What are the rules of engagement?

None of you are addressing the questions I posed. What are the rules of engagement, exactly? You don't know, neither do I. That's a problem because we should know with absolute certainty what those rules are. Why are they not being asked by media? Why aren't we seeing politicians discussing it on all the talking head commentary shows? Just who is the enemy the military is protecting us from? How are they identifying this enemy? These are pretty serious questions considering the U S military is now manning multiple locations with an open license to shoot and kill US citizens who are believed to be a threat.
BTW, for the leftist retard asking idiot off topic questions you can show one post where I ever said or implied I was a Captain in the military. You fucking dopes will do anything to steer the topic away from the point of a thread.
Now bitch, tell me which American citizens you think it's okay for the military to shoot and kill, and under what set of circumstances that will be considered lawful.
 
CaptainObvious said:
None of you are addressing the questions I posed. What are the rules of engagement, exactly? You don't know, neither do I. That's a problem because we should know with absolute certainty what those rules are. Why are they not being asked by media? Why aren't we seeing politicians discussing it on all the talking head commentary shows? Just who is the enemy the military is protecting us from? How are they identifying this enemy? These are pretty serious questions considering the U S military is now manning multiple locations with an open license to shoot and kill US citizens who are believed to be a threat.
BTW, for the leftist retard asking idiot off topic questions you can show one post where I ever said or implied I was a Captain in the military. You fucking dopes will do anything to steer the topic away from the point of a thread.
Now bitch, tell me which American citizens you think it's okay for the military to shoot and kill, and under what set of circumstances that will be considered lawful.
More...
You mad bro?

My guess is the same rules the police use with unarmed Black and Brown men. The guardsmen would be in a policing role, not a combat role.
 
elderado said:
Senator Chris Murphy, D-CT knows. He has his law degree from the U of Connecticut. Apparently he missed that class about using the military on US soil/citizens, but it is absolutely clear from his own tweets he's down for the program. Hot spit!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1347647680512712707
More...


Yeh, but you can get into the capitol building and other dc places with the appropriate badges, paperwork, passes etc. So he is thinking about this all wrong. Those are just undocumented visitors. Why would we be using any military force against them?

You know like the several million undocumentos coming that he is totally down with. Or should that be with which he is totally down?

Maybe we should publish his home address on social media and announce that his house is a sanctuary house in DC and that he serves tacos on Tuesday. Enjoy Motherfuck! You will never have to dine alone again.
 
CaptainObvious said:
None of you are addressing the questions I posed. What are the rules of engagement, exactly? You don't know, neither do I. That's a problem because we should know with absolute certainty what those rules are. Why are they not being asked by media? Why aren't we seeing politicians discussing it on all the talking head commentary shows? Just who is the enemy the military is protecting us from? How are they identifying this enemy? These are pretty serious questions considering the U S military is now manning multiple locations with an open license to shoot and kill US citizens who are believed to be a threat.
BTW, for the leftist retard asking idiot off topic questions you can show one post where I ever said or implied I was a Captain in the military. You fucking dopes will do anything to steer the topic away from the point of a thread.
Now bitch, tell me which American citizens you think it's okay for the military to shoot and kill, and under what set of circumstances that will be considered lawful.
More...



I am not involved in the meetings between the national guard leaders and police leadership.... neither are you.

Why dont you address the question since you received private intel briefing on what the rules for engagement are?

If you ask me based on past experience, if a black man carries a cellphone or runs away, the rules allow you to shoot them. Seems those rules should apply to anyone who approaches a barrier on the mall.
 
CaptainObvious said:
As we enter the new era of the U.S. Military having authorization to fire upon U.S. citizens, "where warranted", I'm wondering what are the rules of engagement. Are they, as in numerous combat zones, that they must be fired upon before returning fire? Are they, as with police, that the officer(s) must be in fear for their life? What exactly constitutes being in fear for their life if that in fact is the rule of engagement.
Does someone openly brandishing a weapon satisfy? How about someone firing a weapon in the air? What about physical threats, or does it have to be actual assualt?
I ask because as we have seen in multiple cases over several years that when a cop shoots a person who has in fact assaulted, shot at, openly committed acts of violence, that in many cases it is the position of the defense that deadly force was NOT necessary.
Seems we're going to see ourselves in a very murky area, once again divided by political affiliations as to what is a justified shooting of an American citizens.
More...
Why are you asking this question now, and not when Trump wanted a path to the church for a photo op with a bible more than 6 months ago?

As far as I saw, the police response on January 6 was kind and gentle by comparison. So why are you raising the question now?
 
Frederick Foresight said:
Why are you asking this question now, and not when Trump wanted a path to the church for a photo op with a bible more than 6 months ago?

As far as I saw, the police response on January 6 was kind and gentle by comparison. So why are you raising the question now?
More...
I'm not asking about police, I am asking about the National Guard. You lefties did a lot of pearl clutching last summer about Trump bringing out the military to deal with Antifa and BLM mobs in their city and state riots and insurrections. To my knowledge they, at the time, had no permission or authorization to fire upon the mob of American citizens. Now they do, so what exactly constitutes a legal firing of weapons by the American military, on American soil, at American citizens? Will this authority be extended to local and state insurrections? How will the "enemy" be identified? White guys in Maga hats only? Black guy wearing BLM hat gets exemption? Spoiled trust fund baby in their Che Guerva t shirt get a pass as they assualt and occupy public and private buildings?
I'm just curious which American citizens will be identified as enemies of the state and under what circumstances the military can start blasting away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top