U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

[Andreuccio]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Andreuccio - this is a total red herring. If 'this is a financial / econ site' why have numerous extended discussion on the above issues occurred here over the months? Presumably these entire threads were off topic, but everyone was joining in on those discussions with great enthusiasm then, no?

The request, very clearly phrased above, was that these former posters 'acknowledge statments they've already made in the past. Don't you also recall some long threads around here dedicated to precisely those issues, where lots of people made very clear statements of position? Where are all those 'I have a clear position on this topic' guys now? It is highy disingenuous to now say 'all that is off topic because this is a financial / econ site'. Humbug!

Asking people to merely acknowledge what they've previously stated has to do with that elusive concept called 'being accountable for your prior statements", which is not a red herring. Meanwhile, have you not noticed the yawning gap of silence in response to an invitation that these contributors merely clarify their prior thoughts? They sure seemed fairly convinced of their views at the time.

Police state? What police state? Who ever said anything about it being a police state here, or the security services being agents of repression of Americans? :rolleyes: The sound of silence here, from people who were formerly so self-assured in these observations is *cavernous*.

Lukester,

I'm not really interested in arguing with you about this. If people want to post about this here, fine. If they don't, that's fine, too. Maybe they have other reasons for not responding, like they're busy at their jobs.

There are lots of websites whose bread and butter is stuff like this, many of them quite reputable. You should try spending some time at DailyKos. It's a great website, and you can post about this stuff all day long if you want.

My point is that people don't come here specifically for politics, they come for finance/econ. Inasmuch as politics impacts the economy, and the people here are generally well informed and intelligent, they will frequently discuss politics. But to rail against them for not taking positions on issues you feel are important strikes me as barking up the wrong tree. You might as well go to www.chess.com and rant at them for not taking a position on America's slide into fascism.

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

But to rail against them for not taking positions on issues ... you feel are important ... strikes me as barking up the wrong tree. ... go to www.chess.com and rant at them for not taking a position on America's slide into fascism.

Dear Andreuccio: your understanding "rail against them for not taking positions on issues" is a fake description.

The question was, why don't they now acknowledge the positions they've already taken. You really can grasp that difference if you try. Police state? You really don't recall any widespread comments about the 'serious erosion of personal liberties in America, eh?

With respect, you wish to portray my comment as a "rant"? Thank you for your intelligent and doubtless quite insincere observation.

Your observation - 'issues you feel are important' is the cherry - presumably you have more weighty matters to discuss (401K strategies, anyone?) than even a fleeting discussion about the possibility democracy in America is gone!?

I mean no disrespect Andreuccio, but given all I was trying to obtain was an acknowledgement that we've already had lengthy discussions on this website on this very same matter, your remark gives new meaning to the word 'glib'.

[Andreuccio]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Dear Andreuccio: your understanding "rail against them for not taking positions on issues" is a fake description.

The question was, why do so many not confirm their own past statements? Police state? You really don't recall any widespread comments about the 'serious erosion of personal liberties in America, eh?

With respect, you wish to portray my comment as a "rant"? Thank you for your intelligent and doubtless quite insincere observation.

Your observation - 'issues you feel are important' is the cherry - presumably you have more weighty matters to discuss (401K strategies, anyone?) than even a fleeting discussion about the possibility democracy in America is gone!?

I mean no disrespect Andreuccio, but given all I was trying to obtain was an acknowledgement that we've had lengthy discussions on this website on this very same matter, your remark gives new meaning to the word 'glib'.

Okay. No worries.

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Yeah right. "No Worries".

[Andreuccio]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Your observation - 'issues you feel are important' is the cherry - presumably you have more weighty matters to discuss (401K strategies, anyone?) than even a fleeting discussion about the possibility democracy in America is gone!?

Yes, that's precisely it. When I want to discuss the possibility democracy in America is gone, I go to DailyKos. You can even find me posting over there occasionally. When I want to discuss 401k strategies, I come here. If I wanted to discuss chess, I'd go to chess.com. That is the cherry.

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

That is the cherry.

Your sanitized, apartheid description of acceptable topics at iTulip is the cherry mate. What a bunch of hooey.

[Andreuccio]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Your sanitized, apartheid description of acceptable topics at iTulip is the cherry mate. What a bunch of hooey.

There should be a smiley to express exasperation.

[FRED]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

There should be a smiley to express exasperation.

I moved the thread to Rant and Rave for a reason.

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Fred -

It's fortunate that you moved this thread to 'rant and rave' as the extent to which it evidences the lack of accountability of a good number of our regular contributors to acknowledge some of their more controversial commentary on the state of the Union is thereby rendered less conspicuous. It would be disingenuous of regular contributors and readers here to disclaim that there have been plenty of references on these pages to the US today as a 'repressive' country, 'creeping Fascism', with a 'vestige of true democracy'.

These "controversial" ideas are certainly to be found posted in this community - that is, they are to be found if you don't indulge in 'selective amnesia'. Seems however there is a remarkable reluctance by those who have proposed such ideas, to make a simple acknowledgement to these servicemen that such views indeed are held by more than a few people here.

It appears that here some of the above iTulipers had a wonderful opportunity to square up their ideas about this topic with two or three members of our community who we've just learned are in the armed forces, and who have had some experiences - perhaps overseas, but also Stateside - which might further inform the iTulip discussion regarding erosion of civil liberties as an issue. To suggest that this topic is 'unsuitable for this website' as one stalwart contributor advises, and that it should be "taken elsewhere' - seems a very insular response.

The type of ideas I've read frequently on these pages, were such as: "Severe Decay of American Democracy" or "Hijacked American Foreign Policy - Leading to Out of Control Military Adventurism". OK. These these ideas may have lots of merit. A lot of intelligent arguments have been put forward why they do have merit. But then you have to wonder - if the ideas have all this merit, why are the people who said these things suddenly so 'shy' about clarifying their views here?

I think if we rummage around enough, we eventually stumble across one or two bonafide "officially sanctioned" instances of B.S. in the iTulip community. Moving this topic despite it's current interest (US in a war) to the 'RANT and RAVE' page, relegates it to the 'RANTS' area of public discussion, where it can best be enveloped in a dense 'diplomatic fog'. This is a startling change of editorial policy, as prior "controversial" commentary regarding "creeping fascism" has appeared quite liberally strewn around various other sections of this website, without any apparent editorial "guidance".

[barrydd933]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Anything in this post using S L A Marshall as an authority should be viewed with deep suspicion,man was full of ****,never saw combat,claimed he did,wrote opinions which were taken as fact.Would have been ripped to shreds in the age of the internet.

[Rajiv]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

America is sliding into a police state, according to all of you, and all military, security, intelligence, and armed forces agencies are the arm of this emerging police state. Ok now boys, you hold these principles - step forward, don't be shy now!

Since I originally posted this topic -- I am replying to you Lukester

I do remember Kent State -- I was not in this country then but close family was. That was a remarkable event

The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre, occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. Four students were killed and nine others wounded, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.

Some of the students who were shot were protesting the American invasion of Cambodia, which President Richard Nixon announced in a television address on April 30. However, other students who were shot were merely walking nearby or observing the protest at a distance.

So to say that US soldiers would never fire at unarmed US citizens is a bunch of baloney.

Here is something about fascism in this country from an e-mail newsletter

There's a big difference between someone being sorry because he did
something wrong, and someone being sorry that he got CAUGHT. So my
question for today is, when "law enforcement" punishes one of their
own, is it because they're actually AGAINST police misconduct, or
just because they're trying to save face?

In the case of the Nazis in Stark County, Ohio, who forcibly
restrained and stripped an innocent woman as she screamed for them
to stop, there was NO remorse from the fascists involved, or from
the department as a whole. How do I know this? Because the head
fascist there DEFENDED his underling jackboots, refusing to do
anything about it, until fifteen MONTHS after the incident, when
the abuse drew huge public attention (which I hope I helped). Then
suddenly the Sheriff asked the Ohio DA to investigate the case.

With those facts in mind, only an idiot would believe that the
sheriff was sincere in his concern about the thuggery displayed by
his underlings. The same is true of the gang of fascists who shot
rubber bullets at the lady attorney holding the "fear
totalitarianism" sign at a protest. How do I know that? Because of
the fascists' own video of their debriefing meeting afterwards,
where they all cheered and laughed about having shot her. They sure
didn't look sorry about it.

Later, the head Nazi pretended to show remorse, and apologized. I
hope no one on my list is stupid enough to think he was sincere. He
was sorry only that their fascism was exposed.

I've also mentioned the sheriff's deputy who dumped a quadriplegic
from his wheelchair, in full view of the security cameras. The
story is that that deputy is now being not only fired, but
prosecuted, as she should be. (However, the police lawyers will no
doubt try really hard to get her acquitted of what any moron can
see was assault and battery.) Shortly after the incident came to
light, the head of that department quickly apologized profusely,
saying he doesn't want the public thinking this is normal or
acceptable behavior among his officers.

Should I believe him? No. His response was quick, and his words
sounded like someone who might have been really sorry, so why would
I doubt it? For the answer, watch the following video again, but
instead of watching the guy falling out of the wheelchair, or the
fascist dumping him, keep your eye on the OTHER fascists standing
right there.

Do they look at all surprised? Do they look like this is something
outside of what they see and do on a daily basis? They don't even
flinch. Just another day at the office. (If someone dumped some guy
out of a wheelchair onto his face right in front of YOU, would you
stand there expressionless and calm?)

Sometimes force, even deadly force, is necessary and justified.
That's why, contrary to what you might expect, when I hear that a
cop beat someone, or shot someone, I don't immediately condemn him.
I ask, "Why?" If he had to use violence to protect someone
innocent, that's just fine with me, just as it would be if anyone
else (any non-cop) had done the same.

However, while there are situations in which people should use
violence, even then good people don't DELIGHT in it. Good people
don't like inflicting pain on others, even when it's necessary. In
the pictures from Abu Ghraib, what shocks me most is NOT the blood,
the gore, and the wounds. (Even seeing a bloody corpse, in and of
itself, doesn't tell me much about what happened, or why.) What
creeps me out the most about those pictures is the open expression
of joy and delight on the faces of the Americans inflicting
suffering on other human beings.

At least the guy who was prosecuted and convicted for it, when
asked if he had any "regrets," said no. He didn't insult our
intelligence by pretending to be anything other than a power-happy,
sadistic bastard. If I have to hear one more god-complex thug who
has been caught harassing, intimidating, terrorizing, and
assaulting innocent people--and ENJOYING it--pretending to be
remorseful, I'm going to throw up. Is touchy-feely America really
so stupid that such phony apologies actually impress them? When
some cop apologizes for misconduct BEFORE the public finds out
about it, then I'll be impressed. But I'm not holding my breath
waiting for that to ever happen.

See also this Disturbing Police Strip Search Gone Bad - this has been referred to in the above e-mail.

Also Broward Cops Laugh About Shooting Rubber Bullets at Innocent Protestors

Here is the video in question

So Lukester tell me whether my concerns are justified or not?