I don't expect much in the way of outright head-to-head resistance ever if I'm honest. And maybe, sort of as you say, that's the method of last resort anyway. I would not be at all surprised to start seeing sabotage of federally-managed infrastructure and guerilla tactics. I mean...it has certainly worked for "our enemies" in the last few conflicts with the US mil.
What is this? Fifth Generation War now? Sixth? What is the modern equivalent of the Colonists refusing to march row-and-column into battle and instead hide behind trees and pot shot? Whatever that looks like for the current generation...
I don't expect much in the way of outright head-to-head resistance ever if I'm honest. And maybe, sort of as you say, that's the method of last resort anyway.
You summarize better than I do. In short, the groups that are undetected, organized, and experienced, see conflict as the last resort, thats my conclusion anyway. I think there may be sizeable contingents out there somewhere, that are capable of all the occupation's useful idiots in the fbi are afraid of, but I don't think they're active. I think they're stockpiling, training, creating safehouses, building their logistics, same as any competent resistance network would ahead of a fight. But obviously they're not fighting, otherwise we'd see a lot more damage. That doesn't rule out that we haven't already seen action in the news, just misinterpreted it.
For example, a cursory read of the environment says neither the russians nor the chinese are going to directly aid resistance forces. Too much risk. Like others have said, they'd mainly focus on providing intelligence and coordination. And I think that is an accurate assessment of their mode of operation right now, put it in the 80-90% confidence interval.
Based on that we can say for example that the texas plant explosions and derailments for example, if not the state committing attacks, then it was definitely some form of radicals.
That of course doesn't rule out accident, but from everything I saw, I doubt it.
My assessment is that
we are already in a low grade civil conflict
there has already been sabotage by some groups, both aligned on the left, and broader larger attacks committed by the right
there is a sizeable non-"lone wolf" contingent of militia-like groups the federal occupation is completely and entirely unaware of. They would be foolish to operate from any other premise.
I can't think of any instances I would suspect of being "right wing" sabotage but I'd like to hear what you think. I can definitely think of some from the Left. For instance, I'm 100% that train derailments and forest fires have been initiated by the Left. I have solid information on that actually. I have less solid information that the Left has also been attacking food supply chain. Particularly Ag/meat operations.
Re #1, use your favorite non-Big Tech search engine and search for someone mentioning "low-intensity civil war/conflict". You might find it interesting and I would also suggest you'll then be on the trail of #3 but still several hops away.
I'm 100% that train derailments and forest fires have been initiated by the Left.
Yes these are in the lefts wheelhouse of tactics.
When I write 'right wing' I don't mean civilian. The civilian right is far too passive at this stage to engage in any military-style sabotage, as the left has done. I'm refering instead to veterans. To understand why I attribute things like oil finery and chemical plant explosions as potential right wing attacks its necessary to understand the lense I'm looking at this from
if I, a civilian look at this as a low-grade conflict, then there is some subset percentage of veterans, x, who do also
there is some percentage of that subset, who are capable and willing to take action.
These are men trained to act instead of wait.
Just because I'm a reactive individual does not mean they are, so I can't rely on what I would do in their shoes, but have to try and look at it from someone elses perspective, a demographic of people that are trained to be far more pro-active.
Yes, there are accidents, and then there are "accidents". So when I see an event thats suspect, (for some flavor of "suspicious"), I have to ask: was a state actor, or civilian, or military element involved?
Once you eliminate obvious state actors, you ask for each side, given the scale, target nature, and scope, does this fit a particular side? You eliminate the other side as a potential suspect, and that leaves you with only a couple explainations.
I don't immediately ask if its an accident, because accidents are often apparent after a while. But an event happens, with little official explanation, or too much, and not enough questions are asked, or the wrong ones are asked, or its too 'neat' of an investigation, as was the case with the las vegas massacre, then I take it out of the accident category. This doesn't mean something isn't an accident (and especially in attacks of that nature, its obviously not an accident, but thats besides what I'm getting at). Its just that you have to ask, would it be useful in a broader take to assume something wasn't an accident or act of god as it were? And then I go from there.
Having 'eliminated' (or all but eliminated, for all purposes) accidents and leftwing attacks, we have to ask, was something possibly a right wing attack or foreign operation?
I could be wrong, but except for a select few nations, there is very little terrorism they commit against one-another. For starters, attacks at sea are cheaper, e.x. port attacks, and cyber attacks, so why bother inside a nations borders? Second, getting people inside to do that for you is really more of a war time action you take when hostilities are already out in the open. Nations despite their best posturing, mostly try to avoid open conflict, and the risks thereof. For example, north korea, besides being a buffer state, works for the u.s. to justify DoD expenditures into private tech to repel missiles (as well as justifying u.s. navy investments). Thats the purpose of north korea. I have no doubt some of the Kim family have investment accounts somewhere fat with raytheon stock options. So, for example, a lot of the common posturing we see from common "public enemies" has an entirely different purpose than what the public thinks. So when something happens, its important to resist jumping to conclusions about the typical boogiemen.
"low-intensity civil war/conflict".
I'll look into what you're talking about. I suspect though, if I could find them, the occupations spies could find them. And therefore I doubt very much the groups that I am referring to, lets call them "ghost militias", are the same you are referring to. For hypothetical, lets say a national guardsmen, whos job was "combat engineer", comes home from the war. Pays attention to everything that is happening in america. Concludes things are going south. Lets say this hypothetical guardsmen is more like a sniper. Hes familiar with staying off the radar. He has op security on lock, 100%. He does not comment on the internet. He does not comment in ear shot of phones. He makes you take your phone out, battery and all. He posts about food and holidays on facebook. For all intents and purposes you have never witnessed him say anything radical in ear shot of any electronic device, or in ear shot of loudmouths.
This man carefully selects others, strictly from his circle of acquaintances, mostly veterans, and if they aren't familiar with operational security, he teaches them.
There is no way, short of a violation of trust, to detect a group like that, assuming it makes no basic mistakes.
Our hypothetical 'ghosts' have access to weapons and other gear, made, smuggled, or otherwise legally acquired.
I have zero doubt these men are out there. Completely normal veterans. Completely off the radar in terms of phone, social media, or even civilian acquaintances awareness of their views.
There is zero reason to believe, given any group of men, were sufficiently smart, aware of the spying, aware of the suppression tactics, couldn't head these technologies and common tactics off with low-fi methods well ahead of ever coming into national security awareness.
And that some subset of these men and groups, now seeing the current state of things, developed not merely over the last four-eight years, but even just the last two years--but that I seriously doubt some subset of these men have not already acted in some capacity.
These are only reasonably guesses, based on reasonable assumptions about the numbers of people, the mindsets, and the capabilities of the various demographics involved.
If they've avoided detection of the state, I doubt you or I could find them without the state also finding them. These are the sort of men who if they don't want to be found, won't be. And they are definitely out there in America and western nations.
(post is archived)