A Pro-Trump Militant Group Has Recruited Thousands of Police, Soldiers, and Veterans

[lil devils x]

You didn't initially, I pointed out that ultimately any attempt at recreating the Zetas success in the US would end up facing the US military, with disastrous results. You then spent the better part of 3 posts arguing against that before changing your angle of approach. If you make such a poor argument that you argue against something you didn't mean to argue against, that's on you and not me.

I was actually arguing access to military equipment. I am saying I think they can get whatever they want DUE to their makeup of military, police and veterans. Zetas used military connections to get what they wanted as well, and that was the connection being made there. Not that they would fight the US military, they are ALLIED with the US military and the people currently in control over it instead. That was why I was like WTH are you talking about fighting US military? why would they need to do that at all?

If you re read my posts with that in mind you might understand what I was telling you better. This entire time I was arguing they could get what they want via the same means the Zetas did by using their active military connections. You thinking it was something else is on you, not me.

Me arguing that they can get + Use whatever they want =\= You thinking they are going to fight the US military.
They ARE US military, not fighting them. The OP told us who they were going to fight.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Terminal Blue]

How are they going to remove him from the White House if he refuses to leave?

A guillotine.

Okay, that may be wishful thinking, but we've seen the power of rioting over the past few months. If a significant proportion of the population is actually angry about something, then t doesn't actually matter if they have guns or not. They can destroy the ability of the country to function just by causing enough problems. Even worse, what if the military refuse? What if the police decide they've had enough? Even if these institutions are broadly pro-Trump, are they willing to kill or die to abolish democracy because orange man good? It's just a big ask, and a lot could go wrong, and if it does go wrong the far right lose everything.

I mean, if Biden wins what is he actually going to do? Will he roll back the slide towards authoritarianism? Will he weaken the executive? Will he offer hope to struggling Americans who feel alienated from the political establishment? Will he restore faith in liberal political institutions?

Meanwhile, the right just needs to find another weird populist who shouts a lot, speaks with unearned authority and has some farcical tough guy persona. Only this time that person probably won't be senile, and will thus be enormously more dangerous.

 

[lil devils x]

Yeah, except if you try to use military ordonnance for criminal activity in the USA it will be nothing like if you do it in Mexico. Mexico is a corrupt hell hole where chiefs of police and mayors can be gunned down in the streets by active duty military in uniform while half the police force watches and then fails to apprehend any suspects (well, they could when the Zetas took power anyway, it is not quite that bad now). The moment you fire an RPG against a bank in the USA or ride a Vietnam vintage APC to your turf war there will be federal agents everywhere. And if federal agents can't stop you, guess who's next up to batter you? Your insistence that they can get these kinds of things legally or otherwise and then use them with secret blessing of the federal government and without massive federal intervention is pretty close to tinfoil hat level. If they are as powerful as you seem to think and intend to use all that hardware they supposedly have, they will have to contend with military forces very quickly because that's the threat level they pose (which is massive for a federal law enforcement agent but trivial to the 1st Armored Division).

Besides, you were very happy to argue against it until your arguments failed and now you pretend as if you never argued they could beat the US military.

Guns are illegal in Mexico, you can be arrested for even owning what these guys have here. However, it is about " enforcement". For example here rioters burning down buildings is illegal to, but they have to figure it out and arrest them right? In the case of the burning of black wall street, State officials literally ignored the fact they used planes and bombed a city. No one was even prosecuted for it. People carry out mass crimes on Native American reservations and the feds do nothing for massive biker gangs coming through raping robbing and murdering. This has been going on for ages now in the US. Trump pardoned the armed militia who took over federal buildings in the Oregon standoff. People are only held accountable for what the government decides to hold them accountable for.

Trump controls whether federal agents are there in the first place right now and can tell them to stand down, and TRUMP is the one who is telling these guys to go watch the polls to begin with. Trump supports these guys so he isn't going to act against them, if anything he will help them.

My arguments failed? What are you going on about now? You keep saying these ridiculous things but show ZERO evidence of such. I asked you to show me where they were going to fight US military, you didn't do that because it doesn't exist because that thought hadn't even entered my head until you tried to claim that was the argument,.

It is like we are having two entirely different conversations here. From the OP of this thread, we have been talking about how these guys said they were going to fight Urban liberals and watch the polls. That NEVER changed on my end. I don't even know where you were trying to go with this at this point tbh, because you are so far out there. You said they needed all this " stuff " to do so. I said they had no problem getting ANYTHING they want because THEY ARE US MILITARY MEMBERS TOO. They can get what they want. Period. You have yet to explain why would they would even fight themselves when Trump controls the military in the first place and these are trump supporters. I am not seeing your scenario that leads to Trump telling the military to fight these guys here for them doing what he wanted them to do. Explain that one for me?

 

[lil devils x]

A guillotine.

Okay, that may be wishful thinking, but we've seen the power of rioting over the past few months. If a significant proportion of the population is actually angry about something, then t doesn't actually matter if they have guns or not. They can destroy the ability of the country to function just by causing enough problems. Even worse, what if the military refuse? What if the police decide they've had enough? Even if these institutions are broadly pro-Trump, are they willing to kill or die to abolish democracy because orange man good? It's just a big ask, and a lot could go wrong, and if it does go wrong the far right lose everything.

I mean, if Biden wins what is he actually going to do? Will he roll back the slide towards authoritarianism? Will he weaken the executive? Will he offer hope to struggling Americans who feel alienated from the political establishment? Will he restore faith in liberal political institutions?

Meanwhile, the right just needs to find another weird populist who shouts a lot, speaks with unearned authority and has some farcical tough guy persona. Only this time that person probably won't be senile, and will thus be enormously more dangerous.

Yea, I would like to think they would refuse, but we have a long history in the US of them not refusing a command so, while I would hope they would refuse, when they have previously been ordered to act against the people they complied.


"The rioting took place in several areas in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, as thousands of people rioted over a six-day period following the announcement of the verdict. Widespread looting, assault, and arson occurred during the riots, which local police forces had difficulty controlling due to lack of personnel and resources. The situation in the Los Angeles area was only resolved after the California National Guard, the United States military, and several federal law enforcement agencies were deployed to assist in ending the violence and unrest.

By the time the riots ended, 63 people had been killed,[7] 2,383 had been injured, more than 12,000 had been arrested, and estimates of property damage were over $1 billion, much of which disproportionately affected Koreatown, where the bulk of rioting occurred. LAPD Chief of Police Daryl Gates, who had already announced his resignation by the time of the riots, was attributed with much of the blame for failure to de-escalate the situation and overall mismanagement.[8][9]"

1992 Los Angeles riots - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So who will the right find next to rally behind? Alex Jones?

 

[gorfias]

I would like to see our militias become well regulated at the state level. They should be something of a citizen's National Guard.
1) The State Governors should be setting up requirements (i.e. no felons. They must be committed to a rejection of tribaliztion as they are to serve the entire public. Not just some of it and more).
2) Training areas and supplies. At a minimum, the cost of ammunition, for example, used on State provided ranges for training purposes, should be tax deductible or otherwise subsidized.
3) Open carry laws should be supported.
4) These militias should also be the citizen crime watch. Ahmoud Arbery and Trayvon Martin might not be dead if we demanded a greater professionalism from these citizen patrol citizens. That's a tall order in that I think the regular police need a lot of changes and have those changes enforced. For instance, heads should roll that body cams were NOT turned on in the Breana Taylor incident, whether the police did something else wrong or not. I cannot think of a good reason those body cams were not on.

 

[lil devils x]

I would like to see our militias become well regulated at the state level. They should be something of a citizen's National Guard.
1) The State Governors should be setting up requirements (i.e. no felons. They must be committed to a rejection of tribaliztion as they are to serve the entire public. Not just some of it and more).
2) Training areas and supplies. At a minimum, the cost of ammunition, for example, used on State provided ranges for training purposes, should be tax deductible or otherwise subsidized.
3) Open carry laws should be supported.
4) These militias should also be the citizen crime watch. Ahmoud Arbery and Trayvon Martin might not be dead if we demanded a greater professionalism from these citizen patrol citizens. That's a tall order in that I think the regular police need a lot of changes and have those changes enforced. For instance, heads should roll that body cams were NOT turned on in the Breana Taylor incident, whether the police did something else wrong or not. I cannot think of a good reason those body cams were not on.

Except planning on attacking " liberal cities' and calling for civil war would immediately disqualify all of these nutjobs from having any sort of citizens watch or state sanctioned activities ever..

 

[Thaluikhain]

4) These militias should also be the citizen crime watch. Ahmoud Arbery and Trayvon Martin might not be dead if we demanded a greater professionalism from these citizen patrol citizens. That's a tall order in that I think the regular police need a lot of changes and have those changes enforced. For instance, heads should roll that body cams were NOT turned on in the Breana Taylor incident, whether the police did something else wrong or not. I cannot think of a good reason those body cams were not on.

If you can't get the police that the state directly controls to not murder people, getting a bunch of civilians that state subsides instead isn't going to work. PMCs in Iraq didn't have a better reputation than the US military for behaving themselves.

Also, what problem is this intended to solve? This sort of thing would be useful if you were worried the British were about to invade and you needed to bolster your regular forces, but that's unlikely to be the case at the moment.

 

[Baffle]

This sort of thing would be useful if you were worried the British were about to invade and you needed to bolster your regular forces, but that's unlikely to be the case at the moment.

I don't know, we've considered building a wave machine in the English Channel to deter refugees, so it's hard to say what ludicrous idea we'll have next. My money is on us setting sail to find a new New World.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't know, we've considered building a wave machine in the English Channel to deter refugees, so it's hard to say what ludicrous idea we'll have next. My money is on us setting sail to find a new New World.

I did specify "invade" not "want to invade" or "give a private company zillions of pounds to run an invasion that doesn't actually happen" or "tell the public to invade the US and get angry at them for harming the economy for not spending their money locally".

 

[gorfias]

Except planning on attacking " liberal cities' and calling for civil war would immediately disqualify all of these nutjobs from having any sort of citizens watch or state sanctioned activities ever..

Is that the position of every single member of every single militia group? I doubt. ITMT: I think it was the Atlantic that told us to expect violence from the left if there is anything other than a solid Biden win.

If you can't get the police that the state directly controls to not murder people, getting a bunch of civilians that state subsides instead isn't going to work. PMCs in Iraq didn't have a better reputation than the US military for behaving themselves.

Also, what problem is this intended to solve? This sort of thing would be useful if you were worried the British were about to invade and you needed to bolster your regular forces, but that's unlikely to be the case at the moment.

As stated above, The Atlantic published that without a decisive Biden win, expect violence from the left. Who is going to protect me if/when that Biden win doesn't happen? Can I protect myself? Will I need help? Where will it come from? Democratic Governors and mayors refused aid from Trump as their cities burned and some 30 people have been murdered in the violence.

So the problem is, US citizens are not being protected well enough in the existing architecture. We should do better.

 

[Buyetyen]

So the problem is, US citizens are not being protected well enough in the existing architecture. We should do better.

In other words, there is literally no job that the right wing will not outsource.

ITMT: I think it was the Atlantic that told us to expect violence from the left if there is anything other than a solid Biden win.

As stated above, The Atlantic published that without a decisive Biden win, expect violence from the left.

This is particularly telling because it shows that in the right wing mindset, even in victory they are the real victims in the equation.

 

[Agema]

I would like to see our militias become well regulated at the state level. They should be something of a citizen's National Guard.
1) The State Governors should be setting up requirements (i.e. no felons. They must be committed to a rejection of tribaliztion as they are to serve the entire public. Not just some of it and more).
2) Training areas and supplies. At a minimum, the cost of ammunition, for example, used on State provided ranges for training purposes, should be tax deductible or otherwise subsidized.

I would not favour this, because in effect the national guard should be the state militia. You either want an (official) state militia in which case this is duplication, or not. A sort of semi-regulated half-way house is a pointless administrative burden. It will also be likely to fail, because the militias are value their independence and are potentially suspicious of government: I doubt they want to be regulated.

4) These militias should also be the citizen crime watch. Ahmoud Arbery and Trayvon Martin might not be dead if we demanded a greater professionalism from these citizen patrol citizens.

Again, this is effectively a duplication, this time of the police except with a force less well trained and less likely to maintain professional standards which is more likely to make errors or engage in misconduct.

Here there also lies an underlying threat. This citizen watch may cause a rivalrous clash with the police (inruding on their turf) which could cause tension. Potentially worse, a citizen watch that gets on well with and colludes with the police. The police will tend to trust and take the word of the "citizen cop" more than a random member of the public because they have a working relationship. This is a recipe for a politically motivated militia to suppress and harass groups they don't like, with the law turning a blind eye.

 

[stroopwafel]

I would not favour this, because in effect the national guard should be the state militia. You either want an (official) state militia in which case this is duplication, or not. A sort of semi-regulated half-way house is a pointless administrative burden. It will also be likely to fail, because the militias are value their independence and are potentially suspicious of government: I doubt they want to be regulated.



Again, this is effectively a duplication, this time of the police except with a force less well trained and less likely to maintain professional standards which is more likely to make errors or engage in misconduct.

Here there also lies an underlying threat. This citizen watch may cause a rivalrous clash with the police (inruding on their turf) which could cause tension. Potentially worse, a citizen watch that gets on well with and colludes with the police. The police will tend to trust and take the word of the "citizen cop" more than a random member of the public because they have a working relationship. This is a recipe for a politically motivated militia to suppress and harass groups they don't like, with the law turning a blind eye.

Good points. The 'regulation' of militias would inevatibly lead to extrajudicial impertinence. I was thinking maybe they could be hired as independent advisors but if they were ever to be contracted for direct assignments it would be a little too much like the 'green men' in Crimea. Armed security personnel without marks or insignias. I do think they will serve a need though just like private military contractors for VIP protection, securing supply lines(like sea of Aden for example) and various support functions. There is a lot of stuff that is either too expensive, risky or controversial for 'conventional' channels. And the lines with private contractors are very short ofcourse. But for local neighbourhoods it would never jive with domestic legislation.

 

[gorfias]

I would not favour this, because in effect the national guard should be the state militia. You either want an (official) state militia in which case this is duplication, or not. A sort of semi-regulated half-way house is a pointless administrative burden. It will also be likely to fail, because the militias are value their independence and are potentially suspicious of government: I doubt they want to be regulated.



Again, this is effectively a duplication, this time of the police except with a force less well trained and less likely to maintain professional standards which is more likely to make errors or engage in misconduct.

Here there also lies an underlying threat. This citizen watch may cause a rivalrous clash with the police (inruding on their turf) which could cause tension. Potentially worse, a citizen watch that gets on well with and colludes with the police. The police will tend to trust and take the word of the "citizen cop" more than a random member of the public because they have a working relationship. This is a recipe for a politically motivated militia to suppress and harass groups they don't like, with the law turning a blind eye.

We have a Federal Department of Education. Domestic Violence Against Women. And much more. While these are local issues that should not have been Federalized, I think we can handle the duplication of effort.

A major problem I have is that if the US cares about being a nation governed by and for the people, then we need to do more to see to it that they have that power and say. But we're losing it. Believe it or not, there should be about 50 times as many Congress members. They should have no staff and should be easily accessible by your average Joe. That isn't happening.

The police too seem to be too much a standing army occupying us. I think a citizen force, partnered with the police, will create an environment in which people really will know they are the masters of their fate. It is their country.

EDIT: ITMT: Oath Keepers seems to be scaring some people. Their website seems unobjectionable:

About Oath Keepers -

About Oath Keepers Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders (as well as "Associate Members" See below) who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and...

oathkeepers.org

"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.


Oath Keepers reaches out to both current serving and veterans to remind them of their oaths, to teach them more about the Constitution they swore to defend, and to inspire them to defend it. See below for details on how we do that. Oath Keepers also includes a membership program designated as “Associate Members”, which consists of patriotic citizens who have not served in uniform but who serve now by supporting this mission with their Associate Membership and volunteer activities. Oath Keepers welcomes our Associate Members and appreciates their support of our mission."

 

[Satinavian]

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
You keep thinking they are VS the US military, That only happens if the government uses the military against them. Why would the government be against them when they see them as allies? They ARE the US military too. Trump IS the commander of the US armed forces, not congress. Trump refuses to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses AND he is the current HIGHEST commander of the US military until another president is sworn in. I am not saying they are going to fight the US military. I am saying they will not have to.

If the military would support a Trump coup, you would not stand a chance.

But if the military did, those guys would not matter anyway.

 

[lil devils x]

If the military would support a Trump coup, you would stand a chance.

But if the military did, those guys would not matter anyway.

He could still use these guys in addition to the military, having the military stand down or having them " dominate the streets" as Trump stated, while simultaneously allowing these guys to do what they want and making military/feds stand down and not do anything about them. That wouldn't be difficult for him to do. Sort of like having the feds let the Proud boys do what they want while having the federal police attack the protesters. This causes " maximum damage" to his opposition at these protests to either injure them or make people afraid to come out to protest to oppose him.

 

[lil devils x]

We have a Federal Department of Education. Domestic Violence Against Women. And much more. While these are local issues that should not have been Federalized, I think we can handle the duplication of effort.

A major problem I have is that if the US cares about being a nation governed by and for the people, then we need to do more to see to it that they have that power and say. But we're losing it. Believe it or not, there should be about 50 times as many Congress members. They should have no staff and should be easily accessible by your average Joe. That isn't happening.

The police too seem to be too much a standing army occupying us. I think a citizen force, partnered with the police, will create an environment in which people really will know they are the masters of their fate. It is their country.

EDIT: ITMT: Oath Keepers seems to be scaring some people. Their website seems unobjectionable:

About Oath Keepers -

About Oath Keepers Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders (as well as "Associate Members" See below) who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and...

oathkeepers.org

"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.


Oath Keepers reaches out to both current serving and veterans to remind them of their oaths, to teach them more about the Constitution they swore to defend, and to inspire them to defend it. See below for details on how we do that. Oath Keepers also includes a membership program designated as “Associate Members”, which consists of patriotic citizens who have not served in uniform but who serve now by supporting this mission with their Associate Membership and volunteer activities. Oath Keepers welcomes our Associate Members and appreciates their support of our mission."

How are you non partisan when their leader said they were preparing to violently fight urban liberals over the " green new deal". There is NOTHING non partisan about that.

 

[Satinavian]

He could still use these guys in addition to the military, having the military stand down or having them " dominate the streets" as Trump stated, while simultaneously allowing these guys to do what they want and making military/feds stand down and not do anything about them. That wouldn't be difficult for him to do. Sort of like having the feds let the Proud boys do what they want while having the federal police attack the protesters. This causes " maximum damage" to his opposition at these protests to either injure them or make people afraid to come out to protest to oppose him.

Yes, if you ignore the military and the national guard, those guys are dangerous. Police would not be able to handle them easily everywhere. But that is not them winning because they are strong, that is letting them act basically unopposed.

They don't really matter. What matters is that in your assumption that Trump would still be considered "Commander in chief" after losing an election and refusing a transition. That should not happen. Instead he is just a traitor and wannebe-dictator. And no one has a reason to follow his orders anymore.

 

[lil devils x]

Yes, if you ignore the military and the national guard, those guys are dangerous. Police would not be able to handle them easily everywhere. But that is not them winning because they are strong, that is letting them act basically unopposed.

They don't really matter. What matters is that in your assumption that Trump would still be considered "Commander in chief" after losing an election and refusing a transition. That should not happen. Instead he is just a traitor and wannebe-dictator. And no one has a reason to follow his orders anymore.

If you read what they said about the makeup of these guys, they have members of their group and allies who are national guard and Military. Due to them being Trump supporters, Trump being in control of the National Guard and Military, it is highly unlikely Trump would ever order either to act in response to anything these guys do, but instead would have the National Guard, Military and Federal police stand down, or coordinate their efforts to aid these vigilante groups as he has with federal police allowing/ ignoring Proud Boys activities at protests. If these guys were causing trouble at a protest, Trump could just have federal police, National Guard or Military just go after protesters and leave these guys alone.

Trump's plan for using the military against protesters in Liberal cities to " dominate the streets" ( in his own words) and his desire to have "Liberal cities" burn to punish people who did not support him makes me think he would just "look the other way" at anything these guys did rather than actually act to oppose them.

Trump IS the commander in chief until another president is sworn in, that isn't an assumption, it is current US law. Previous presidents continued to carry out military activities under their direction after the election all the way up until shortly before the swearing in of another president. It would be going against US law to do otherwise. The constitution doesn't actually have any plan for a president refusing a peaceful transition, however, legally regardless of what Trump says, he is still commander of the military from early November until Late January due to when the other President is due to be sworn in regardless of what happens after that and his orders would not be unlawful until AFTER another president is sworn in, so we have a period that unless he is determined to be unfit for office, he will still be in control over the military either way.

We would only be getting into " whose command do they follow" territory in late January if another president is sworn in and Trump refuses to acknowledge it. We do not actually have constitutional plan for that scenario yet, so it could get crazy if that were to happen since the military isn't allowed to even arrest the president, only the sergeant at arms of the Senate is, and he too is also in GOP control as of present.