Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Michael Daly wrote: On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: if even 50 million fat men with guns manage to kill only one soldier apiece (not difficult at all, particularly if you're willing to die in the process) If you had the slightest notion of the ratio of rounds fired to soldiers killed amoung trained armies, or of kills per soldier, you'd never make such a ridiculous claim. One kill per fat man? Yeah, right. Reminds me of the Japanese: they did have trained soldiers, and their aim was to take out more than one Allied soldier for every one of their own who bit the dust. Although many people will be familiar with kamikaze, the average Japanese soldier also got suicide weapons, for example to sit in a pit with a special mine waiting for a tank to drive over him, or to run at a tank with special pole-mounted antitank explosives. That mentality didn't do them much good against overwhelming firepower... If there was such a thing as organised resistance against the U.S. government, the only chance would be to use terrorist and guerilla tactics, and with the widespread terrorisation of the population through the ever tightening grip of the government on society, I don't see that happening. Of course, there just aren't enough fat men with arms to take on a professional army, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell to have 50 million of them stand up and fight their own troops. That would be probably every ablebodied man between age 18 and 40 in the continental U.S., and we're not talking about ablebodied men, are we? :-) They might cause more of an uproar if they all jumped at the same time. ;-) -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Wilko" wrote in message ... Of course, there just aren't enough fat men with arms to take on a professional army, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell to have 50 million of them stand up and fight their own troops. That would be probably every ablebodied man between age 18 and 40 in the continental U.S., and we're not talking about ablebodied men, are we? :-) They might cause more of an uproar if they all jumped at the same time. ;-) Cute imagery. ka-WHUMP! However, IF (and I stress the 'IF' part, in case any of the Secret Police are reading this) there ever was an overthrow of the US government by some sort of armed cililian militia, it would not be through conventional warfare, as the militants wouldn't stand a chance in an head-to-head. I suspect there would be much more unconventional methods: a bomb in the senate chamber, another in the House, and an assassination of the Executive Branch. This would probably be done simulataneously with the assassination of several governors, which might put the management of the US, especially the part with guns, into total disarray, followed by some high-ranking military officer taking charge 'to keep the peace'. Basically, a military coup supported by a grassroots militia on site in several sensitive places. Currently, the worst that these backwoods military types can do is become a serious burden to the local Criminal Justice system, as well as running up a line at the local K-Mart when they are buying beer and cigarettes for their retreats. They ain't taking on the US army, or the National Guard, nohow, noway. --riverman Now, lets revisit this question in 20 years, when the US economy has caved in, the dollar is trading 1:1 against the Yen, debt holders have called in their chits, OPEC has decided to sell oil in Euros, and the EU and China are the world's economic giants. By then, a well aimed spitball might do the trick. And Americans will probably be a LOT less fat.... |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:
Michael Daly wrote: On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: if even 50 million fat men with guns manage to kill only one soldier apiece (not difficult at all, particularly if you're willing to die in the process) If you had the slightest notion of the ratio of rounds fired to soldiers killed amoung trained armies, or of kills per soldier, you'd never make such a ridiculous claim. One kill per fat man? Yeah, right. Reminds me of the Japanese: they did have trained soldiers, and their aim was to take out more than one Allied soldier for every one of their own who bit the dust. Although many people will be familiar with kamikaze, the average Japanese soldier also got suicide weapons, for example to sit in a pit with a special mine waiting for a tank to drive over him, or to run at a tank with special pole-mounted antitank explosives. That mentality didn't do them much good against overwhelming firepower... If there was such a thing as organised resistance against the U.S. government, the only chance would be to use terrorist and guerilla tactics, Precisely. and with the widespread terrorisation of the population through the ever tightening grip of the government on society, I don't see that happening. That's because you're a brain-washed peon who couldn't fight back if you wanted to. Of course, there just aren't enough fat men with arms to take on a professional army, Wanna bet? and there's not a snowball's chance in hell to have 50 million of them stand up and fight their own troops. Are you willing to bet YOUR life on it? That would be probably every ablebodied man between age 18 and 40 in the continental U.S., and we're not talking about ablebodied men, are we? :-) Presuming that the majority of the militia would obey the orders of a tyrant, which they wouldn't. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General |