News
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.
view the rest of the comments
It's mainly a bad idea because an individual cannot hope fight the army and the police. What's needed is organized mass resistance.
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.
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.
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?
Today, a big part of guerilla warfare will be hacking the enemies systems. The Israeli Beeper Attack is a perfect example.
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.
I wasn't using "hack" in the computer sense, it was more in the systemic sense, using their own systems against them.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
Organized, armed* mass resistance
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.
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.
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?"
Yeah bro, just look at any war from the last 50 fucking years...
Yeah, it's really the dumbest take. Get a gun! That's not going to solve anything when we have so many systemic issues at play here. A gun ain't going to do shit, but make you more likely to use it on yourself. Don't google gun stats unless you want a bad day.
You definitely shouldn't get a gun, but don't hide behind me when the marauders start going house to house, killing anyone whose house isn't decorated in MAGA momentos.
They can get behind me, I just ask that they provide support. Hand me loaded magazines, give me some food every so often, tell me what is going on in the neighborhood, dress my wounds with clean TP. If they can't fight, they can still serve the cause.
Yes, sit diwn and let them execute you like an obedient slave. I'm sure asking nicely will help.
I’m hardly opposed to arming up for self-defense, but let’s be real, if a squad of police/National Guard/military are outside your door ready to fuck up your day, a pistol isn’t gonna do much.
Why would you not want the best tool available for the job? It may not be sufficient on its own but it's better than either surrendering quietly or throwing rocks at them which seem to be your alternatives.
Oh I totally agree it’s better than going willingly. I suppose the best alternative would be monitoring your threat level and getting out of dodge before there is a team of soldiers outside your door. Failing that, I’m not sure any personal-sized arsenal is going to do much good
Better to take a few with you tho.