Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Ohio National Guard Training Envisions Right-Wing Terrorism

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274

    Ohio National Guard Training Envisions Right-Wing Terrorism

    Documents from an Ohio National Guard (ONG) training drill conducted last January reveal the details of a mock disaster where Second Amendment supporters with “anti-government” opinions were portrayed as domestic terrorists.

    http://mediatrackers.org/ohio/2014/0...wing-terrorism

    http://www.examiner.com/article/nat-...tic-terrorists
    Even the Missouri MIAC did not go this far. Apologized to the environmental wackos but not to law abiding citizens.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    This does not surprise me at all ... the military have been training for trouncing citizens since 2006 at least.

    I do not view the military as protecting our rights any more and have not for a long time.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-11-2014 at 06:41 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    I would think that the Facists in various parts of the Government would use State National Guard in other parts of the country - like use Ohio guard to suppress citizens of KY or MD, and say WV against Ohioans or Indianans. Don't know whether guardsman Ohio would be hung-ho for another Kent State, but this time doing the bidding of the anarchists against everyday folks protecting their homes and families.

    I still say we know where the soldiers/police/TSA people live, their families and as such there will be consequences if they violate our rights and lives. Look up MA Lt Gov Tom Hutchison when he supported King George over the Sons of Liberty and the Stamp Act.
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    I wonder if much of the "zeal" of participating in sanctioned invasions by government thugs would be dampened if the thugs involved had to worry that the compadres of those they were hunting down like animals were in fact closing in on the thug's digs. Tit for tat.

    I suspect the voiced discontent from the Mundanes is what is behind a lot of the dispensing of vehicles of war and the arming of police with weapons of war to replace their tools of keeping the peace is to discourage a gathering of the Mundanes the next time the Occupiers throw another Ruby Ridge or Waco.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  5. #5

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Running Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corner of No and Where
    Posts
    431
    The scenario was that these "Second Amendment supporters with 'anti-government' opinions" had used biological weapons. At that point they have become domestic terrorists, regardless of whether their belief system is similar to mine or not.

    The ONG is practicing responding to actions, not beliefs.
    When rights are outlawed only outlaws will have rights.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

    No American citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. - Catherine Engelbrecht

  8. #8
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Running Wolf View Post
    The scenario was that these "Second Amendment supporters with 'anti-government' opinions" had used biological weapons. At that point they have become domestic terrorists, regardless of whether their belief system is similar to mine or not.

    The ONG is practicing responding to actions, not beliefs.
    Well said. +1

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Running Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corner of No and Where
    Posts
    431
    Another thought:

    If the ONG had used PETA/Green peace members as the offending party would that have been any less offensive?
    When rights are outlawed only outlaws will have rights.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

    No American citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. - Catherine Engelbrecht

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Did they say, in their scenario, who attacked first?
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  11. #11
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558

    Overblown

    Quote Originally Posted by Running Wolf View Post
    The scenario was that these "Second Amendment supporters with 'anti-government' opinions" had used biological weapons. At that point they have become domestic terrorists, regardless of whether their belief system is similar to mine or not.

    The ONG is practicing responding to actions, not beliefs.
    +1. It's normal practice for disaster prep drills: create a scenario that plays out, including a back story to provide associated "intelligence inputs" to keep the scenario moving and developing. Sometimes it's a natural disaster, sometimes a plane crash, and sometimes a terrorist attack. They're not demonizing anybody, they're trying to develop as reasonable a scenario as possible that drives them to respond with whatever functions the exercise is intended to evaluate.

    It'd be hard for everybody to take the exercise seriously if the scenario was a troop of Girl Scouts infiltrating the base pushing rancid cookies, alien invasion, or the ever-popular zombie apocolypse. The Soviets are long gone, and despite all the hype about al Qaeda, it's not necessarily believable to have them behind every attack in the CONUS. When I was on the exercise team, scenarios we cooked up involved disgruntled former employees shooting up the place (this was years before the Navy Yard shooting), neo-Nazi militia cells firing on our aircraft (thinking our low-flying planes were spying on them), a contractor hijacking an airplane, etc. I've heard of scenarios where peace activists chain themselves to perimeter fences, and where Earth First-type eco-hooligans were the bad guys.

    Everybody with a potential axe to grind gets their turn to be the Bad Guy eventually. Chill.
    Last edited by Eeyore; 02-12-2014 at 10:28 PM.
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  12. #12
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    I do seem to vaguely remember some OHIO NATIONAL GUARDSMEN that fired on and killed some college kids during a protest at a University. This use does concern me.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  13. #13
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Running Wolf View Post
    Another thought:

    If the ONG had used PETA/Green peace members as the offending party would that have been any less offensive?
    NOT one bit!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran Running Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corner of No and Where
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    NOT one bit!
    I agree completely. Any exercises that result in desensitizing the NG, or LEA, to firing upon US citizens, even if unintentional, should be removed. The intentional desensitization should be removed with "extreme prejudice."
    When rights are outlawed only outlaws will have rights.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

    No American citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. - Catherine Engelbrecht

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Running Wolf View Post
    The scenario was that these "Second Amendment supporters with 'anti-government' opinions" had used biological weapons. At that point they have become domestic terrorists, regardless of whether their belief system is similar to mine or not.

    The ONG is practicing responding to actions, not beliefs.
    The proof is in the alternative. They could have assigned any ideologic motivation to the mock terrorists.

    This is too easy. How about just anti-government terrorists? How about former federal official trying to break away a part of the state (actual case--look up Aaron Burr, the guy who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel)? How about anti-social cultists like that bunch in Japan a few years ago that spread poison gas on a subway?

    See? In under a minute I thunk up three alternatives they could have used. How many could they think up in ten minutes?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    I would think that the Facists in various parts of the Government would use State National Guard in other parts of the country - like use Ohio guard to suppress citizens of KY or MD, and say WV against Ohioans or Indianans. Don't know whether guardsman Ohio would be hung-ho for another Kent State, but this time doing the bidding of the anarchists against everyday folks protecting their homes and families.

    I still say we know where the soldiers/police/TSA people live, their families and as such there will be consequences if they violate our rights and lives. Look up MA Lt Gov Tom Hutchison when he supported King George over the Sons of Liberty and the Stamp Act.
    1. It's spelled 'fascists'.

    2. So, if a member of the government, be they a Solder, LEO, or other fedgov/stategov agent was to follow orders, to suppress a rebellion, or quell a terrorist action, involving U.S. citizens as the OPFOR, then you'd advocate we the people find where the Gov't members live, and hurt them, or their families? Oh, yea, that's really freedom and liberty-inspired! Did you take a page from North Korea's policy of harming/imprisoning/killing 'traitors' and their families, up to three generations, and chalk it up to the 'consequences'? You're starting to sound less like a typical Military worshiping American, and more like a "let's kill people at-will because they're related to traitors!" type of person.

    Not helping the stereotype that Gun owners are just a news column away from going off the deep end, and bringing a few people along with them.

    What if, and this is a hypothetical, you're cousin who lived down the street was a Nat'l Guardsman/woman, who was in a platoon, sent to quell a group of 2A supporters that got too rowdy for local police to handle. How would you felt if the whole thing escalated into a riot, and the Guardsmen/women, and police lost temporary control of the area/city/county/whatever, and the loons started going to the homes of the family members of the people in the police/military, and beating the crap out of them, or tar and feathering them, or making them pay the consequences of being related to someone else who may or may not be acting in a traitorous way. What then? You may fire on the people trying to break in, or if you had no gun, you might flee or stay and fight, but lets say they did capture you, and poised to execute or seriously harm you. Would your harm/death be justified? According to what you said, yes, it would be justified, because the family could very well be punished for the actions of a family member, lawfully or unlawfully acting under orders of the Government/Superior officers.

    Whatever happened to free association, and the protections we have in our laws, and constitution, that got rid of 'cruel and unusual punishment'? I suppose the constitution/laws that restrict cruelty and rights violations only apply to the government, and not to ordinary people.

    I don't mean to take the side of the Government, or the side of anyone in general, but, HPMatt, do you even think before you speak? Have you never read the forum rules? There is no, no, NO advocating or promoting of illegal stuff on the forum. Suggesting, even in the slightest, that we should mete out consequences to the families, or the people themselves acting under orders by U.S. government, is advocating, and suggestion something illegal. And you forget, a traitor by definition, is someone who rebels, aids, or otherwise supports actions taking against a nation, or government; With modern usage, and phrasing, a traitor would be you, or me, or anyone who defies the Government with open hostility. So, with the twisting of the law done by Government on a daily basis, legally the orders given to quell an insurrection or a U.S. Citizen group, would be a legal order, and harming someone for following a lawful order [remember, we're going under the guise that government twists things for themselves, and has the money to outlast you in court, and owns the means of propaganda], would make you a traitor.

    I need a hot shower to scrub myself, I feel so dirty and violated for taking on any semblance of playing devil's advocate for the Gov't, or it's agents.
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran Running Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corner of No and Where
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    <<snip>>

    I need a hot shower to scrub myself, I feel so dirty and violated for taking on any semblance of playing devil's advocate for the Gov't, or it's agents.
    I couldn't agree more. Gives me the willies . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    The proof is in the alternative. They could have assigned any ideologic motivation to the mock terrorists.

    This is too easy. How about just anti-government terrorists? How about former federal official trying to break away a part of the state (actual case--look up Aaron Burr, the guy who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel)? How about anti-social cultists like that bunch in Japan a few years ago that spread poison gas on a subway?

    See? In under a minute I thunk up three alternatives they could have used. How many could they think up in ten minutes?
    The proof of what? And what alternative are you referring to?

    I agree that any of the options you suggested would have been just as useful. Are you saying the ONG used 2A supporters due to some nefarious design? I'm interested in your thoughts on this, if you've got a few minutes.
    When rights are outlawed only outlaws will have rights.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

    No American citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. - Catherine Engelbrecht

  18. #18
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    1. It's spelled 'fascists'.

    2. So, if a member of the government, be they a Solder, LEO, or other fedgov/stategov agent was to follow orders, to suppress a rebellion, or quell a terrorist action, involving U.S. citizens as the OPFOR, then you'd advocate we the people find where the Gov't members live, and hurt them, or their families? Oh, yea, that's really freedom and liberty-inspired! Did you take a page from North Korea's policy of harming/imprisoning/killing 'traitors' and their families, up to three generations, and chalk it up to the 'consequences'? You're starting to sound less like a typical Military worshiping American, and more like a "let's kill people at-will because they're related to traitors!" type of person.

    Not helping the stereotype that Gun owners are just a news column away from going off the deep end, and bringing a few people along with them.

    What if, and this is a hypothetical, you're cousin who lived down the street was a Nat'l Guardsman/woman, who was in a platoon, sent to quell a group of 2A supporters that got too rowdy for local police to handle. How would you felt if the whole thing escalated into a riot, and the Guardsmen/women, and police lost temporary control of the area/city/county/whatever, and the loons started going to the homes of the family members of the people in the police/military, and beating the crap out of them, or tar and feathering them, or making them pay the consequences of being related to someone else who may or may not be acting in a traitorous way. What then? You may fire on the people trying to break in, or if you had no gun, you might flee or stay and fight, but lets say they did capture you, and poised to execute or seriously harm you. Would your harm/death be justified? According to what you said, yes, it would be justified, because the family could very well be punished for the actions of a family member, lawfully or unlawfully acting under orders of the Government/Superior officers.

    Whatever happened to free association, and the protections we have in our laws, and constitution, that got rid of 'cruel and unusual punishment'? I suppose the constitution/laws that restrict cruelty and rights violations only apply to the government, and not to ordinary people.

    I don't mean to take the side of the Government, or the side of anyone in general, but, HPMatt, do you even think before you speak? Have you never read the forum rules? There is no, no, NO advocating or promoting of illegal stuff on the forum. Suggesting, even in the slightest, that we should mete out consequences to the families, or the people themselves acting under orders by U.S. government, is advocating, and suggestion something illegal. And you forget, a traitor by definition, is someone who rebels, aids, or otherwise supports actions taking against a nation, or government; With modern usage, and phrasing, a traitor would be you, or me, or anyone who defies the Government with open hostility. So, with the twisting of the law done by Government on a daily basis, legally the orders given to quell an insurrection or a U.S. Citizen group, would be a legal order, and harming someone for following a lawful order [remember, we're going under the guise that government twists things for themselves, and has the money to outlast you in court, and owns the means of propaganda], would make you a traitor.

    I need a hot shower to scrub myself, I feel so dirty and violated for taking on any semblance of playing devil's advocate for the Gov't, or it's agents.
    You may feel dirty but it was well said and needed to be said. I actually appreciate that. I reported it because it makes all gun owners and members of forum look bad but I don't think they had a chance to fix it yet.

    I wonder if the S2 would use some of the posts here and print them up and give it out during OPORD.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162

    Like I said,

    Like I said,
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    heh heh heh. From our lips (fingering keyboards) to Obama's ear.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Just for the record: As far back as 1961, when I first went through Basic Combat Training, National Guardsmen were trained in handling "civil disturbances". The scenarios may have changed because the national demographic has changed. However, I will stress that, back then, there were very strict rules about when deadly force could be used in those circumstances. If I remember right, it took a general officer to authorize it.

    As concerns the incident JoeSparky mentioned; Kent State was something that never should have happened. I remember it quite well. Whoever the officer in charge and the senior NCO were, they should have been given a general court martial and sent to Leavenworth. As it happened, the Guardsmen were indicted by a grand jury, but all charges were eventually dropped. Civil actions resulted in findings for the defendants.

    The one very good thing that came out of it was that many of us who had previously trusted the government learned that it was not to be trusted.

    Someone who has connections with, or is in, the Guard might want to look into, and pass on, what the actual ROE are for a present-day civil disturbance.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  21. #21
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Personal attacks aside, read up on American history and report back on a) what Lt Gov Thos Hutchinson advocated London do to the American citizens in Mass, b) whether he and/or his family were killed by mobs, c) if they were not killed, where they lived their final years, and c) what type of apology should suffice for casting malicious asspersions.
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  22. #22
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Just for the record: As far back as 1961, when I first went through Basic Combat Training, National Guardsmen were trained in handling "civil disturbances". The scenarios may have changed because the national demographic has changed. However, I will stress that, back then, there were very strict rules about when deadly force could be used in those circumstances. If I remember right, it took a general officer to authorize it.

    As concerns the incident JoeSparky mentioned; Kent State was something that never should have happened. I remember it quite well. Whoever the officer in charge and the senior NCO were, they should have been given a general court martial and sent to Leavenworth. As it happened, the Guardsmen were indicted by a grand jury, but all charges were eventually dropped. Civil actions resulted in findings for the defendants.

    The one very good thing that came out of it was that many of us who had previously trusted the government learned that it was not to be trusted.

    Someone who has connections with, or is in, the Guard might want to look into, and pass on, what the actual ROE are for a present-day civil disturbance.
    I'd look it up but we don't have any standing roe in regards to civilians that we know of in my company. This is probably because we are infantry. I do know some mud puppies so I'll make a call and see what I can get.

    I do know my company was activated for the Boston bombing. Our roe/mission was basically just help the police if possible with searches/perimeter stuff, etc.. so we were told dont enage anyone unless it was to help the pds. We weren't even allowed firearms. The MPs were armed but we weren't allowed.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    14
    The anger and paranoia throughout this thread is palatable. I am absolutely amazed by it. It concerns me regarding the responsible ownership of firearms.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Tackleberry1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Camas
    Posts
    88
    Perhaps if our Government were not actively trying to trample Liberty in the name of Safety... It would not be so concerned with protecting itself from Liberty minded Americans?

    Just a thought.

    Tack

  25. #25
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597

    DHS turns on National License Plate Recognition Database

    Now that the NSA has been shown eroding the 4th amendment, the SCOTUS said Obamacare is just a tax, so the Feds now have access to previously private medical information, Dodd-Frank allows the Feds and who-knows-else the ability to snoop in our bank accounts, investment accounts and credit card accounts,
    now we have the TSA/DHS and I am sure state & local LE getting access to license plate data on 'subversives'. This is going to be lots of fun to do this to your enemies. Along the lines of the dispatching SWAT team on 'folks that are speaking out against the Obama administration'.

    Would not be surprised if OC meetings would have local cops, FBI, IRS and/or ATF folks loading in license plates of who's attending.
    Got all the workings of the police state, or facists (sp), big brother, etc.
    Just let them get comfortable with it, then start turning up the heat.

    http://www.infowars.com/homeland-sec...tion-database/

    We just need to make sure that all the little cogs in the wheel follow orders.
    So many things that were illegal and unconstitutional just a few years ago - meaning you would face civil and criminal legal action if you did them - are now just everyday occurrences without any thought given to are these actions really granted under the constitution?
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •