this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2025
536 points (98.4% liked)

News

33652 readers
3023 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The commander of the arm of the U.S. military responsible for Donald Trump's illegal military occupations of American cities said he is willing to conduct attacks on so-called designated terrorist organizations within the U.S.

This startling admission comes after months of extrajudicial killings of alleged members or affiliates of DTOs in the waters near Venezuela, which experts and lawmakers say are outright murders.

Gen. Gregory Guillot’s sopenness about the potential for unprecedented military action within U.S. borders comes as the White House, Pentagon, and Justice Department continue to refuse to rule out summary executions of Americans on Trump's secret enemies list, after weeks of requests for clarifications from The Intercept.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 142 points 3 days ago (2 children)

So the U.S. military will start killing Americans opposed to fascism (aka anti-fascists; aka the designated terrorist organization Antifa).

Like we didn’t all see this coming…
And yet I’m still surprised it’s arrived.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Someone made a "should I buy a pistol" post the other day...

And people were still saying it's a bad idea.

We passed the point where a pistol is enough anyways, and way past the time people need to prioritize their own safety.

It's easy as fuck to buy guns, ammo, and armor right now, but that could change literally tomorrow.

I've been saying since Trump won the election, everyone needs a rifle and plated vest.

It's an insurance policy for our future, an armed populace is harder to oppress. And Trump's pretty likely to try and oppress a whole lote of us...

But people still don't even have a pistol in 2025 America. I'm all for getting stricter gun laws, but until shits illegal, it's stay strapped or get clapped like the 80s

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 days ago (5 children)

It's mainly a bad idea because an individual cannot hope fight the army and the police. What's needed is organized mass resistance.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The American Revolution and the French Revolution were fought against two of the most powerful armies in the world. America lost both the Vietnam War, and the Afghanistan war to indigenous guerilla armies. There are many, many other examples.

Guerilla warfare is highly effective against powerful armies who can't get out of their own way.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's because you can't fight an enemy you can't find.

And to be effective guerilla fighters , you never fight the battle the opposing force wants you to fight. Quite honestly? Firearms are only so helpful and they have equipment and training galore to counter it.

IEDs were devastating to the US. So much so that they had to develop an entire transportation platform to safely cross territory. In Vietnam? Anti-personel mines. Today? Maybe thermite! Maybe chemical warfare. Maybe committing all sorts of war crimes because of the resistance doesn't, they can't win.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Firearms are only so helpful and they have equipment and training galore to counter it.

They're a visual deterrent...

And especially when dealing with cops, they're a very very effective deterrent.

When the last time you saw cops assaulting openly armed protesters?

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Today, a big part of guerilla warfare will be hacking the enemies systems. The Israeli Beeper Attack is a perfect example.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That was a literal physical attack on a supply chain vulnerability, and they didn't need any software hacking as they had direct access to the hardware.

That's way more difficult to pull off, but an intelligent and fearsome way to take advantage of that vulnerability. Though I would have liked it way more if Israels hardware was the hacked one.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago

I wasn't using "hack" in the computer sense, it was more in the systemic sense, using their own systems against them.

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The American revolution, Vietnam and Afghanistan were wars fought by occupying forces against indigenous populations. The guerrilla armies didn't have to completely eliminate the occupying force, thy just had to make it financially and politically undesirable to continue to fight. A civil war on the other hand, fought against the US government would have no such 'victory' condition. They would never decide to give up because they essentially can't be bothered any more. You would also be fighting against the intelligence apparatus of the state. The NSA, CIA, FBI etc. Who have to capability to track your every movement, freeze your bank accounts, seize your assets, stop your medical care, end your employment. And that of anyone who associates with you. How are you going to continue that fight for any sustained period of time?

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

That fight would fundamentally change the circumstances we’re all in. I don’t know what the government will look like by that point, but it might have a hard time ending employments when nobody is employed to neutral organizations in the first place. Everything will either be for or against a revolution. Many ways of life will collapse, and the government relies on those too. So while they’ll certainly be at an advantage still, who knows what kind of fight we can give them?

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

That's a good point - but it depends on total war breaking out pretty much immediately, there can be no slow build up or call to arms, because that period would be when the state is at its most powerful!

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And ALL of those agencies would be filled with enemy agents who would be sabotaging everything in every way possible. They would NEVER gain total control of the government.

And remember that when a corrupt, moronic government like MAGA kicks out all their experienced, patriotic military and political leaders, and replaces them with drooling sycophants, theyve strengthened their enemies, and weakend their own side. In addition, those at the very top are absolute idiots, who can be counted on to do the wrong thing, every time.

And those domestic enemies aren't just guerilla fighters, they are experienced military leaders and former insiders who know their enemy's every move, all their equipment, all their strategies, etc. They know what they'll do before they do it, because they probably taught it to them in the first place.

Every large country thought that there was no way they could be beaten, until they are. There are Americans who still think America has never lost a war, when we've lost several, or at least certainly didn't win them.

[–] supamanc@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

At this point we're into wild speculation about how it would play out. You're describing an armed conflict where maybe some states have succeeded and there is in effect a civil war, with both sides Well armed, and supported by an industrial and financial base, and you make some good points. Although I think relying on the current level of incompetence in leadership to carry on is optimistic. I'm talking about the original premise of citizens in an armed insurrection. I don't fancy their chances.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Organized, armed* mass resistance

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

If you can get organized, a lasting general strike is way more likely to bring him down than an armed riot. Because this would harm his oligarchs pals and they would turn against him in an instant and use their vast amount of money to get him out.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

That's not certain to be true. Also the existence of these guns can be helpful to an organized resistance, should one appear. So if I were in the US and could afford it, I'd get some weapons and store them for whenever needed, by whoever, not necessarily me. Worst case scenario (or best) - they never get used.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 points 2 days ago

I am a gun owner, who would rather never see it used in battle. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that the choice of bloodshed would boil down to this: "Do I want to live in a world run by these people?"

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah bro, just look at any war from the last 50 fucking years...

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 7 points 2 days ago

Even when guns are made illegal, I'll have guns. Fuck them.

[–] PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’m waiting on the Supreme Court to rule on if weed smokers can own guns. If it goes through. I have some really special toys coming my way. If not. I’ll just have to learn more hand to hand combat.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is like saying you're waiting for jaywalking to be legal before you buy your first pair of shoes ..

I know. I get razzed by friends. But my dad’s guns will be my guns when he passes. So it’s not like I don’t have a gun or have used a gun. I just don’t keep it on my persons. It’s in a safe in a different home.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You realize we've been over that debate when right loonies were saying exactly the same thing: "Get ready because Biden is coming for your guns!!" and the answer is no matter how much weapons you have, you'll never be a match for trained police forces and even less in front of the National Guard. And Trump will be way too happy to have his civil war "started by tRaItOr BiDeN" even if it's actually a skirmish against 3 armed people trying to stop ICE from grabbing someone in the street.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Show me one example of cops attacking armed protesters, escalating to violence to disrupt it.

Things like MOVE or Waco the Feds will always win. But if trump halts an election, remains in power, and starts rounding up anyone who opposes him...

Do you think you'll still be able to buy a gun?

Whatever your hypothetical line is where you believe you need to take responsibility for your own self defenses at least, do you also think at that stage people can still just buy a gun?

And Trump will be way too happy to have his civil war “started by tRaItOr BiDeN” even if it’s actually a skirmish against 3 armed people trying to stop ICE from grabbing someone in the street.

Like, you're acting like it's both inevitable that we get to this point, but steadfastly refusing to prepare for it and telling others not to as well

I'm desperate to understand the logic leading you down this road, because we can't afford people to follow you.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago

When the 1st American Civil War started, many people brought their own weapons and ammo to the cause, among other supplies. The first year of it involved people and logistics being shifted around, because the nation as a whole was splintered. Here and there, people moved across states to join with the ideology they believed in.

I suspect that the 2nd American Civil War would be much the same. Blue State individuals who are armed, would be the early line of defense while the proper Blue Military gets itself into proper order.

Ken Burn's "The Civil War" goes into the topic of how ordinary people were involved with the conflict, and the general chaos that entailed.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

A rifle? Like a hunting rifle? That sounds like the worst option, no?

This is an honest question, I'm not trying to be a dick.

[–] Yankee_Self_Loader@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

To echo what is said in the Paul Harrell videos posted, the best rifle to defend yourself/ your family/ your home with is the one you have.

If that happens to be the hunting rifle that you inherited from your grand dad then so be it. What’s important is that you are know how it works, have ammunition for it, and have shot it more than once. Hope this was helpful!

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sure, but it just seems very slow, and requires a good shot. A pistol or shotgun sound like better options, since they fire faster or wider.

You are absolutely right that they are slow and require a high degree of training, competence, and accuracy to be a viable option for home/personal defense. There are absolutely better options for firearms that one could and should use but that wasn’t the point I was trying to make which was if you lack anything else then a hunting rifle is better than nothing unless you are a very skilled martial artist

[–] Hackworth@piefed.ca 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Coincidentally, I just watched this guy's videos about rifles for home defense:

Bolt Action

.22 Rifles

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

What you can legally get...

Which these days, for people in most states, is some pretty crazy shit.

If you really think things are gonna keep getting worse and worse like so many say, it makes sense to prepare. And that means more than just buying a gun.

[–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago

And anyone caught with weapons of mass destruction. AKA, fentanyl