[Lakota]

A 30 year service retired Navy Aviator Seal just told me that there is unconfirmed word that the military at large has submitted a survey to all military personnel, with the question:

"Would you be willing to fire on American citizens?"

This information was openly described as 'unconfirmed'.

If it is true, for what it's worth, I personally don't think there would be many - if any - affirmative answers to such a question, since, firstly - it is a contradiction of the oath every military person is obliged to conform to ('to protect the Constitution from all her enemies, be they foreign or domestic, whomsoever').

Secondly, the question inevitably involves an issue of whether or not military (and police) personnel are willing to fire on their own parents, uncles, aunts, children, cousins, wives, husbands, grandparents, etceteras.

It appears that what we have here, is a handful of crack smoking, blood-thirstiy high-rollers, making up a mad schematic charter to conquer the United States, and the world.

If this 'survey' is true, the very fact that it exists reveals a neo-fascist state of the union's key leaderships and their nightmare motivations.

All readers are cordially invited to confirm, nullify, or otherwise comment on this missive.

Best wishes,
- Lakota

[Zulu_Tango]

I have not received that survey.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[Lakota]

A thirty year retired Navy Aviator Seal recently told several people that an 'unconfirmed survey' is - or soon will be - distributed to all military (and police) personnel, with the key question:

"Would you be willing to fire on American civilians?"

Firstly - if this unconfirmed report is true, it petitions military and police ranks to compromise the very oath they took - "... to defend the Constitution from all of her enemies, be they foreign or domestic, whomsoever".

Secondly, it petitions military and police personnel to fire on their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, children, grand parents, friends, etceteras.

Moreover, this tentative initiative (calling for modifications on all future manufacted firearms and ammunition) would require dramatic changes and adjustments of huge steel, rubber chemical, electronics industries (etceteras).

Furthermore, if this proposed survey is - or soon will be - distributed to American Armed Forces (and police) personnel - if such survey does indeed become factual - it proffers an ominous initiative generated by a despotic huddle of neo-fascist bogeyman enemies of the state, clearly intending to conquer the entire world by Constitution trashing force: imposing fear of the government within 'We the people', rather than the converse: of projecting fear within the government by 'We the people' - as many key founders of this nation very specifically emphasized.

It seems 'the public servant' role of 'government' may furthermore entangle itself in its own 'anti-terrorist' web.

Reader response is cordially invited, to nullify, confirm or otherwise comment on the content(s) of this missive.

Best wishes,
- Lakota

[series1811]

Originally Posted by Lakota

A thirty year retired Navy Aviator Seal

All I needed to read, right there.

[Lakota]

Originally Posted by series1811

All I needed to read, right there.

We don't read minds here and mysteriously abbreviated and unexplained codification doesn't explain your intended meaning either.

It may only be speculated that you are ignorant of the fact that Navy Seals can be - and often are - usually carrier based aviators. Until you clarify your smug response it is meaningless.

[Falling Crow]

And they will all be equipped with belt fed DD214s too....

[series1811]

Originally Posted by Lakota

We don't read minds here and mysteriously abbreviated and unexplained codification doesn't explain your intended meaning either.

It may only be speculated that you are ignorant of the fact that Navy Seals can be - and often are - usually carrier based aviators. Until you clarify your smug response it is meaningless.

No, SEALs are not carrier based aviators. And, there probably aren't a half a dozen who have 30 years of service (most are lucky to do 20 years because of the physical demands). And, yeah, I know more than a few because of where I've worked.

Let me guess. That got sent to you in an e-mail, probably forwarded a hundred times before you got it, and with absolutely no idea of who actually wrote it or sent it orginally. It's okay to admit it. I already know.

[deadday]

Originally Posted by series1811

No, SEALs are not carrier based aviators. And, there probably aren't a half a dozen who have 30 years of service (most are lucky to do 20 years because of the physical demands). And, yeah, I know more than a few because of where I've worked.

Let me guess. That got sent to you in an e-mail, probably forwarded a hundred times before you got it, and with absolutely no idea of who actually wrote it or sent it orginally. It's okay to admit it. I already know.

The only way this could even be remotely possible would be that a SEAL was injured, then went to OCS (whatever the Navy equivalent is), and became a pilot. It most certainly would not be flying fighters, and even this scenario is sketchy as it would be pretty damned difficult to pass a flight physical with injuries that forced him out of NAVSPECWAR..

[BOOSTED12A]

Originally Posted by series1811

All I needed to read, right there.

unicorn

[NMG26]

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny"

A bumper sticker I saw once.

Attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

[R4lf]

Hmm........ That's a well written post, it has sources and credible evidence and is displayed with official seals and everything. However, after I read it for some incredibly odd reason my phone started to stink of bull****. Wonder why that is?

[Lakota]

Brush your tongue daily.



Best regards,
-Lakota

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Lakota

A 30 year service retired Navy Aviator Seal just told me that there is unconfirmed word that the military at large has submitted a survey to all military personnel, with the question:

"Would you be willing to fire on American citizens?"

This information was openly described as 'unconfirmed'.

If it is true, for what it's worth, I personally don't think there would be many - if any - affirmative answers to such a question,

If that's all there is to the question, I'd answer "yes." I expect most soldiers I know would.

Why wouldn't I - don't you carry a gun? Don't you carry it to shoot people who will, most likely, be American citizens?

since, firstly - it is a contradiction of the oath every military person is obliged to conform to ('to protect the Constitution from all her enemies, be they foreign or domestic, whomsoever').

Nothing uncosntitutional about shooting a US citizen, or at least you'll need to show me that part. City, state and federal law enforcement do it every day and the military has shot a few high profile American citizens as well.

Secondly, the question inevitably involves an issue of whether or not military (and police) personnel are willing to fire on their own parents, uncles, aunts, children, cousins, wives, husbands, grandparents, etceteras.

Depends on what my relatives are doing, I guess. You seem to see the question as asking whether they will open fire on civilian neighborhoods as a form of population reduction. It didn't ask that. There are plenty of reasons that you, me or anybody else would shoot American citizens.

It appears that what we have here, is a handful of crack smoking, blood-thirstiy high-rollers, making up a mad schematic charter to conquer the United States, and the world.

If this 'survey' is true, the very fact that it exists reveals a neo-fascist state of the union's key leaderships and their nightmare motivations.

All readers are cordially invited to confirm, nullify, or otherwise comment on this missive.

Best wishes,
- Lakota

You jumped to a ridiculous conclusion based on absolutely nothing. It says more about you and reading comprehencion, than about the survey or the soldiers.

[John Rambo]

The survey wasn't recent. And it was very poorly received by the troops, because for every Bren who would mow us down without reservations, theres a soldier ready to shoot him in the back and protect us. I say this with such certainty because this specific topic has come up before both online and in person, and theres a lot of soldiers who have given both answers.

[Lakota]

Only guessing, but it sounds like 'Bren's' #3 entry is oblivious to the ongoing, increasing controversy regarding the (our) president's decision - whether or not he should or not sign a United Nations document which threatens to invade the United States with blue helmet garnished, armed military soldiers and steal all private property ordnance and ammunition from the law abiding American citizens that own it; at hazard of being obliged to protect your property, fighting fire with fire.

The proposed document also specifys that all Americans owning firearms or ammo prior to the possible passing of the new law (entailing the manufacture of billions of rounds of uniquely marked cartridges, per round, and, likewise unique marking of all the firearms that accomodate all such ammunition), will be obliged to surrender their incumbent weapons and ammo, or, be labeled - and treated - like a 'criminal'.

Bren's one dimensional perspective seems to embrace the parameters of self defense shootings by American CCWs, and/or the murder of Americans by Americans.

That is to say, it sounds like Bren doesn't know what he's talking about.

[dpadams6]

Originally Posted by John Rambo

The survey wasn't recent. And it was very poorly received by the troops, because for every Bren who would mow us down without reservations, theres a soldier ready to shoot him in the back and protect us. I say this with such certainty because this specific topic has come up before both online and in person, and theres a lot of soldiers who have given both answers.

Your screen name. Lol lol lol. Thanks. I laughed my a$@ off.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by John Rambo

The survey wasn't recent. And it was very poorly received by the troops, because for every Bren who would mow us down without reservations, theres a soldier ready to shoot him in the back and protect us. I say this with such certainty because this specific topic has come up before both online and in person, and theres a lot of soldiers who have given both answers.

Did you see the thread on "straw man arguments"? You should study it, because this entire thread, and your response, are examples. I doubt I've ever met a soldier who would refuse to shoot someone just because they are an "American citizen," as is the subject here.

As I mentioned - if you carry a concealed weapon, then aren't you also willing to shoot American citizens?

[id1otbox]

Bren, what would be the purpose of asking that question? When and why would that be acceptable?

[Bren]

Originally Posted by id1otbox

Bren, what would be the purpose of asking that question? When and why would that be acceptable?

Just one of endless examples would be that we have U.S. citizen terrorists who are members of Al Qaeda. Never heard of a soldier who wouldn't shoot them. Civil war? Yep. Espionage? yep.

In short, the "oath" the OP mentioned doesn't say anything about not shooting U.S. citizens - in fact, it says the opposite: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." In afct, the same right wing nuts who make up genocied fantasies out of a question like "Would you be willing to fire on American citizens?" usually quote that part when they talk about klilling American citizens in our own government/military/law enforcement.

[6StringGeek]

I would imagine if it were true that they might be asked to fire on american terrorists. Still kind of creepy to think about though.

[deadday]

Originally Posted by Lakota

A 30 year service retired Navy Aviator Seal just told me that there is unconfirmed word that the military at large has submitted a survey to all military personnel, with the question:

"Would you be willing to fire on American citizens?"

This information was openly described as 'unconfirmed'.

If it is true, for what it's worth, I personally don't think there would be many - if any - affirmative answers to such a question, since, firstly - it is a contradiction of the oath every military person is obliged to conform to ('to protect the Constitution from all her enemies, be they foreign or domestic, whomssoever').

Secondly, the question inevitably involves an issue of whether or not military (and police) personnel are willing to fire on their own parents, uncles, aunts, children, cousins, wives, husbands, grandparents, etceteras.

It appears that what we have here, is a handful of crack smoking, blood-thirstiy high-rollers, making up a mad schematic charter to conquer the United States, and the world.

If this 'survey' is true, the very fact that it exists reveals a neo-fascist state of the union's key leaderships and their nightmare motivations.

All readers are cordially invited to confirm, nullify, or otherwise comment on this missive.

Best wishes,
- Lakota

The email you copied this from is bull****, there is no survey. More importantly, when did the Navy start training sea animals to fly?

[Bren]

Originally Posted by deadday

The email you copied this from is bull****, there is no survey. More importantly, when did the Navy start training sea animals to fly?

I thought he intended "30 year service retired Navy Aviator Seal" as a joke, like the typical joke fake vet description, but looking back, maybe he didn't.

Originally Posted by Lakota

Apparently you are completely unaware - and with an attitude - about the fact that 'Aviator Seals' exist and furthermore, they are almost invariably stationed on aircraft carriers piloting combat fighter planes.

[Jeff82]

I think someone is confused over Cunningham's "29 Palms Survey."

[Lakota]

"More importantly, when did the Navy start training sea animals to fly?" - deadday, in post #8...

Apparently you are completely unaware - and with an attitude - about the fact that 'Aviator Seals' exist and furthermore, they are almost invariably stationed on aircraft carriers piloting combat fighter planes.

[The Fist Of Goodness]

Originally Posted by Lakota

"More importantly, when did the Navy start training sea animals to fly?" - deadday, in post #8...

Apparently you are completely unaware - and with an attitude - about the fact that 'Aviator Seals' exist and furthermore, they are almost invariably stationed on aircraft carriers piloting combat fighter planes.

Dude. Seriously?

Navy SEALs do one thing, and Naval Aviators do another. They don't train super SEALs that fly F18s or drive Nuclear Subs. I am sure that there are former SEALs that have become Aviators, but they are not SEAL Aviators. It is one or the other.