Larry M
Banned
Nigerian Army Uses Trump’s Words to Justify Fatal Shooting of Rock-Throwing Protesters
- Thread starter Lyv
- Start date
There would be a certain poetic justice in that... though, between the two, my money would be on the mobsters. They actually kill, and have killed. Many (likely most) of the militia types think they know what that means, but push come to shove come to gunfire will find that they aren't as cold-blooded as they like to think they are.
(Tangentially perhaps, a few years ago - cannot recall where - I read an article by a man who got his head full of propaganda and had gone to the border intending to "defend America" from the nasty brown-skin invaders, and wound up changing his mind when he saw the desperate people risking everything to get to America. Not that everyone down there had a redefining moment, as - again, IIRC - he described some of the other people and groups basically treating the migrants like animals to be chased down and treed, but he discovered that it's much easier to hate in the abstract than it is face-to-face.)
Well it's one survey, who knows how accurate it is. But it's worth being careful about stereotyping people in the military.
My Lai has been mentioned. Let's not forget the Kent State shootings. The American Ohio National Guard versus American students. I believe no order to fire was given, shit just happened.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,124
- Reaction score
- 10,886
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
What I'm wondering is whether or not a tragedy of this type would have the same effect on public opinion as they did back in the 60s. The population is now accustomed to televised violence and war footage, and it seems like many Americans are far too willing to look at these refugees as the enemy or worse.
I pray to whatever gods will listen to a non-religious person that we never have to find out.
Let me chime in here as someone who has worn the uniform.
Yes, the service tends to lean red, mostly as a legacy of years in which the Democratic party really didn't give two shits about folks in uniform. That's changed, but the service is strong on tradition and slow to change. That said, most people I know who are still in uniform aren't pro-Trump. Those who voted for him did so because they wanted Republican policies in place. Most of them are as disgusted by his behavior as people in this thread.
But none of that really matters. Why? A couple of reasons. Firstly, having voted Republican doesn't mean someone is more likely to pull the trigger and kill innocent people. The Army is a professional organization, not a bunch of thugs who kill when Trump tweets. It's telling that the massacres that have been brought up here all were in the Vietnam era. The service has changed a lot since then. As for drone strikes...well, they're a different ballgame. Right or wrong, they're done to eliminate people viewed as threats to US interests. The collateral damage is another matter, but they're not consciously carried out on civilians, no matter what nation they come from.
Secondly, and more importantly, the president doesn't write the ROE (Rules of Engagement) for a situation like this. I strongly suspect that whoever does write it, SECDEF (Secretary Mattis) will end up approving it. And while his nickname might be "Mad Dog" Mattis, he's a smart man who has no taste for killing civilians. He also wore the uniform for 30+ years. No way in hell is he going to be the one to ask his brothers and sisters in arms to become murders. That's not the kind of culture anyone in the service wants to be a part of. Civilians are to be protected, not butchered.
Going back to that ROE, everyone's going to be on a tight leash. No one is going to be able to fire unless it's in self-defense, and self-defense requires three things for you to fire: the other guy having the means, opportunity, and intent to do you deadly harm. If that triangle isn't met, no shooting for you (and rocks are not means to kill someone). Unless the threat level gets high enough that your CO is justified in ordering you to shoot, you don't shoot. And justification isn't defined by the president's whim. Secretary Mattis has slow rolled every other stupid policy Trump has tried to foist on the military. He's going not going to let this go insane, not if he can help it.
That said, one idiot could turn this into a bloodbath. I hope to hell that doesn't happen, and I don't think it will--training in the service has changed a lot since the 1960s and 70s to prevent that kind of thing from happening again.
Yes, the service tends to lean red, mostly as a legacy of years in which the Democratic party really didn't give two shits about folks in uniform. That's changed, but the service is strong on tradition and slow to change. That said, most people I know who are still in uniform aren't pro-Trump. Those who voted for him did so because they wanted Republican policies in place. Most of them are as disgusted by his behavior as people in this thread.
But none of that really matters. Why? A couple of reasons. Firstly, having voted Republican doesn't mean someone is more likely to pull the trigger and kill innocent people. The Army is a professional organization, not a bunch of thugs who kill when Trump tweets. It's telling that the massacres that have been brought up here all were in the Vietnam era. The service has changed a lot since then. As for drone strikes...well, they're a different ballgame. Right or wrong, they're done to eliminate people viewed as threats to US interests. The collateral damage is another matter, but they're not consciously carried out on civilians, no matter what nation they come from.
Secondly, and more importantly, the president doesn't write the ROE (Rules of Engagement) for a situation like this. I strongly suspect that whoever does write it, SECDEF (Secretary Mattis) will end up approving it. And while his nickname might be "Mad Dog" Mattis, he's a smart man who has no taste for killing civilians. He also wore the uniform for 30+ years. No way in hell is he going to be the one to ask his brothers and sisters in arms to become murders. That's not the kind of culture anyone in the service wants to be a part of. Civilians are to be protected, not butchered.
Going back to that ROE, everyone's going to be on a tight leash. No one is going to be able to fire unless it's in self-defense, and self-defense requires three things for you to fire: the other guy having the means, opportunity, and intent to do you deadly harm. If that triangle isn't met, no shooting for you (and rocks are not means to kill someone). Unless the threat level gets high enough that your CO is justified in ordering you to shoot, you don't shoot. And justification isn't defined by the president's whim. Secretary Mattis has slow rolled every other stupid policy Trump has tried to foist on the military. He's going not going to let this go insane, not if he can help it.
That said, one idiot could turn this into a bloodbath. I hope to hell that doesn't happen, and I don't think it will--training in the service has changed a lot since the 1960s and 70s to prevent that kind of thing from happening again.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,124
- Reaction score
- 10,886
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Everything you've said here makes a great deal of sense, and aligns with what I think is true for the majority of people in uniform. They are trained professionals who have a job to do, regardless of political leanings.
I do worry, though, that there may be a few who aren't as professional or rational as they should be. Soldiers do screw up, and not all of them are nice people or emotionally stable. This is true in any profession, of course, but when one's job involves the use of lethal force, the results can be devastating. It is not at all helpful that we've a POTUS who trash talks, dehumanizes immigrants, and generally does what he can to rile people up. Most service members aren't going to be driven by this rhetoric, but a few might be. I've worried that the less than professional behavior and attitudes that we're seeing with civilian police forces may crop up in the military too, at least in some cases. We have historical events like the Kent State Massacre as reminders of worst-case scenarios.
It may be moot anyway, because now that the election is over, Trump seems to have forgotten the caravan of refugees and the "threat" to our national security it allegedly represents.
Last edited:
I've never been worried about all of most service members. I am worried about a small minority. And I am worried about this administration.
White House approves use of force, some law enforcement roles for border troops
Nothing to see here. Just another "fundamental shift."
White House approves use of force, some law enforcement roles for border troops
Nothing to see here. Just another "fundamental shift."
