US FEMA "Martial Law" camps are on the way as new HR 645 Bill is proposed.

Run_to_da_hills · 22-02-2009 9:14pm

humanji wrote: »

That just brings you to the Mellenium-arc.net site

http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/laworder.htm

bonkey · 22-02-2009 9:32pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Take a look at the following list of executive orders. The constitution of the United States will be overridden when a "fitting event" should arise and martial law is declared by the government and FEMA. The government can then seize your property including food and water!

The government can seize you!

Here's the problem...

Imagine that a real national emergency arose. I dunno...the Eastern sea-board destroyed from a super-tsunami, or the mega-volcano under Yelowstone erupted.

Now...what powers do you want your government to have to be able to help people? If you're in need of help, does a private corporation or individual have the right to refuse to allow their food, water, or trucks be used to help save lives?

Therein lies the problem. Either you say that inividuals are allowed act in self-interest, potentially resulting in hundreds or thousands or deaths or you give the government the ability to act in the interest of the nation.

This apparently leaves us with a problem. On one hand, if we have a government who acts in the interest of its citizens, it needs to have these powers to be in place when they are needed....its too late to start working out details after they are needed. On the other hand, these powers could be abused.

But here's the rub...

You're asking people to believe in a government which wants to take action against the majority of the people but which still feels the need to act lawfully. This is the same government that is allegdly constantly lying to us, misleading us, untrustworthy, corrupt, and acting with complete contempt for the law when it is convenient to do so.

What in the name of **** does such a government need to pass legislation for, to give it these powers...especially when we're being asked to believe that its going to not only abuse those powers, but go completely overboard and also commit all sorts of atrocities?

Seriously...the government in such a nightmare scenario doesn't need laws to legitimise its actions. The only type of government which needs such actions are a government which needs to be able to withstand legal scrutiny of its actions after the fact....something which certainly isn't the case in a government behind these farcical parodies of death-camps we're being asked to believe in.

WakeUp · 27-02-2009 11:53am

DubTony wrote: »

Here's what gets me.
Let's imagine for a minute that martial law is declared across the USA. So, all the necessary executive orders are supposedly already in place including one that seemingly says that the government can can take control of all transportation (including private cars). Red and blue list people are the first to be "taken out". Then comes the logistical nightmare of simply getting everyone else into a camp.

Now let's just say that some way or another 70% of the American population has been wiped out and this martial law ensues. That leaves somewhere in the region of 70-100 million people to be rounded up. OK, so if we imagine that the logistical strategy has been considered and it's possible that the rounding up and interning of 70 million, pff, lets call it 20 million people, can be achieved, who's going to do the job? Will American soldiers turn their guns on the ordinary man and woman in the street? Will American soldiers shoot at children?

OK, let's consider that over time, the US military has recruited foreign people into it's ranks. And consider that these foreign soldiers have no qualms about shooting innocent Americans and rounding them up there is still the issue of the good old true blue yank army man. Would he actually allow the foreign guys to shoot the very people he has sworn to protect? It also brings up what was raised earlier in the thread. There are as may guns in the states as there are rats.

OK, so if somehow the government manages to pass a law banning all guns, and the ordinary citizens of the USA hand over there weapons, how many guns will the criminals and militia have? I believe that the founders enshrined the right in the constitution, for groups to organise themselves as militia. (If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure I'll be corrected.) These people will never give up their weapons.

So, based on all that ( and I could add a lot more) how on earth can the NWO people realistically expect to imprison even 5% of the American population? If 1% of Americans were left outside, that would be over 2 and a half million people. If only 20% of those decided that "this sh*t ain't gonna happen in my country", that would mean that there would be a resistance of half a million active, armed, patriotic AMURIKANS willing to fight to the death to "save" their country.

The whole thing seems outrageously implausible. But I have another, equally ridiculous theory. Sit down. This is horrific.

The NWO people have no intention of interning the people of America. The camps are there to protect those seen as valuable, or useful. Protect from what? The only thing that makes sense is this. The biggest genocide ever seen in the history of mankind. Somehow, the plan would have to be to erradicate most of the population of the USA in one fell swoop while ensuring that the useful people are kept safe.

Neither theory makes any sense.

Neville Chamberlin , then acting PM of Britain , returned to England in 1938 after meeting with Hitler.
He told everybody that there was nothing to worry about, Nazi Germany was just fine and Hitler was a good bloke.

The Nazis blitzkrieged Poland in 1939 and so began the start of the third reich.
The first recorded operational nazi death camp was in an old prison in Brandenburg close to Berlin, 1940.

People were told that these camps were for their own good and they would be looked after well in them they had nothing to worry about. That was a lie.

It wasnt untill 1944 when the "allies" started liberating the camps that the full extent of the horrors which took place in them was revealed to the world & nobody was prepared when the complete truth emerged.

The point Im trying to make is that if your looking for a blueprint as to how these camps might become operational/fill up should they be real with interior motives, look no further than those evil horrible nazis who have done it before through a combination of stealth & force.

You raised some points about soldiers firing on their own people. What if their ordered not to shoot at people but put them on trains instead?

Soldiers are soldiers they follow orders and would be more inclined to follow them if they were unaware of the real nature of the orders given to them imo.

What use is a militia against a tank? or a surface to surface missile? a fighter jet? there will only be one winner.
...

All of the above in the context of what you outlined is hear say, of course ,but this isnt in question: The camps are real they do exist.

Nobody listened when people tryed to warn everyone about the nazis, nobody listens anyway but they really didnt listen then when they should of.
Nobody wants to believe these camps are for the purpose mentioned above especially myself I really hope theres nothing to be concerned about, untill the exact purpose of the camps becomes transparent I dont think they can be just laughed away history would show us thats a very dangerous thing to do.

thecommander · 27-02-2009 11:57am

WakeUp wrote: »

What use is a militia against a tank? or a surface to surface missile? a fighter jet? there will only be one winner

Militias seem to be doing alright in Iraq and Afghanistan.

WakeUp · 27-02-2009 12:06pm

thecommander wrote: »

Militias seem to be doing alright in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well if your to take the reported death tolls into consideration on both sides that isnt really the case is it. Do you include the 600,000 dead Iraqi civilians in your militias doing alright quote?...

thecommander · 27-02-2009 12:24pm

WakeUp wrote: »

Well if your to take the reported death tolls into consideration on both sides that isnt really the case is it. Do you include the 600,000 dead Iraqi civilians in your militias doing alright quote?...

You asked the question of what good a militia can do against an army with tanks and missiles. The militias in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing quite well against those armies given the circumstances. Those numbers are civilian numbers, not militia. So I still stand by it.

WakeUp · 27-02-2009 1:04pm

thecommander wrote: »

You asked the question of what good a militia can do against an army with tanks and missiles. The militias in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing quite well against those armies given the circumstances. Those numbers are civilian numbers, not militia. So I still stand by it.

fair comment, but I wouldnt be so quick personally about making a comparison between the two militias. (US & Middle east) weapons, training, front line action, suicide bombers.
Also, can you say with any certainty that all those civillians killed were just civillians? A vast number of people/civillians in Iraq & Afghanistan view the coalition forces as occupying armies and do their bit to fight back be it stashing weapons or in some other way.
The US have no problem dropping 500 pound bombs on targets to take them out killing everything else in close proximty aswell.
I reckon the civillian number of dead and militia invloved people is a lot more than the numbers being reported they true and exact number will probably never be known though.

DubTony · 27-02-2009 4:19pm

The point Im trying to make is that if your looking for a blueprint as to how these camps might become operational/fill up should they be real with interior motives, look no further than those evil horrible nazis who have done it before through a combination of stealth & force

.

The Nazis were an occupying force in most places. In Germany they ghettoised (?) the Jews before attempting to wipe them out. They used deadly force without hesitation to get people onto trains.

You raised some points about soldiers firing on their own people. What if their ordered not to shoot at people but put them on trains instead?

Soldiers are soldiers they follow orders and would be more inclined to follow them if they were unaware of the real nature of the orders given to them imo.

They may follow orders, but there's a line that most people won't cross (even soldiers). Unless the soldiers can be convinced that the population is horribly infected I don't see many of them shooting fellow citizens. Some of the soldiers that walked the streets of New Orleans expressed on TV how they felt it was wierd and even wrong for them to be "working" in their own country.

What use is a militia against a tank? or a surface to surface missile? a fighter jet? there will only be one winner.

Even the French did a pretty good job during WW2. We're talking about guerilla warfare here and people defending an ideal. That's bigger than any plane or missile.

Look, all I'm asking is this. Can anyone really expect to imprison most of the population of one of the most populated, most heavily armed countries on the planet? Americans aren't thick (no matter how much we tend to think they are) and hold their freedoms and democratic ideals very close to their hearts.
OK, many many middle Americans will fall for some of the "for your own good" stuff but there are way too many of them who already hold government in contempt and would never sit back and allow their families, or even their communities, to be herded onto trains when there was really no apparent reason. And if there is some "invented" reason, it had better be a good one to have any hope of succeeding.

Run_to_da_hills · 28-03-2009 12:30am

Plans to shut down tent cities in California and relocate homeless people to government-run facilities (Fema Camps) have stoked fears that the move could be a pretext for a wider internment of Americans in the event of a total economic collapse.

“California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said a make-shift tent city for the homeless that sprang up in the capital city of Sacramento will be shut down and its residents allowed to stay at the state fairgrounds (Fema Camp),” reports Bloomberg News.

"Homeless people will be moved to the the state facility (Fema Camp) known as Cal-Expo as the Sacramento City Council last night agreed to spend $880,000 to expand homeless programs.

“Together with the local government and volunteers, we are taking a first step to ensure the people living in tent city have a safe place to stay, with fresh water, healthy conditions and access to the services they need,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement. “And I am committed to working with Mayor Johnson to find a permanent solution for those living in tent city.”

That “permanent solution” has some people worried that many more Americans could be interned against their will in the event of widespread rioting and the implementation of martial law".

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKqkjyYkFN8w&refer=worldwide

meglome · 28-03-2009 12:33am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Plans to shut down tent cities in California and relocate homeless people to government-run facilities (Fema Camps) have stoked fears that the move could be a pretext for a wider internment of Americans in the event of a total economic collapse.

“California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said a make-shift tent city for the homeless that sprang up in the capital city of Sacramento will be shut down and its residents allowed to stay at the state fairgrounds (Fema Camp),” reports Bloomberg News.

"Homeless people will be moved to the the state facility (Fema Camp) known as Cal-Expo as the Sacramento City Council last night agreed to spend $880,000 to expand homeless programs.

“Together with the local government and volunteers, we are taking a first step to ensure the people living in tent city have a safe place to stay, with fresh water, healthy conditions and access to the services they need,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement. “And I am committed to working with Mayor Johnson to find a permanent solution for those living in tent city.”

That “permanent solution” has some people worried that many more Americans could be interned against their will in the event of widespread rioting and the implementation of martial law".

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKqkjyYkFN8w&refer=worldwide

So did you put the Fema camp text in brackets on all of these? Is there the slightest bit of evidence?

28-03-2009 12:39am

Full Article:

Bloomberg wrote:

Schwarzenegger Opens California Fairgrounds to Homeless Camp
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Michael B. Marois

March 25 (Bloomberg) -- California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said a make-shift tent city for the homeless that sprang up in the capital city of Sacramento will be shut down and its residents allowed to stay at the state fairgrounds.

Schwarzenegger said he ordered the state facility known as Cal-Expo to be used for three months to serve the 125 tent city residents, some of them displaced by the economic recession. The encampment may be shut down within a month, said Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. The move comes after the Sacramento City Council last night agreed to spend $880,000 to expand homeless programs.

“Together with the local government and volunteers, we are taking a first step to ensure the people living in tent city have a safe place to stay, with fresh water, healthy conditions and access to the services they need,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement. “And I am committed to working with Mayor Johnson to find a permanent solution for those living in tent city.”

California, home to one of every eight Americans, has been particularly hard hit by the housing market collapse after many residents turned to exotic mortgages to afford homes. The tent city, which has long existed along the banks of the America River, gained national attention last month when some of its recently homeless residents were featured on the Oprah Winfrey Show.

The state has one of the highest rates of foreclosure, according to RealtyTrac Inc., an Irvine, California-based seller of real estate data. California home prices dropped 41 percent last month from a year earlier, more than double the U.S. decline, as surging foreclosures drove down values, the state Association of Realtors said today.

State Unemployment

The state’s unemployment rate rose to 10.5 percent in February, as construction, financial and manufacturing companies eliminated jobs, leaving the most-populous U.S. state with one of the nation’s worst job markets.

The shelter at Cal-Exp currently houses about 150 people. It will be expanded by another 50 beds, and will include facilities for families with children.

For Related News and Information:

To contact the reporter on this story: Michael B. Marois in Sacramento at mmarois@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 25, 2009 16:22 EDT

bonkey · 28-03-2009 8:28am

Somewhere between 150 and 200 people constitutes a city now?

Good grief.

Run_to_da_hills · 28-03-2009 10:43am

bonkey wrote: »

Somewhere between 150 and 200 people constitutes a city now?

Good grief.

The term "tent cities" now seems to be the official term for these encampments across the states, it is used by the media, Video links may not be of the same camps, but would give you some prospective of them. They are spread out and they are continually growing. Cars, RV's vans, portaloos, soup kitchens, refuse build up, etc All this would resemble some kind of a city.

They are a definite eyesore and the solution is obvious, get rid of them "out of site" into the numerous clean "government facilities" This cronic situation dose not look at all good for Obama or America. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnnOOo6tRs8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvyubNLbbjo&feature=related

28-03-2009 11:52am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They are spread out and they are continually growing. Cars, RV's vans, portaloos, soup kitchens, refuse build up, etc All this would resemble some kind of a city.

Yeah, could nearly be 300 people there soon at this rate.

tent village more like it

bonkey · 28-03-2009 11:59am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The term "tent cities" now seems to be the official term for these encampments across the states, it is used by the media, Video links may not be of the same camps, but would give you some prospective of them. They are spread out and they are continually growing. Cars, RV's vans, portaloos, soup kitchens, refuse build up, etc All this would resemble some kind of a city.

For 150-200 people, it would resemble some kind of large village.

The refugee camps in the likes of Darfur, holding tens of thousands of people...they would be tent cities.

Let there be no misunderstanding...I'm criticising the blatant misrepresentation of the situation by the media, here.

They are a definite eyesore and the solution is obvious, get rid of them "out of site" into the numerous clean "government facilities"

Let me see if I understand you correctly...

A government is offering aid to some of its homeless, and you're implying that this is a bad thing? You seem to be suggesting that they should be left to suffer in squalor, rather than be given the benefit of taxpayer's dollars?

Run_to_da_hills · 28-03-2009 12:47pm

bonkey wrote: »

For 150-200 people, it would resemble some kind of large village.

The refugee camps in the likes of Darfur, holding tens of thousands of people...they would be tent cities. ?.

Let there be no misunderstanding...I'm criticizing the blatant misrepresentation of the situation by the media, here.

Again from the Media.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/26/tent-city-california-recession-economy

bonkey wrote: »

A government is offering aid to some of its homeless, and you're implying that this is a bad thing? You seem to be suggesting that they should be left to suffer in squalor, rather than be given the benefit of taxpayer's dollars?

In the US there are anti Vagrancy laws in existence, homeless are obliged to stay at overnight shelters or official trailer parks.

No one knows of the conditions of these facilities, will there be freedom of movement for those staying (held) there, how will they fare out when they become overcrowded which is inevitable.

28-03-2009 12:57pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Again from the Media.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/26/tent-city-california-recession-economy

Why do you keep quoting the media even though they're controlled by the NWO?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

In the US there are anti Vagrancy laws in existence, homeless are obliged to stay at overnight shelters or official trailer parks.

No one knows of the conditions of these facilities, will there be freedom of movement for those staying (held) there, how will they fare out when they become overcrowded which is inevitable.

How do you know they'll be overcrowded? Will this be on propose?

bonkey · 28-03-2009 6:26pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Again from the Media.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/26/tent-city-california-recession-economy

Forgive me if I don't see the relevance.

I made the point that arguing that 200 people do not a city make, and that its bad reporting. You linked to a media article referring to a group of that size as a "city", showing a picture of part of this city which is, frankly, not even large enough to be called a village.

No one knows of the conditions of these facilities, will there be freedom of movement for those staying (held) there, how will they fare out when they become overcrowded which is inevitable.

If no-one knows the conditions of these facilities, then its presumptious of you to be suggesting that there is a problem.

DubTony · 29-03-2009 9:57am

bonkey wrote: »

Forgive me if I don't see the relevance.

I made the point that arguing that 200 people do not a city make, and that its bad reporting. You linked to a media article referring to a group of that size as a "city", showing a picture of part of this city which is, frankly, not even large enough to be called a village.

Bonkey, you're splitting hairs here when you talk about city vs. village. In America every little town or major metropolis is known in it's own right as a city. It's about the address.

NAME,
STREET,
CITY,
STATE.

bonkey · 29-03-2009 12:47pm

DubTony wrote: »

Bonkey, you're splitting hairs here when you talk about city vs. village.

Let me reiterate: I'm criticising the blatant misrepresentation of the situation by the media.

I find it refreshing to see those who are usually critical of the mainstream media fighting to maintain that they're painting an accurate picture here...and that I am "splitting hairs" by suggesting that the use of the term is not just "reporting the facts", but rather misrepresentation.

I trust we will remember this the next time people try to argue that the media are misconstruing something to further an agenda...that you will again leap to their defence and accuse those distrustful souls of splitting hairs, and that misleading terms are perfectly reasonable as long as one can find any sort of an excuse.

Run_to_da_hills · 29-03-2009 1:10pm

DubTony wrote: »

Bonkey, you're splitting hairs here when you talk about city vs. village. In America every little town or major metropolis is known in it's own right as a city. It's about the address.

NAME,
STREET,
CITY,
STATE.

When I come to think of it, I can remember calling directory inquiries in LA, the receptionist on the phone would ask me what city was I in, I would reply "Los Angeles", I would then be asked to be more specific, It only then dawned on me that every suburb of LA is classed as a city, IE Culver, Pasadena, Inglewood and approximately 89 others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cities_in_Los_Angeles_County

The rest of Americas is the same, the Bay Area which covers San Fransisco, Berkley, Oakland has a total of 101 cities. It wouldn't take much for a group if tents to form a large cluster that could also require an "address" what a more appropriate term to use than to give it a "city". The term "tent city" also exagerates the plight and makes the situation sound more serious than if they were to just refere to them as "tent villages".

BTW there is a shop in South Dublin called "computer City", it would be no more than about 1000sq ft and has less than six people employed there. :pac:

DubTony · 29-03-2009 1:50pm

bonkey wrote: »

Let me reiterate: I'm criticising the blatant misrepresentation of the situation by the media.

I find it refreshing to see those who are usually critical of the mainstream media fighting to maintain that they're painting an accurate picture here...and that I am "splitting hairs" by suggesting that the use of the term is not just "reporting the facts", but rather misrepresentation.

I trust we will remember this the next time people try to argue that the media are misconstruing something to further an agenda...that you will again leap to their defence and accuse those distrustful souls of splitting hairs, and that misleading terms are perfectly reasonable as long as one can find any sort of an excuse.

This is nonsense and it doesn't change the fact that you are pulling this thread off topic. The media aren't doing anything here other than reporting a story. and in all probability shouldn't be blamed for this "tent city" title. It's more likely that the name was created by the very people who live there or people local to the area. As I've already stated, and Hills has confirmed, in America every area you live in, be it a village or a metropolis is called a city for address purposes. As you seem to have directed that post at me, I can confidently tell you that I've never accused the media of anything on this forum. Surely we'd be better off debating the topic of the thread, and not arguing about arguing or debating the finer points of debating, an activity that is all too popular around here.

thecommander · 29-03-2009 4:58pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

BTW there is a shop in South Dublin called "computer City", it would be no more than about 1000sq ft and has less than six people employed there.

7 people are employed there. A trading name does not a city make.

bonkey · 29-03-2009 7:50pm

DubTony wrote: »

This is nonsense and it doesn't change the fact that you are pulling this thread off topic.

I don't understand. You say its off-topic, and then spend the rest of yoru post discussing it...

As you seem to have directed that post at me, I can confidently tell you that I've never accused the media of anything on this forum.

Every post prior to that one was in response to a different poster...who was also the same poster who supplied the links to the media.

Either which way, I don't see how any of this was on-topic. The people weren't being moved to a FEMA camp. They were not being moved based on HR 645. Basically, we had news articles about how Arnie was doing something for some tiny number of homeless, accompanied with some completely-unsourced comments about "concerns" about how this was possibly the precursor to something bigger.

DubTony · 30-03-2009 8:36am

And away we go again. My last word on this.

You brought up that 200 people doesn't make a city. I explained why it does.
And then you came back with that pile of sh*te.

I bid you good day sir.

Mahatma coat · 30-03-2009 9:02am

it is the Precursor to something bigger tho Bonkey, thats the issue here, it starts off small, so small that people ridicule the effort as pointless, but the y get the system worked out in the Beta tests, the homeless form 'Tent City' then they move on to the poor suburbs where people are hoverng on the line and so on and so forth until all the 'undesirables have been relocated, then once they're out of the spotlight, or worse applauded by the right minded upstanding civic community, they move on to the dissidents, then its more groups of undesirables, however this time they have a mandate from the small local communitys (Citys) to remove their Vagrants etc, where does it stop

someone has a sig here on boards as a quote from someone ese in Nazi Germany
-when they came for the jews I did nothing, when they came for the communists I did nothing, when they came for the gypses I did nothing, until they came for me and there was no one left to speak out- or something like that.

if you read the papers from 1938 churchill was vilified for speakin out about nice mr Hitler and his progressive new system.

sorry to repeatedly goodwin threads but can no one else see the F*ckin patern?????

bonkey · 30-03-2009 8:36pm

DubTony wrote: »

You brought up that 200 people doesn't make a city. I explained why it does.
And then you came back with that pile of sh*te.

I stopped discussing the point when you complained about it being off-topic, and reverted to discussing the content that was added.

If you choose to call getting back on topic "that pile of sh*te", that's your lookout.

bonkey · 30-03-2009 8:45pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

it is the Precursor to something bigger tho Bonkey, thats the issue here,

How do we know its a precursor? There is nothing in any of hte media content linked to suggesting such a thing. Rather, we've been shown something relatively normal, and are then told that its some sort of worrying pre-cursor...with no evidence to back up that claim.

where does it stop

Arguing that this is the start of something is like saying that the creation of halting sites for travellers in Ireland was the first step in a plot to exterminate all travellers in concentration camps, and asking where that would stop.

someone has a sig here on boards as a quote from someone ese in Nazi Germany
-when they came for the jews I did nothing, when they came for the communists I did nothing, when they came for the gypses I did nothing, until they came for me and there was no one left to speak out- or something like that.

When someone can show that they're coming for anyone, I'll be the first to speak out. While people are arguing that state aid is some sort of evil plot, though, I'll be the first to point out that this is just an unfounded claim.

sorry to repeatedly goodwin threads but can no one else see the F*ckin patern?????

What fu*kin pattern? You're cherry-picking one event from history, ignoring all thats different about it, and saying "this must be the same". Meanwhile, you're ignoring countless other events from history which are a much closer match and which weren't precursors to any program of extermination.

Mahatma coat · 31-03-2009 1:51am

Volunteers Joined Mao, then they rounded everyone else up and marched for a while
volunteers joined Pol Pot, then they rounded everyone els up and marched for a while
Voluntreers joined Pinochet, then they rounded everyone else up and marched for a while

it starts off with volunteers, then as they get moer power it becomes mandatory, then its an us and them situation eiter you are with us or you are the enemy, its not an isolated incident in history more a recurring patern, the specifics of each situation may be varied but the end result is usualy the same

bonkey · 31-03-2009 5:19am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Volunteers Joined Mao, then they rounded everyone else up and marched for a while
volunteers joined Pol Pot, then they rounded everyone els up and marched for a while
Voluntreers joined Pinochet, then they rounded everyone else up and marched for a while

it starts off with volunteers, then as they get moer power it becomes mandatory, then its an us and them situation eiter you are with us or you are the enemy, its not an isolated incident in history more a recurring patern, the specifics of each situation may be varied but the end result is usualy the same

So you're saying that anyone out to get volunteers is really trying to rule the world?

I pointed this out before, but you didn't respond to the post...

You're arguing that "B comes from A" equates to "A always leads to B".

Conspiracy Theorists look for people to voluntarily join their various movements. Are they all out to rule the world?

Mahatma coat · 31-03-2009 6:49am

OK to answer your point, we're debating B, the private army concept

bonkey · 31-03-2009 7:39am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK to answer your point, we're debating B, the private army concept

Only a few posts ago, they were being rounded up as a precursor to widescale forced internment. You referenced to the "when they came for..." comments. You made it clear that you saw this as a pattern the same as what the Nazis in Germany got up to....concentration camps, possibly hinting at mass execution or genocide.

Now, you're saying that we're discussing private armies? We're not discussing private armies, MC. We're discussing the suggestion that offering someone aid is a well-established "pattern" that somehow leads to forced internment.

You've produced examples about how other forms of voluntary membership have, in very, very few cases, led to something mandatory....and even then, you're describing something completely different. To use your Godwin approach, its like suggesting that the Nazi concentration camps were the same as the Hitler Youth.

The world is full of voluntary organisations. Amongst those, there is no shortage of state-run organisations where membership is voluntary. There is no shortage of voluntary aid organisations. There is no shortage of state-sponsored, aid programs.

Of course, if we look at that vast number, we'll quickly see that there is a pattern. We see that voluntary organisations are almost-without-exception exactly what they appear to be. They are voluntary. We see that aid organisations are almost-without-exception exactly what they appear to be - organisations which offer aid. We see that state-run, voluntary aid programs are almost-without-exception what they appear to be.

Your pattern involves ignoring this vast majority of examples and just looking at the exceptions and arguing that just because they exist, we have reason to believe that this specific example is another such exception. The similarities you point to - they're similarities shared by the myriad of non-sinister cases that you ignore.