm American."
Soldier: "What kind of American are you?"

Barf

I can't bring myself to watch the trailer...

Surely even today's teens won't lap up this crap

I wonder if the producers approached Marvel or DC to see if they could borrow a super hero or two ?

 

[Tangmo]

A must see movie for 2024.

I can't bring myself to watch the trailer...

Surely even today's teens won't lap up this crap

I wonder if the producers approached Marvel or DC to see if they could borrow a super hero or two ?

How's that whiplash coming?

I'm seeing firsthand how its negative effects toward others can be pervasive.

All the same most people know sticking one's neck out can be a bad practice.

 

[Rich2018]

How's that whiplash coming?

Speak for your own fetishes

I'm seeing firsthand how its negative effects toward others can be pervasive.

All the same most people know sticking one's neck out can be a bad practice.

In this instance, Hollywood is being at best unhelpful with regard to the siesmic divisions that the USA has.

 

[acco40]

Very uncivilly.

 

[ataraxia]

I can think of a few scenarios:
1. haves vs. have-nots

They have nots keep voting for the haves to have more, in the hope that it will eventually trickle down. When it doesn’t come, they keep voting for them to have even more. Then they want to have Civil War because they can’t figure out why it’s not happening?

2. Escalation of the Immigration disaster were currently seeing

People who are most concerned about this, apparently didn’t think it was serious enough that it couldn’t wait another year or so, and turn down any attempt to mitigate the problem now.

3. Emergency order that requires disarming the public

If the government really wants to get tyrannical on that public, the cute little firearms the public has right now mean nothing. Waco should have taught them that, but they did not learn apparently. I’m like popular imagination of redcoats, armed with front loading muskets, coming at the end that they can just pick off, that is not how a modern military is going to attack them if they want.

These weapons in the hands of every crazy fool in the public these days are way too powerful for peacetime, and worthless in a modern battlefield. All people are doing with these weapons now is hurting themselves.

 

[Rich2018]

If the government really wants to get tyrannical on that public, the cute little firearms the public has right now mean nothing. Waco should have taught them that...

Yet Sandy Hook, Parkland and a thousand other mass shootings should have taught America's politicians that privately owned guns are not "cute" and have no place in a civilized society (with precious few exceptions).

 

[Oozlefinch]

These weapons in the hands of every crazy fool in the public these days are way too powerful for peacetime, and worthless in a modern battlefield. All people are doing with these weapons now is hurting themselves.

Yet those "way too powerful" weapons are the ones that cause only a fraction of the firearm deaths in the country. The vast majority are handguns, which have never really been used by hunters or armies.

In other words, that all sounded nice to many, but makes no sense when actually examined logically.

However, the last statement is true, as the majority of firearm deaths are by suicide. And no nation yet has had any success in lowering their suicide rates by banning firearms.

 

[RF667799]

Yet Sandy Hook, Parkland and a thousand other mass shootings should have taught America's politicians that privately owned guns are not "cute" and have no place in a civilized society (with precious few exceptions).

The two you mention aren't representative of "thousands".

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Let’s start with every national security expert’s worst nightmare - someone detonates a nuclear bomb in Washington DC during the State of the Union. Congress is gone. The Supreme Court is wiped out. Everyone who matters in the Executive Branch is dead. The military is decapitated.

Now, I wouldn’t bet money on the fantasy that everyone will fall in line behind the Secretary of bureaucratic bullshit who was stashed away as the designated survivor. That is how a civil war starts.

Although! On the other hand, history has shown us (most recently Sandy, and before that 9/11) that disasters of this magnitude are more likely to -unite- Americans that divide us. <<Insert standard disclaimer of "past performances do not guarantee future results, yada yada >>

 

[Rich2018]

Yet those "way too powerful" weapons are the ones that cause only a fraction of the firearm deaths in the country. The vast majority are handguns, which have never really been used by hunters or armies.

In other words, that all sounded nice to many, but makes no sense when actually examined logically.

However, the last statement is true, as the majority of firearm deaths are by suicide. And no nation yet has had any success in lowering their suicide rates by banning firearms.

You're missing the point - yes if we wanted to significantly reduce deaths from shootings/mass shootings, then hand guns would be the place to start.

However this is nigh on impossible with the current Supreme Court and its interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. If you want to significantly reduce deaths by gun shot wound, ban hand guns (or at least the vast majority of them)

Secondly, if we ever do have anything resembling a civil war, then the kinds of weapons that ataraxia mentioned would also be a good place to start.

 

[RF667799]

You're missing the point - yes if we wanted to significantly reduce deaths from shootings/mass shootings, then hand guns would be the place to start.

However this is nigh on impossible with the current Supreme Court and its interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. If you want to significantly reduce deaths by gun shot wound, ban hand guns (or at least the vast majority of them)

Secondly, if we ever do have anything resembling a civil war, then the kinds of weapons that ataraxia mentioned would also be a good place to start.

Ban weapons during a civil war?

For which side?

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Ban weapons during a civil war?

For which side?

Now I have an image in my head of that PlayStation commercial where everyone used their fingers as guns. Pew Pew. >.<

 

[RF667799]

Now I have an image in my head of that PlayStation commercial where everyone used their fingers as guns. Pew Pew. >.<

If a ban could be enforced on both sides, I think the civil war might effectively be over. The trouble is that it usually takes guns to enforce bans.

 

[ataraxia]

Ban weapons during a civil war?

For which side?

They're already banned- for all.

Unless you have an F-16 in your garage with missiles and autocannon ready to go.

ARs are really pretty useless on a modern battlefield. They're only good for killing large numbers of unarmed civilians quickly and efficiently.

 

[RF667799]

They're already banned- for all.

Unless you have an F-16 in your garage with missiles and autocannon ready to go.

ARs are really pretty useless on a modern battlefield. They're only good for killing large numbers of unarmed civilians quickly and efficiently.

That's why the US Army and nearly every police agency in the country has them, I suppose.

Have you informed them that they're carrying useless kit around? Or do you figure that's the use they have for them?