You say that like unenthusiastic people will do anything about it. That’s not how humans work. That one enthusiastic person fires on a crowd of peaceful protesters and all the unenthusiastic people will fire too. Every single time.
That is literally the opposite of how it works in the end stages of quite a good proportion of revolutions.
At the end of the day, people in any country’s armed forces are just human people at the end of the day, and the US National Guard is quite a lot more human than most. Even in shooting wars against other nations, there are troops who decide to do the right thing. Hugh Thompson for example got a medal for landing his helicopter between Americans and Vietnamese civilians at My Lai, and telling his crew to fire on the Americans if they kept advancing.
The National Guard has fired upon and murdered American civilians multiple times. The us national guard is in no way special. You are peddling a fiction here. The vast vast majority of times Armed Forces will fire upon their own citizens with zero compunction. Often with Glee. Hell if anything by the end stages of revolutions hearts have hardened and they are more likely to fire.
Yes yes, get it all out. There, there. I can tell you’re deeply learned about all of this stuff, it makes me feel a little bad that I came in with some kind of examples or anything, I’m sure there are not any more and it was just some crazy outlier.
Also, if there’s one word that I really commonly hear from people who’ve killed other humans in the military, when they talk about their experience, it is “glee.” They just glee all over the place, whenever they talk about it.
(What other examples are you even talking about? Kent State and what? I feel like I sent you into some kind of fit by bringing up the example that I did.)
I’m sorry what examples did you bring up exactly? You just sent me a link to a Google search in which three of the top results were American officials talking about how they want to fire on protesters. If that’s the level of scrutiny you bring to your research I’m not surprised you don’t know more. For instance the many many times US National Guards upon Union Strikers in our country’s history.
You seem to have some sort of reverence for the US National Guard that has no basis in reality and I really suggest you educate yourself upon the history of our country. The ones that they don’t want you to read. Not the propaganda you seem to have fallen for.
Those are on the first page of results I saw. There are lots of examples, it’s a pretty common feature of the end stage of a successful revolution for the troops to see which way the wind is blowing and refuse to fire on the demonstrators.
For me, the fact that Hegseth really wants them to fire on protestors, but instead they’re picking up trash and doing landscaping, indicates that there is some disconnect somewhere. Not that they’re obviously horrible and will fire on protestors with glee, and the fact that Hegseth wants them to do exactly that just hasn’t trickled all the way down to them yet.
I am sure there are some National Guard members who really want to fire on protestors. I think that’s part of the point of bringing groups of them from deep-red states to places that are not their home to be deployed. I’m not saying some shit will not go down. But also, the fact that you’re going back to the 1890s to find your examples kind of undoes your assertion that every single one of them is waiting with glee for their chance to fire on American civilians because that’s exactly what they signed up for. You honestly just have no idea what you’re talking about here, you’re just airing your sort of vibes assessment of what you think military people are like.
There is research on this: Generally, when talking to someone online, remaining completely respectful to someone who’s spitting in your face rhetorically speaking actually makes your argument less effective.
I’m still talking factually, sure. I’m actually not making any kind of personal attack, I am just being sarcastic a little. But I am not pretending that I respect your point of view, because your point of view doesn’t deserve respect. You keep getting all emotional and just repeating over and over how you are sure that it works, and I keep sending you examples and citations. We are not the same.
I don’t really want the National Guard to consist entirely of people enthusiastic about this stuff.
You say that like unenthusiastic people will do anything about it. That’s not how humans work. That one enthusiastic person fires on a crowd of peaceful protesters and all the unenthusiastic people will fire too. Every single time.
That is literally the opposite of how it works in the end stages of quite a good proportion of revolutions.
At the end of the day, people in any country’s armed forces are just human people at the end of the day, and the US National Guard is quite a lot more human than most. Even in shooting wars against other nations, there are troops who decide to do the right thing. Hugh Thompson for example got a medal for landing his helicopter between Americans and Vietnamese civilians at My Lai, and telling his crew to fire on the Americans if they kept advancing.
The National Guard has fired upon and murdered American civilians multiple times. The us national guard is in no way special. You are peddling a fiction here. The vast vast majority of times Armed Forces will fire upon their own citizens with zero compunction. Often with Glee. Hell if anything by the end stages of revolutions hearts have hardened and they are more likely to fire.
Yes yes, get it all out. There, there. I can tell you’re deeply learned about all of this stuff, it makes me feel a little bad that I came in with some kind of examples or anything, I’m sure there are not any more and it was just some crazy outlier.
Also, if there’s one word that I really commonly hear from people who’ve killed other humans in the military, when they talk about their experience, it is “glee.” They just glee all over the place, whenever they talk about it.
(What other examples are you even talking about? Kent State and what? I feel like I sent you into some kind of fit by bringing up the example that I did.)
I’m sorry what examples did you bring up exactly? You just sent me a link to a Google search in which three of the top results were American officials talking about how they want to fire on protesters. If that’s the level of scrutiny you bring to your research I’m not surprised you don’t know more. For instance the many many times US National Guards upon Union Strikers in our country’s history.
You seem to have some sort of reverence for the US National Guard that has no basis in reality and I really suggest you educate yourself upon the history of our country. The ones that they don’t want you to read. Not the propaganda you seem to have fallen for.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/09/syria-defectors-describe-orders-shoot-unarmed-protesters
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2011/04/syrian-soldiers-reportedly-shot-refusing-fire-protesters/349571/
https://igcc.ucsd.edu/blog/military-dissent-and-protest-when-soldiers-refuse-orders-to-use-force/
Those are on the first page of results I saw. There are lots of examples, it’s a pretty common feature of the end stage of a successful revolution for the troops to see which way the wind is blowing and refuse to fire on the demonstrators.
For me, the fact that Hegseth really wants them to fire on protestors, but instead they’re picking up trash and doing landscaping, indicates that there is some disconnect somewhere. Not that they’re obviously horrible and will fire on protestors with glee, and the fact that Hegseth wants them to do exactly that just hasn’t trickled all the way down to them yet.
I am sure there are some National Guard members who really want to fire on protestors. I think that’s part of the point of bringing groups of them from deep-red states to places that are not their home to be deployed. I’m not saying some shit will not go down. But also, the fact that you’re going back to the 1890s to find your examples kind of undoes your assertion that every single one of them is waiting with glee for their chance to fire on American civilians because that’s exactly what they signed up for. You honestly just have no idea what you’re talking about here, you’re just airing your sort of vibes assessment of what you think military people are like.
By the way personal attacks don’t make you seem more credible Just for future reference.
There is research on this: Generally, when talking to someone online, remaining completely respectful to someone who’s spitting in your face rhetorically speaking actually makes your argument less effective.
I’m still talking factually, sure. I’m actually not making any kind of personal attack, I am just being sarcastic a little. But I am not pretending that I respect your point of view, because your point of view doesn’t deserve respect. You keep getting all emotional and just repeating over and over how you are sure that it works, and I keep sending you examples and citations. We are not the same.
There you go again spitting in your face you say emotional you say. I don’t know why you don’t want to be honest in your personal attacks.
Okey dokey