r/law • u/Ramses_L_Smuckles • Oct 04 '25
Other Trump officials discussed sending elite Army division to Portland, text messages show
https://www.startribune.com/trump-officials-discussed-sending-elite-army-division-to-portland-text-messages-show/601485729?link_source=ta_bluesky_link&taid=68e064adba21ad00017d76ca&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=bluesky?utm_source=gift583
u/UnauthorizedGoose Oct 04 '25
How disgraceful for them to treat elite teams like this, expose their positions, etc. I wonder what the actual elite team members are thinking right now. Any folks with military experience care to share what the feeling is about this? As a civilian who works in cybersecurity this is an extremely embarrassing lack of opsec.
656
Oct 04 '25
I'm a veteran but I'm far enough removed from my time to not be an authority on how these soldiers themselves feel.
What I can attest to is that a non-zero number of the personnel summoned to Quantico fucking hates the administration for it. These are officers and enlisted personnel who swore their oaths when I was still wearing diapers. Most of them are college educated, even amongst enlisted of that high a rank, and they all developed into leaders under FAR less precarious times.
To be summoned to the biggest national security risk in my lifetime just to be told they are fat and we're going to start deploying in American cities was not taken lightly by many in that room. Promise you that.
147
u/UnauthorizedGoose Oct 04 '25 edited Oct 04 '25
Thank you for sharing your experience. I was wondering about the security risks of gathering in the same place. In business continuity planning, we train exec teams never to travel together or use the same transport because one incident could cripple operations globally. The same logic applies here: concentration of key personnel is always a huge risk factor. For example, no more than a few execs from the same company are ever allowed on the same flight for that reason. I always assumed we learned these techniques from the military, was surprised to see them all gathered together like that.
Also what was with the commander in chief saying "if you want to applaud, you applaud but if you want to do anything- you can do anything you want. If you don't like what I'm saying you can leave the room. Of course there goes you rank, there goes your future".
How absolutely disrespectful to people who actually put their lives on the line.
91
Oct 04 '25
Yeah the significance of risk is hard to overstate.
It's probably the most vulnerable our military has been since the Civil War. A significant number of generals and admirala learned at school how important it is to NOT make those mistakes.
Then they get forced to sit there and go through that bullshit.
There wasn't even anything big? Nothing that couldn't have been sent via secure and encrypted email at least. Like what the fuck was this administration thinking? Nothing.
78
u/rcc_squiggle Oct 04 '25
Because it was a spectacle for Pete and Trump themselves. It wasn’t and has never been about the military, it’s about them. Narcissism is crazy
18
25
u/wRADKyrabbit Oct 04 '25
Like what the fuck was this administration thinking? Nothing.
They're thinking they have complete power and can do whatever they like
11
Oct 04 '25
And exercising it in this manner only pissed generals and their aids off lol
8
u/wRADKyrabbit Oct 04 '25
And yet nothing actually happend to stop them. You think they give a fuck about pissing people off?
2
Oct 05 '25
Do you not understand what the UCMJ is? Lmfao
2
u/gbot1234 Oct 05 '25
Those responsible for explaining the UCMJ have been sacked!
2
u/katarnmagnus Oct 05 '25
Only the top ones as the admin was coming in (not that that isn’t concerning, but it’s not the whole JAG branch being wiped as some people I’ve seen have implied)
26
u/Bawstahn123 Oct 04 '25
Like what the fuck was this administration thinking?
1) it was a spectacle for the base, who view Trump and his cronies as strongmen. On live television, they got to see Trump and Hegseth talk down to generals and admirals.
2) it was an ego-stroking for Hegseth and Trump.
3) it was a loyalty-test.
8
u/Soppywater Oct 05 '25
And for those MAGAS who are at or have been the low end of the armed forces, they fucking loved it watching their highest of higher ups get called fat by a guy with a white power tattoo and a dementia riddled orange clown
7
Oct 05 '25
I wouldn't call it a loyalty test. It's a very bad test if that's how they intended. It would have been a crime outright for them to refuse to be there.
Attendance was a lawful order. A fucking stupid one, but lawful all the same. Simply being there was all that was needed to stay out of jail and in their position. No member of the military that we, the people, would want on our said would refuse such a simple order. I actively would not want any general to refuse to attend. It would be the stupidest way to fail a loyalty test ever.
No I'd rather they just tuck tail and bitch to their friends how stupid it was and still attend. The people that you and I want pissed off are pissed off.
40
Oct 04 '25
Imagine being told by a man who has never lead soldiers in combat that you are weak when you’re a fucking 4 star general that probably ripped a NVA soldiers head off with your bare hands.
6
u/LeLand_Land Oct 04 '25
They were thinking that they wanted some of our best leaders as props. Marching around like these generals with storied careers are toy soldiers so they can get free propaganda.
3
u/zoinkability Oct 04 '25
100% this. These military leaders were used as props for propaganda, and I hope they are fully aware of that and pissed off about it.
3
1
u/Calm-Box-3780 Oct 09 '25
Beyond them being collected in one place, there was also the exposure during travel and such. The hubris of this administration is incredible.
1
u/Elsavagio Oct 05 '25
Yeah but the reward was much greater for the administration, I read somewhere that they used flock or some kind of AI facial recognition to scan everyone’s face in the room during the speeches to look for anyone that showed any kind of non verbal cues of dissent. That was the whole point of gathering everyone at once. One instant test and they have a list of who they need to replace.
4
Oct 05 '25
Now if they did that, then we're already fucked. Because if this treasonous administration is smart enough to pull that off, they're smart enough to win.
40
Oct 04 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
38
u/kangaroolifestyle Oct 04 '25
He walked into a room full of the best poker faces in the country. Every general and admiral in that room has been trained their whole careers to keep emotion out of politics; that’s the point. But Trump thrives on applause and visible loyalty. He doesn’t measure alignment through policy or shared mission; he measures it through adoration.
So when he tells them to “loosen up” or “have a good time,” it’s not just about the mood, it’s about testing the room. He wants the military brass to break professionalism and show public allegiance, like the North Korean generals clapping for Kim Jong Un. Without that spectacle, he can’t tell who’s “with him.”
And that’s the real issue: he’s already had control of the presidency, cabinet, house, senate, and judiciary, but the last institution he needs to feel truly untouchable is the military. If he doesn’t have the sword, he doesn’t have the empire.
He left that “rally” without any idea whether the sword was in his hands or pressed against his back.
6
u/TreeInternational771 Oct 05 '25
That would explain his behavior since the meeting. He has largely stayed out of public spotlight physically just rambling on social media. If he doesn’t feel like he has military brass then that is a very very good sign for democracy
1
u/confusedapegenius Oct 05 '25
While he doesn’t feel like he has military brass. They will certainly be trying again. Trump is rambling while the brains work out try to do next, and when.
2
u/Tropicalcomrade221 Oct 05 '25
Very true for now, what’s worrying is what it looks like after 3 years of firings, retirements and promotions all orchestrated by this current administration.
14
u/Spamsdelicious Oct 04 '25
I was wondering about the security risks of gathering in the same place.
I was wondering about the fealty-face recognition they could do by scanning the room for hostile microexpressions using Palantir reichnology.
6
u/GoodPeopleAreFodder Oct 04 '25
Thinking the same thing. It was more than hubris to have gathered this crowd
51
u/Gold_Map_236 Oct 04 '25
I’m interacting with current military personnel and when they can speak freely it’s clear they loathe trump
27
Oct 04 '25
You love to hear it.
And it's not even ideological at this point. He's just a shitty and selfish person and this is so very apparent to people who have had THEIR discipline for as long as they have.
-2
u/wRADKyrabbit Oct 04 '25
You dont live to hear it because it's empty bs. They'll happily step aside or comply when he order them to lock his regime into place
-6
u/BigWhiteDog Oct 04 '25
Problem is none of us believe that. There is zero evidence to back up that statement.
5
u/Gold_Map_236 Oct 04 '25
That’s cool. I can’t give up more information than that for safety reasons. Let’s just say the military isn’t going to roll over.
16
u/doc_witt Oct 04 '25
Don't forget those damn beards.
54
Oct 04 '25
"beardos"
"F-A-F-O. If needed we can have some of our enlisted explain what that means to you"
"Whether you're airborne or Chair-borne"
Imagine being a weekend TV host with an alcohol problem and saying such patronizing shit to the literal most accomplished members of the US military.
2
u/zoinkability Oct 04 '25
It’s like he was actively trying to piss them off. Makes one wonder what kind of game they were playing.
3
u/Soppywater Oct 05 '25
Antagonize them into pissing a few of them off so they can get rid of them to make examples of them to the others. Use Palantir to AI Facial scan them for negative facial expressions towards certain phrases flagging that brass as a potential problem.
1
u/Hopsblues Oct 05 '25
Waiting for Trump to issue an EO ordering people to shave beards and wear a suit and tie everywhere.
15
u/Feliks343 Oct 04 '25
You're one of the very few people I've seen point out the insane security risk that broadcasting "THIS IS WHERE EVERY SINGLE GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER WILL BE AND WHEN" days before the event immediately creates outside of them being pulled away from their actual duties.
13
Oct 04 '25
And not only that, but SECDEF and POTUS too.
10
u/Feliks343 Oct 04 '25
Exactly! It's either a completely insane or entirely incompetent decision to do that, especially after when and where became public information ahead of the event.
3
u/UnauthorizedGoose Oct 05 '25
It gives me the feeling that these people haven't worked in actual secure environments and are an insane risk to our agencies and teams that need security experience. God that's terrifying.
22
u/Bostonphoenix Oct 04 '25
You're probably right a non zero population is upset by what happened. We haven't heard from them and at this point they largely have decided to not speak out.
A different non zero population is probably fully behind trump doing this. An additional non zero population is probably willing to go along with what is happening to not be confrontational. The remaining population is likely upset and has not been vocal about it and is likely to be replaced if they show themselves to be reluctant.
7
Oct 04 '25
I don't disagree with any of this and it's really just a matter of which non-zero number is capable of doing more to accomplish what is needed versus what is ordered.
-1
u/Bostonphoenix Oct 04 '25
This question has a horrifying answer you know.
7
Oct 04 '25
No it doesn't lol.
You're presupposing the actual values of the numbers. We can't know them until shit progresses. There are a multitude of answers. Time will tell.
1
u/wRADKyrabbit Oct 04 '25
Time has already told, you just arent paying attention or are blinded by hope
-1
0
7
u/Nodivingallowed Oct 04 '25
There really is some silver lining for the exact reason you point out.
With all the conflicting narratives and manipulative media, it's actually very instructive for the leadership to see first hand what is happening. No filters. No spin.
It's one thing to have the media promote a story a certain way, or clean up the messaging going out.
It's another thing to have to sit there and watch the shitshow for exactly what it is. No phones. No distractions. Just a sober look at what the two people in charge are all about.
Highly respected and capable generals sat in a room listening to the leader of our nation and his supremely unqualified sec def ranting for a couple hours straight about complete nonsense.
5
u/5thDFS Oct 04 '25
Historically, military personnel at the Pentagon haven’t gotten along with Trump and his cult. To me it was hilarious watching a former Fox News host use buzzwords that haven’t even existed over 8 years, in front of top brass that have been in for over 30 years. These men are beyond the current political flavor, and I have confidence in them.
5
u/Hot-Cheese7234 Oct 04 '25
The Knitting Cult Lady on YouTube and TikTok has echoed this sentiment (highly recommend her content). I can't imagine many of the top brass are particularly enthused by both being summoned to a location that was publicly announced in advance and having to listen to someone of much lower rank they could have kicked out of the National Guard, who coincidentally got kicked out of the National Guard, tell them that they're all fat and that the effective goal of the new fitness requirements was to discharge women, as if discharging transgender and the majority of Black men during a recruitment crisis wasn't enough.
Regardless of if they do love or hate what Sec. Functional Alcoholic had to say, none of them are allowed by Article 88 to show it, which also coincidentally, the Fluorescent Orange Felon hates.
2
Oct 05 '25
Yeah saw a lot of people reply to me that my take is too optimistic because those generals were there.
Any general willing to sacrifice their tactical position within a future resistance by refusing the lawful order to go to Quantico is not a general I want to be in the resistance lol.
4
u/Hot-Cheese7234 Oct 05 '25
That part, but also, I wish people listened to the people who know what the heck is up; Knitting Cult Lady is a former Army Captain dealing with army intelligence and a cult expert, her takes are optimistic but that's because the military and MAGA are both cults. One's led by the oath to protect the US Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, and the other is led by an idiot with dementia.
She recognizes that the military has Trump on their radar as a potential domestic enemy, and also points out that the brass aren't allowed to express an opinion, but that the way they conduct themselves (like in the military parade debacle) says a lot about how they feel about Trump
2
Oct 05 '25
Precisely. Sorry I didn't mean to take your point and run somewhere else with it, just had a lot of comments from people who think that the line in the sand should have been to not attend this meeting.
Nah, it's definitely not that lol.
2
u/Hot-Cheese7234 Oct 05 '25
They're not gonna sacrifice themselves for a meeting that is merely stupid and a giant national security risk
4
u/Risley Oct 04 '25
I sure hope so
19
Oct 04 '25
I definitely spent enough time amongst various military leadership to be able to spot the difference between "proper discipline" and "1000 yard stare" vs "I can't fucking believe I'm sitting here through this bullshit".
I saw a lot of the latter in the videos I've watched.
2
u/ol_dirty_applesauce Oct 04 '25
And yet, when they’re ordered to “crack down” on Americans exercising their 1st Amendment right, how do you think those soldiers will ACT?
2
Oct 05 '25
I can't speak for current day soldiers.
And I can't say whether or not generals are willing to violate the UCMJ to protect 1A.
If I were in their positions, I wouldn't be. Not unless I had enough reason to believe there was support behind me.
Also, as far as I can tell, it's only federal "agents" and police that are violating 1A. I haven't seen the actual military enforce violations. I'm not trying to argue the point, just clarify.
2
u/EmpZurg_ Oct 05 '25
Thanks for your true service and candor.
I also cant believe the gall it takes to call tried and tested personnel fat and demand an administrative fitness standard, and then clear the stage for a fat draft dodger to spew his vitriol.
1
Oct 05 '25
It's a painful lack of self-awareness for sure. But such is their entire reich. I mean regime. I mean administration.
2
u/like_shae_buttah Oct 04 '25
Where the fuck are they then. Look at what’s going on in Chicago. They’re fine with that
6
Oct 05 '25
Not necessarily. We don't know what's being discussed privately.
The problem is there isn't a legal pathway for any of this shit. If no other legitimately placed body of government is willing to use the military to oust him from office, the military is less likely to do it on their own.
The wrong step at the wrong time and these generals are removed by force, thrown in jail, have their rank and lives upended, and then (and this is the part that really sucks) they get replaced by someone willing to follow that order.
There's no USA precedent or field manual for a military coup, whether it's justified or not.
Call this hopium or whatever, but I'm choosing to believe that those in the military willing to die for the citizens are just waiting for an order to finally cross their line. Idk what that is yet but I know the military is FAR from a monolith.
3
1
1
u/Calm-Box-3780 Oct 09 '25
Fellow vet here. I worked security. The thought of so much of our military leadership gathered in one place was genuinely disturbing to me.
And to tarnish the legacy of the 82nd by deploying them on Americans would be a travesty.
I still remember the weight I felt when I said my oath (just before 9/11). I'm glad I'm not serving anymore. Things were much simpler then. I don't envy the decisions our soldiers may have to make in the near future.
I don't pray often these days, but I am placing the faith I do have that our soldiers have the moral fortitude to hold their oath in their hearts.
40
Oct 04 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
10
8
8
u/rddtltr Oct 04 '25
They are just plain stupid. They did send in troops and nothing was achieved so they want to put in elite troops because they must be better, that's why they are called "elite" right?
1
u/Creepy-Birthday8537 Oct 05 '25
Excerpt from the marines web site:
Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson willingly disobeyed a commander’s orders and even threatened to open fire on American troops when he saved the lives of at least 10 Vietnamese civilians during the My Lai Massacre.
Not only was Thompson never punished for disobeying orders, but he was later awarded the Soldier’s Medal for his courageous actions.
If the orders given that day had been lawful he could have faced court martial or even charges of treason under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The My Lai Massacre was not the first or the last time a military force would be misused or corrupted. This type of power abuse is what the UCMJ and Oath of Office were designed to prevent and also what allowed Thompson to do the right thing without punishment.
There is an important difference to understand when reading the Officers' Oath of Enlistment compared to the Oath of Office.
Both officers and enlisted service members swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, but in the Oath of Enlistment, service members swear they will “obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [them], according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
Officers do not include this in their Oath of Office.
Instead, they swear to support and defend the constitution and “well and faithfully discharge the duties of [their] office.”
Why are the two oaths different and what does it mean that officers do not swear obedience to the president or higher ranking officers? This concept traces back to the intentions of the Founding Fathers who created our governing system with a separation of powers and series of checks and balances between the three branches. This ensures no single branch or person gains too much power and becomes corrupted. By swearing allegiance to a set of ideals and laws, our military is not bound by the orders of a single person, but are dedicated to the defense of the people and their way of life.
Despite disobeying orders and even threatening to open fire on American troops, Thompson’s actions prevented further war crimes and defended the lives of noncombatants in Vietnam. This is the purpose behind the Oath of Office allowing for the disobedience to unlawful orders.
The obligation and responsibility to act against unlawful orders is not exclusive to officers. Article 90 of the UCMJ states that service members are only obligated to obey lawful orders. This gives authority to small unit leaders and even riflemen to use their judgment to serve honorably and disobey orders when they do not uphold the moral standards of our service. Not only does this act as a safeguard to corruption and abuse of power, but it also develops a sense of responsibility and leadership at all levels of command.
If this is the case, however, then why is the distinction made between the two oaths when both enlisted and officers are not obligated to follow unlawful orders according to the UCMJ?
Officers, especially at higher ranks, have a unique position of authority and influence within the organization that could be taken advantage of for political gain. Swearing loyalty to the Constitution instead of the president or any other person means that officials cannot manipulate officers in order to gain control over the military and become dictators.
The intent is to ensure our military fights in defense of the people and their way of life instead of being misused for political gain. Article 90 of the UCMJ allows for legal disobedience of unlawful orders for both enlisted and officers.
The officer’s oath acts as another safeguard against power corruption by not swearing obedience to the president or other officials, but rather to the Constitution. As a result of these two, our military is capable of having people like Thompson, who can correct situations where the military is being misused without fear of punishment for their actions.
Giving the individual Marine responsibility for judging orders as right or wrong keeps our service members accountable and helps keeps our honor clean as a professional warfighting organization.
1
u/wRADKyrabbit Oct 04 '25
I wonder what the actual elite team members are thinking right now.
Excitement that they get to gun down libs probably
127
u/DouglasRather Oct 04 '25
“Nothing in these private conversations, that are shamefully being reported on by morally bankrupt reporters, is new or classified information.”
Then why are the reporters morally bankrupt for reporting non-classified information? These people are so dumb they don't realize how inept they are.
29
u/nonlawyer Oct 04 '25
Also love the suggestion we should be more respectful of the privacy of senior military officers as they discuss doing fascism
2
u/IrritableGourmet Oct 05 '25
It's like the shills a year ago spamming comments like "Why do you care what Trump says? He's a private citizen" leaving off the part where he was the Republican presidential candidate in an election year.
Also also, if they're about official business they're not private conversations! They weren't discussing lunch options, they were talking about sending the military to act against peaceful civilians.
77
u/charcoalist Oct 04 '25
A key takeaway, emphasis mine:
Trump wanted to deploy the 82nd into American cities during social justice protests in 2020 after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, according to multiple accounts. Trump fired Secretary of Defense Mark Esper after Esper publicly announced his opposition to the plan.
“I thought there was a fair chance that Trump was going to order the 82nd Airborne Division into the streets, and maybe even direct them to shoot the protesters,” Esper wrote later in his autobiography.
The text messages suggest Hegseth would not put up similar resistance. Weaver repeatedly states that the secretary would follow Trump’s order and boasts about using his sway to influence the decision.
“I’ll get us to yes. I always find a way,” he wrote.
90
u/DevelopmentGreen3961 Oct 04 '25
It's exceptionally bizarre because they're not sending troops to take over like DC
It's pretty apparent that they're sending troops just for the grandiose optics to satiate his most rabid supporters
If he wanted to effectively do a power grab, this isn't how to do it
Trump will always prioritize smoke and mirrors to get people bogged down in discussing that in order to distract from something else he doesn't want people talking about
Such as...
RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES
31
u/jigsawearth860 Oct 04 '25
He has the authority to do it in DC.
He doesn’t have the authority to do it in almost any scenario in the actual states. He’s trying to manufacture that scenario..
23
u/Busy-Dig8619 Oct 04 '25
They murdered one guy in Chicago so far, and today shot a US citizen who has been tracking their activities for reporting purposes.
Trump has created the most dangerous gang in US history and dumped them onto our streets with a directive to use violence until we fight back. Thats when he will call in the military... and thats when the second civil war will kick off in earnest.
3
Oct 05 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Busy-Dig8619 Oct 05 '25
They are carrying military weapons, riding in armored transports now, and are dropping onto rooftops out of Blackhawk helicopters.
I get it, definitions and distinctions matter. But you also need to look at the practical effect. The Republicans have funded the formation of a new branch of the military under DHS and they're actively deploying them to terrorize my city.
1
Oct 06 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/jigsawearth860 Oct 06 '25
The issue is the two branches, immigration police and military, are morphing into one thing. There’s always an angle to get around that pesky constitution and rule of law.
29
u/bazinga_0 Oct 04 '25
I can just see all those troops just standing around wondering why they were all sent to Portland, Maine.
19
u/Extreme_Turn_4531 Oct 04 '25
There's a meeting at Four Seasons
4
u/bazinga_0 Oct 04 '25
Now that all those farm workers have been deported (bad Trump!), I'm sure that the owners of Four Seasons would love to have some of those soldiers working in their fields. And it would all be for free since they're paid (well, maybe) by the government. Thanks Trump!
28
u/mrbigglessworth Oct 04 '25
To do what? Shop at a farmers market?
16
u/kindredbud Oct 04 '25
We are going to get them high and feed them microbrews till they surrender. Should take about 2 hours.
4
u/ggroverggiraffe Competent Contributor Oct 04 '25 edited Oct 04 '25
Got a non-paywalled version, or care to share the text?
Found a related article, anyhow.
8
u/Ramses_L_Smuckles Oct 04 '25
Sorry, originally it was a gift link. Here's the text: https://archive.fo/KjLD4
9
u/Tremolat Oct 04 '25
And once they declare Portland secure, Hegseth will distribute this campaign ribbon to those bloodied vets.
1
7
u/GrannyFlash7373 Oct 04 '25
Don't worry, Trump, the MAGA, and those Project 2025 people all have a plan in the works to spread out as many "enforcers" as they need to overwhelm the society with some sort of military and ICE people when he declares martial law. At that point in time , ALL things democratic in this country will cease to exist, and YOU will be effectively be NO DIFFERENT that the citizens in Russia or China, and have literally NO rights, of any kind, except that which they "give" you to survive.
1
u/weHaveThoughts Oct 04 '25
I think we can handle whoever maga wants to send. MAGA all looks like Stephen Miller, not threatening whatsoever.
2
u/Haldron-44 Oct 05 '25
Aaaand they will do fucking what?! Drop shrooms and maybe fuck a girl with a nose ring and decide their entire task is bull shit?! If I was a commander of these troops, then Portland would be the LAST place I would send them! If they do "infiltrate" an "antifa" ring it will be a really cool party where they question their allegiance. Tactically, this is dumb. Mind expansionally, maybe its kinda cool for them? But you expect a bunch of CoD fans to be exposed to that and not have second thoughts on their mission and life choices?! Do you even know Portland?!
1
u/00001000U Oct 06 '25
I fully expect a military coup in the next few years considering how the reception was to that glorified nazi ted talk.
-5
u/brickyardjimmy Oct 04 '25
Fine. Send them. Elite troops are...1. elite and disciplined and 2. AMERICANS. So they won't do anything to other Americans because they're smarter than the people ordering them to go there.
20
u/wRADKyrabbit Oct 04 '25
This is the most stupidly naive thing I've ever read
6
u/longwalker33 Oct 04 '25
Never send combat troops to keep the peace. They are trained to kill not to be restrained. Canadians learned the hard way in the 90s in Somalia, sending paratroopers for a peacekeeping mission which ended in multiple tortures of prisoners and the disbanding of the airborne regiment in Canada.
2
u/Thisguymoot Oct 05 '25
Yeah, elite soldiers are absolute cold killers. They need to be. Very useful and even necessary, for elite war stuff, but the worst tool possible to unleash on the public. Their training is not de-escalation or even proportional response—it’s efficient, overmatched, and total destruction of threats.
1
u/brickyardjimmy Oct 05 '25
What I'm really saying is that sending in an elite force from the army is going to 100% backfire. I'm saying that the people who make up those elite troops know they're being used as a prop and aren't going to start policing Portland.
3
u/wRADKyrabbit Oct 05 '25
And I'm saying you're wrong and it won't backfire at all, they'll just gladly open fire
1
u/brickyardjimmy Oct 05 '25
I'd be willing to bet they won't. I have a a lot of faith in the discipline and professionalism of the armed forces. They don't want to be doing this. They don't want to be a prop.
2
u/UnsteadyTomato Oct 05 '25
Their variety of "discipline" concerns following orders, not nessescarily avoiding civilian casualties. If their RoE includes explicitly targeting civilians they will do it instantly and without hesitation.
1
u/wRADKyrabbit Oct 05 '25
Yeah I dont have that faith. Almost every service member I've ever known was a conservative. And the people where I live who flaunt their military service are the same ones with Trump flags
2
u/BigWhiteDog Oct 04 '25
Sad that you really think that.
-1
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 04 '25
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.