One thing I noticed is how many men I saw interviewed on the news had left their wife and kids over there. If the place was so bad, why in the hell would you abandon your family and leave them there!
soon a real possibility...Riots and all..
- Thread starter jontte
- Start date
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
Well, I agree, the majority of them I see look like military aged men, like a conquering army, instead of refugees. Makes you wonder how many of them are affiliated with ISIS. There was a book written a long time ago called 'The Camp Of The Saints' that prophecied the same kind of scenario that's unfolding now in Europe. IMO it's an invasion.
I'm just glad geography is against them coming here. I have a feeling we'll be putting our NATO alliances to the test in the months and years to come, as some of these migrants show their true ISIS colors. Don't get me wrong, some are genuine refugees, but among them, the enemy lurks as well.
Putin called our bluff finally, so we can't just rely on the presence of ISIS to keep Syria unstable. He wants his pipeline, and he's tired of sitting on the sidelines to wait for it. Can't say I blame him. But, like Iraq, we went in without an endgame. Even if we enabled the rebels to oust Assad, who's to say the new leader wouldn't make the same deal with Putin? Nobody, that's who. In the meantime, we wait and allow the atrocities to mount, even though we could destroy ISIS' ability to war any time we wanted to.
Putin called our bluff finally, so we can't just rely on the presence of ISIS to keep Syria unstable. He wants his pipeline, and he's tired of sitting on the sidelines to wait for it. Can't say I blame him. But, like Iraq, we went in without an endgame. Even if we enabled the rebels to oust Assad, who's to say the new leader wouldn't make the same deal with Putin? Nobody, that's who. In the meantime, we wait and allow the atrocities to mount, even though we could destroy ISIS' ability to war any time we wanted to.
There was a time I never thought I'd say this about a Russian, but I sure wish we could trade leaders with them, for my part.
hand on your heart,would you trade a weak president for a dictator??
okay he seems to be strong and all,but he's still a dictator. right now you have chance to elect someone else to the white house,you have the right to choose,you have the right to vote,do that,vote,just my thoughts from this side of the puddle living next door to that maniac.
okay he seems to be strong and all,but he's still a dictator. right now you have chance to elect someone else to the white house,you have the right to choose,you have the right to vote,do that,vote,just my thoughts from this side of the puddle living next door to that maniac.
If I believed that the electoral process really still worked here, and that we did indeed have an opportunity every four years to start over again and try to do more than select the lesser evil from a short list of establishment approved cookie-cutter sycophants representing the two flip sides of the same coin, tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber, then I would NOT prefer a Putin to our system. But, since I believe that if voting could change anything they would already have made it illegal, I prefer a leader who at least doesn't want to open our borders, destroy the symbols of our heritage and history, remove our first and second amendments, AND embarrass us globally while making enemies and encouraging them to attack us. So, yep, I'd take a Putin over an Obama or a Jeb Bush. Nationalism over Socialism.
He's a demagogue who has proven useful in pushing the dialectic a bit to the right and promoting discussion of the illegal immigrant invasion to an extent which none of the other establishment candidates might have preferred, but his purpose is as a steam pressure release valve to allow the discontented to vent and think that they have a real voice in the process, to try to keep them on board through the primary for one more election cycle, however demographically disenfranchised they may actually be.
Its a easy choice for me . I suport the candidate that I think stands for what is most important to me through the primary . In my case that would be Christian conservative pro Military pro lifepro 2nd amendment for a start . After thew primary then like it or not its party lines . I have talked to several people through the years that have said since thier guy didnt make it through the primary they wrote some one in or voted 3rd pary . I always say to them so you voted for the liberal they will always say no I voted for so and so . Then I remind then that thier write in to prove a point to themselfs pulled a vote from the more conservative candidate and it was a vote for the left . Freedom isnt free means alot of things .
No offence to any liberals or left wingers this just being IMO .
No offence to any liberals or left wingers this just being IMO .
I just wish I believed hat any one person, as president, could make any real changes in our system. The truth is, the president dosent have that much power to change the way things are. That being said, so far Carson is my most interesting candidate. I will vote when the time comes, but won't make up my mind with who for some time yet. It's still way too early to even guess who the two primary ones will be. My crystal ball is still saying Hillary is going to be the next president though, for better or worse.
Sometimes, as when the system is irrevocably broken, and what cannot fly must fall, worse IS better.
I believe this scenario will be the one. Were being invaded by ISIS and the Government(s) are doing NOTHING, except fuel the forthcoming civil war by shipping in more and more 'immigrants' who hate the western way of life. It's all part of the Gov't's big agenda (NWO) to have us wipe out ourselves and then they'll come along and finish us off.
I agree, and the civil war that's coming, of red states vs, blue states, the coastlands vs. flyover America, will morph from political into cultural and then into ethnic cleansing, until secession and Balkanization make the U.S. like the former Yugoslavia.
what gives me the shivers is Turkey,they clearly let some seriously bad people come through to west...I'm considering if I should wear that vest I have at all times as spring sets in,we've had a sharp increase in knife related crimes done by "refugees" here among other less pleasant stuff.. 
Yep, and the not necessarily Arabs, many of whom convert to Islam through radicalization online, or in prison. So, you can't expect them all to be wearing turbans and riding camels.
I just don't see a civil war developing here in the states, both sides would have to have, people/state/political/logistics/industrial backing and last but not least, the well to fight! As laughable as it may seem at times we still rule ourselves by the rule of law. This isn't 1860, we are far more connected than it was in the times leading up to the civil war were State Rights and Honor was the rule also, people in those time were already harden from an era the majority today couldn't even begin to understand! The majority of gun owners in this Country never been in the Military much less combat, many of us who are combat Vets DON'T want to see the carnage on our own street and neighborhoods, I don't want to see a bunch of arm-chair wannabe combat Vets dictating ****. We who seen wished we never have, there is NO glamor and certainly no winners, once one seen one is never never the same, one becomes what they despise!!
I understand how you feel, and I certainly don't wish to glamorize it, but America has fewer commonalities currently than the former Yugoslavia did in 1990, before its' civil war began, objectively. Especially if there were a grid collapse or economic depression. For those who think in terms of destabilization, it's a possible scenario, especially as America continues to change demographically. Imagine Ferguson going on in twenty cities, simultaneously, and people's reaction.
I believe more than not pandemonium, riots and anarchy would be a more feasible probability than a civil war in a grid down or a state sponsored attack on our soil, any home brewed organized armed rebellion would be squashed expeditiously by the feds even in a shtf, in a shtf situation the power has shifted to the feds away from the people given the feds will maintain continuity whereas the people would have none, the feds will maintain logistics and manpower, the people on the other hand would be splintered and tattered.
Within the Federal government are different factions, it's not monolithic. Also, like everyone else, when SHTF many soldiers will want to go home and take care of their families, or, in the case of widespread ethnic unrest, be fragging their officers and mutinying, or fighting one another. The powers that be will have to lock units down on base once they're called up in order to reorganize them along racial lines, and send majority black units to put down unrest in rural areas, White units to put down unrest in urban areas, et cetera, to reduce desertions and worse. I'm not sure if you've read 'Civil War Two' by Tom Chittum, a Vietnam and Rhodesian and Bosnian vet, or my own 'The Balk', but I think Yeats was right. Things fall apart. The centre cannot hold.
No doubt some Soldiers would leave to tend to their families, many will leave to secure their families then report back to base, a group of soldiers splintered from their command doesn't make for a fighting unit. At best this splintered group of Soldiers can do is defensive and limited at that not a fighting unit given there is no command structure, logistics and re-supply and certainly don't have command of the sky. The best these splintered group of Soldiers can do is move their families out of harm's way and setup a defensive posture. I don't believe units will be formed along racial lines and frankly that would be a stupid move, this isn't 1942, 1917 nor even 1862.
If need be the best that can be done against a technological advance force (the feds) is by asymmetric warfare. In asymmetric warfare it's purpose is to wear down and disrupt the supply line of the opposing force not defeat it, the defeat comes from within 'the will to fight' in an post-shtf I see asymmetric being used to keep the opposing force at bay not defeating it. Also, the majority of these splintered group of Soldiers are not very experienced, how many can truly hold up to the pressures of an overwhelming force, you certainly don't want a war of attrition. A lot of uncertainty for sure!
If need be the best that can be done against a technological advance force (the feds) is by asymmetric warfare. In asymmetric warfare it's purpose is to wear down and disrupt the supply line of the opposing force not defeat it, the defeat comes from within 'the will to fight' in an post-shtf I see asymmetric being used to keep the opposing force at bay not defeating it. Also, the majority of these splintered group of Soldiers are not very experienced, how many can truly hold up to the pressures of an overwhelming force, you certainly don't want a war of attrition. A lot of uncertainty for sure!
Last edited:
I also believe many of these doomsday books and youtube videos totally underestimate the feds resolve and the power they truly hold. I can truly guarantee us laymen will not like the resolve and the best we can do is not become a target, the best we can do is get the hell out of dodge and it will be this moment we separate the boys from the men, the weak from the strong! The military will not split into two opposing forces, that would be absolute suicide for one side, one side going to control the satellites, industrial re-supply, command of the sky, the majority of the heavies!
I've heard that too, some soldiers will blindly follow like sheep without question and then there's the ones with a brain that know what their superiors want them to do is wrong and there will be in-fighting within the armed forces.
I also believe that they will have to segregate their forces into racial/religious (but not so much religious) groups, not so much as because of racial /religious in-fighting. When TSHTF, do you really see a (possibly armed) group of Hispanic people obeying black, let alone white soldiers, they WILL fight back, and if heavily outnumbered/gunned, be wiped out for their troubles... Being confronted by people of their own kind, the outcome could possibly be different...
Here's a new article from the Washington Examiner, saying that "Preppers" believe a civil war is coming.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-us-on-a-course-for-civil-war/article/2591381
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-us-on-a-course-for-civil-war/article/2591381
While I agree with many parts of the story, I just don't see a civil war materializing. I'm not going to be part of any uprising that causes me to bear arms against my Brothers and Sisters, my duty in the past was to cover their backs not shoot them in the back and that duty and loyalty stands today!! I'll set this one out and condemn the hell out of it, my Country already torn apart and I refuse to engage in it's shredding by blood.
