Trump said the radical left should be handled by the national guard and, if necessary, the military

[Axulus]

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the military gets a vote on this. Trump might not put any Mark Milley's on his staff, but he can't replace the whole chain of command. And he doesn't have as many 'loyalists' in the military as he thinks he has, not after how he disparaged it time and again. My graduating class is now O-6 or above and most can't stand him. Even the one's who 'wouldn't mind if he was president' would never follow an order pitting them against the US citizenry.

aa

I am not confident that individual soldiers will disobey orders that they suspect aren't totally legal. The military is a top-down organization. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. They may not like their leaders, but obedience is drilled into them.

And there's a big difference between obeying an order to attack citizens, and obeying an order to attack domestic terrorists. An officer could easily be swayed to do the latter - even if it is only the choice of words that is different.

And that goes double if those "terrorists" are already engaged in violent struggle with the police and/or National Guard.

And don't forget the absolutely insane conspiracy theories a huge percent of the population believes in. All Trump and his cronies have to do, in JD Vance's words, is create a fake story to justify just about anything, and a significant percent of the military (and population as a whole) will believe it wholeheartedly.

Domestic terrorism, starting wars, rebellion/insurrection, pedophile rings/child sacrafice, white replacement, religious persecution, Marxism, working as foreign agents, destorying the constitution. You name it, whatever lies they need. And once some of the military leadership believes in it (as they inevitably will, being part of the significant percent of the human race vulnerable to this insanity), and a significant percent of the underlings as well, you can get enough support to carry it out. And you can spin out a fake legal theory. They will then carry it out not based on a belief of defying illegal orders, but a false belief that the threat is so great that the orders are legal.

Anyone who stands in the way is part of the swamp/deep state, hates Trump, democrat judge, evil and part of the plot, etc.

To paraphrase Voltaire, if they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities.

 

[Shadowy Man]

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the military gets a vote on this. Trump might not put any Mark Milley's on his staff, but he can't replace the whole chain of command. And he doesn't have as many 'loyalists' in the military as he thinks he has, not after how he disparaged it time and again. My graduating class is now O-6 or above and most can't stand him. Even the one's who 'wouldn't mind if he was president' would never follow an order pitting them against the US citizenry.

aa

I am not confident that individual soldiers will disobey orders that they suspect aren't totally legal. The military is a top-down organization. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. They may not like their leaders, but obedience is drilled into them.

And there's a big difference between obeying an order to attack citizens, and obeying an order to attack domestic terrorists. An officer could easily be swayed to do the latter - even if it is only the choice of words that is different.

And that goes double if those "terrorists" are already engaged in violent struggle with the police and/or National Guard.

So, should the police have fired upon the Jan 6 Capitol invaders?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the military gets a vote on this. Trump might not put any Mark Milley's on his staff, but he can't replace the whole chain of command. And he doesn't have as many 'loyalists' in the military as he thinks he has, not after how he disparaged it time and again. My graduating class is now O-6 or above and most can't stand him. Even the one's who 'wouldn't mind if he was president' would never follow an order pitting them against the US citizenry.

aa

I am not confident that individual soldiers will disobey orders that they suspect aren't totally legal. The military is a top-down organization. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. They may not like their leaders, but obedience is drilled into them.

And there's a big difference between obeying an order to attack citizens, and obeying an order to attack domestic terrorists. An officer could easily be swayed to do the latter - even if it is only the choice of words that is different.

And that goes double if those "terrorists" are already engaged in violent struggle with the police and/or National Guard.

So, should the police have fired upon the Jan 6 Capitol invaders?

Yup. Maybe if they don't want to get shot they shouldn't try to invade the Capitol. Pretty simple.

 

[Elixir]

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the military gets a vote on this. Trump might not put any Mark Milley's on his staff, but he can't replace the whole chain of command. And he doesn't have as many 'loyalists' in the military as he thinks he has, not after how he disparaged it time and again. My graduating class is now O-6 or above and most can't stand him. Even the one's who 'wouldn't mind if he was president' would never follow an order pitting them against the US citizenry.

aa

I am not confident that individual soldiers will disobey orders that they suspect aren't totally legal. The military is a top-down organization. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. They may not like their leaders, but obedience is drilled into them.

And there's a big difference between obeying an order to attack citizens, and obeying an order to attack domestic terrorists. An officer could easily be swayed to do the latter - even if it is only the choice of words that is different.

And that goes double if those "terrorists" are already engaged in violent struggle with the police and/or National Guard.

So, should the police have fired upon the Jan 6 Capitol invaders?

A couple of shotgun blasts into the air would have given them a moment to consider their willingness to give up their lives just for a “tour of the Capitol building”.
If they continued, then yes. And that blood would have been on Cheato’s hands. Excusing him might have been a tad more difficult for Turtle&Co, especially if his Proud Boys had returned fire.

The cost in lives, should Trump win in a couple weeks, will dwarf the numbers in that J6 crowd.

 

[bilby]

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the military gets a vote on this. Trump might not put any Mark Milley's on his staff, but he can't replace the whole chain of command. And he doesn't have as many 'loyalists' in the military as he thinks he has, not after how he disparaged it time and again. My graduating class is now O-6 or above and most can't stand him. Even the one's who 'wouldn't mind if he was president' would never follow an order pitting them against the US citizenry.

aa

I am not confident that individual soldiers will disobey orders that they suspect aren't totally legal. The military is a top-down organization. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. They may not like their leaders, but obedience is drilled into them.

And there's a big difference between obeying an order to attack citizens, and obeying an order to attack domestic terrorists. An officer could easily be swayed to do the latter - even if it is only the choice of words that is different.

And that goes double if those "terrorists" are already engaged in violent struggle with the police and/or National Guard.

So, should the police have fired upon the Jan 6 Capitol invaders?

Yes, if, as and when those invaders entered areas clearly signed as off limits to unauthorised persons, and/or threatened the lives of police*, congresspeople, or staff.








* Genuinely threatened their lives; Not that "His phone looked a bit like a gun" horseshit.

 

[Henry-Finland]

THINK! if some politicians would say:

"The radical Trumpos should be handled by the national guard and, if necessary, the military!"

 

[ideologyhunter]

THINK! if some politicians would say:

"The radical Trumpos should be handled by the national guard and, if necessary, the military!"

They are vermin, the scum of the earth, they're poisoning the nation's blood, they come from mental institutions, they are horrible people, they carry all kinds of diseases, they eat all kinds of things they shouldn't be eating, they are drug dealers and rapists, with --- I assume --- some very fine people.

 

[Politesse]

THINK! if some politicians would say:

"The radical Trumpos should be handled by the national guard and, if necessary, the military!"

Well, it will probably come to this eventually. If history is any sort of guide. But announcing it in advance is not good PR. People who actually like hearing violent rhetoric, probably like Trump hinself. Mobilizing an opposition requires a much more gentle hand. Soft reassurances that the status quo will be maintained, that no loyal citizen need jeopardize their safety or investments.

 

[Henry-Finland]

THINK! if some politicians would say:

"The radical Trumpos should be handled by the national guard and, if necessary, the military!"

Well, it will probably come to this eventually. If history is any sort of guide. But announcing it in advance is not good PR. People who actually like hearing violent rhetoric, probably like Trump hinself. Mobilizing an opposition requires a much more gentle hand. Soft reassurances that the status quo will be maintained, that no loyal citizen need jeopardize their safety or investments.

In my ears, a politician saying that is totally insane.
I could imagine that; that would be found in "Mein Kampf".