You guys are making some good points in the way of what you would bring and everything but you are overlooking that the next American revolution will be mainly fought in the cities.So I have a few ideas and for the goverment agent that agent that is reading this right now. FUCK OFF ITS INEVITABLE YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE WHEN IT HAPPENS!!!

1. Have the stuff to make war on hand, obtain them legally and don't do anything with them so they can't prove anything. Like
nails. A cheap and un-conspicious object (unless your a dumbass and order like 10,000 of them from one store) however when soldered or blow torched together the can make an effective anti-personal weapon even if they don't work they still make them move more cautiossly like how the threat of gas made our dudes in Iraq move way slower and these things will lower-morale and make the soldiers angry which can lead to them venting that anger on the local populace, the VC did it in Vietnam and that was succesful for them. Thats all I am going to right because I have to get back my paper on the links of the Industrial Revolution to modern day life its easy but still sucks. Also study up on hstory particuly that dude in Hati that led that slave revolt against tat short dude who's last name sounds like boner. I got more coming and would appreciate comments especially on how to fool the modern electronics of the goverment.
I know it can be done like in Vietnam we used this radar thing that detects enemy troop locations by looking for this ingredient in piss, they got buckets and put it near stuff that they wanted destroyed liek one our fuckin listening posts. Adios

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum.

there was already a post for this, you were either high or just stupid.

I now realize why I don't like you.

Yes there was a post however intrest was lost and no one go's there anymore except to talk abou the drugs the ancient ones used. I was trying to start new intrest and get more people to think about this. Thats ok if u dont like me for I wont pretend that I have not imagined your face on my dart board. So screw you!

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

The tools to make war: Nails and Bucket O' Piss, by Slit yo Throat Bitch69. I'm too tired for this shit right now. I have mixed feelings about deleting it though, it's kinda funny. But it's not always bad to revive interest by making a new post. I'll just see where this goes.

It's not unusual to purchase bulk nails.
Piss tracking radar? That's a new one to me can anyone extrapolate?

back pack mounted sniffer device that picks up specific amounts of ammonia in urine.closest thing i have heard of.didn't you know that contractors have to have mass quantity nail permits

Yea I was talking about that amonia sniffer but i heard about it being in f-4's in Vietnam. It makes sence that contractors have to have large amounts of anils however they woul get them from a whole saler not a local hardware store. The dude at the counter may not know what your doing but he may ask and if you can't improv a story right there. Oh I remembered a tip in buying materials although it seems obvious you would not believe how many times it busted the guys who got busted(I do some volunteer work helping my aunt who is on her way to become a phycat*fuck it) anyway DON"T USE A FKIG CREDIT CARD OR CHECK k I will post other stuff frequently and I hope Real does not delete this because I think its an interesting subject and would like to hear others ideas. Cya

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

Contractors needing mass quantity nail permits? If that's not a joke, then it's not a national law. I've never had to show any kind of permit when purchasing nails for a contractor I worked for, even of a 500lb purchase, at any place we ever bought nails from. I've never even heard of it from the contract owneer. They have to have a vendor license because often they resale to sub contractors.

K but still buy in small quantities as to not raise supicicion. How can we get the common person motivated to be our pawns in this struggle (you must remember that many have a I.Q. no higher than that of their shoes) oh and real just so you know I have scratched my plans for a G-46 and decided to go with a M-1 or a B.A.R. (I got to shoot both recently and they both kicked ass however i think the B.A.R. has to small of a magazine)

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

If you're calling the so-called common people "pawns", you're already on the track to defeat.

I should of used a better word just because they are pawns does not mean they are not important. What I meant was that they are as one would say the "slums" of society whih mostly includes members of the third-class. We don't really have to worry about 1st class because they would most likely support the goverment (unless there was a second big deppresion) I apologize for any confusion. I was thinking though of two more major sites to raid which would probably take minimal resources and yield the most gain the glass recycling bens and gas stations combine that with some cloth and what do you have? A shit load of molotoves. Alright that was random and I have to go. cya

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

What like you're elite or something slit yo?
That's a good one.

Spiffy is right and your choice for a weapon to go to war with sucks, you wanna hump that heavy beast around all day? The BAR is meant for a squad auto role, which typically takes two people to handle. One to fire and one for support. M1 is ok but they are heavy and bulky.

What do you think a "pawn" will get out of a rebellion? They will want to know and are not as dumb as you think.

Why raid? It attracts attention and you'll get found out. I bet 2-3people could gather more gas by siphoning that 100 could from raiding a gas station and not get noticed. Send 2-3 more to dig through trash or to a landfill, or even parking lot recycling bins. Or hell you could probably get bottles from a glass recycling company by asking, in that case send on person. But I don't see why one would need thousands of molotov cocktails.

I mean the raid would come after the start of the war and then there would be the need for the molotoves. The B.A.R. is a heavy weapon and I should of thought of that I was just commenting on the impressive fire-power that I experienced. Considering I am smaller than the average grown-up I should actually be thinking about a carbine any suggestions?

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

destroy weapons.

destroy weapons and they will be defensless.

there are no more wars won by smart military leaders, there won by weapons and following procedures.

these procedures need weapons to work.


either destroy the militaries weapons or learn how to deflect/block/avoid them.

A army runs on it's stomache

maybe but

that was back when militaries were won by clever thinking and military plans.

now a military runs on its weapons.

get rid of the weapons, and there will be nothing stopping you.

then I say get rid of the weapons that includes tanks and war planes.



[This message has been edited by raverz_choice (edited 03-13-2001).]

Can't any of you spell or use the correct word at the proper time?

------------------
Duct Tape, it binds the world together.

Thasts one of the rules of guerialla warfare. Destroy the things that make him a superior fighting force. Thsi may include weapons, supply, the support of the people, manpower, technology and of course superior leaders. No you see we are using a special code which enables us to not be monitored by the N.S.A. The thing that enables them to copy info. which includes certain words like allah or bomb. Nah I am jus a crappy speller. However there truly is one of those things.Yea you heard you fuck just remember we have the right to gather freely even to discuss the ending of the goverment. This is not private so we have the GODDAMN RIGHT YOU DAMN DIRTY APES. WOW medication time.

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

What about a M-79 you no the ones that are not mounted on the bottom of a M-16. My dad 'humped' the panama canal with one and said it was a great weapon (though I don't think he got to use it.) Oh or what about a grease-gun; small, rugged, cheap, light and full auto. My kinda weapon however I don't really need full auto. but its nice to have.

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

the Automat Kalashnikova, AK-47, Is probably the best weapon if you want cheap and durrable.

slit_yo:

The M-79 it is fasioned somewhat like a breach loading shotgun (If you have ever watched T2 thats what Arnold has.) The M-203 grenade launcher is what you see under the M-16's. Just thought i would point that out to avoid confusion down the road. To see a pic of a m-203(or buy one) follow this link. http://www.impactguns.com/store/product398.html

k

Thanks for the info. I always thought it looked like a flare gun which is how I was reminded of it. The Ak bullet has good stopping power ok range cheap and abundant however the grease gun can be made in your backyard (wait so can an Ak) as long as you are talented enough. You got any ideas for really good urban booby-traps?

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

K still no comments I was thinking about the M-1 garand carbine. You know the ones the airborne and rangers carried during WW 2?
And I need good ideas for urban booby traps.

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

firing the m-79 is like firing three 12 guage shotguns at the same time with 3oz. slugs the grease gun has to be the biggest piece of shit i have ever fired(used to use them for trench clearing)it has zero accuracy and the intergrity of the weapon can easily be compromised when stepped on because they are fashioned out of pot iron.It realy is more important to be profeicint with the weapon you have than it is to have a realy great rifle.and size isn,t that big of a determining factor for exmple audie murphy carried a full size m-1.

I know size is not every thing I just want a carbine because I am a small adult of a big child whichever you prefer. I heard the M-1 has the same accuracy as its full size partner however is does not carry the range. I was also wondering if there is some sort of carbine vesion of the AK because it can use the same round as the N.A.T.O. standard along with all the ohter advantages of an AK.

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

Slit_yo,

AK models 101 and 102 are chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO. I don't really see the point of having a Russian counterpart version of our M-16's when you are fighting a resistance war in the US to begin with, unless you are crazy about its gas operating system in which case I could argue that our system is just as good. I have both AK-47's and AR-15's(same as m-16..no auto sear) so I can tell you first hand that either rifle is just as good of a choice for combat. I believe why terrorists use AK-47's is because of the fact that they use the heavier 7.62x39mm bullet(more than twice as heavy as NATO 5.56x45mm) and are easier to obtain. If you take away the ballistics and penetration you are basically left with a M-16 with a different gas blowback system. I wouldn't consider that to much of an advantage to warrant buying an AK-101.
The proof is in the pudding:
BALLISTIC GELATIN COMPARISON: 5.56 vs. 7.62
Permanent wound channel depth: 13.2" - 16.2"
Permanent wound channel diameter: 0.4" - 0.6"
Maximum temporary stretch diameter:2.9"- 2.7"
Number of significant fragments: 1 - 4
Muzzle energy in foot-pounds: 1,280 - 1,445
--------
Which weapon system is a better choice? It is all a matter of opinion and what you feel most comfortable with.

On another note... you said "I am a small adult of[or] a big child whichever you prefer." I think I recall you being 14 so I would recommend a AR-15 with a 16" barrel and a telescoping stock...this cuts the weight down and the recoil of a 5.56 round is quite manageable even for a 14 year old. Now looking at a AK-47 with a folding synthetic stock and grips....the weight would still be higher. Not to mention there would probably be recoil/accuracy problems due to the fact that it doesn't have wooden stock/grips to dampen the recoil. Also it is safe to assume a 14 year old lugging around a heaver gun with heavier rounds along with his rucksack and other battle will be tired and less battle effective than if he had a lightweight and compact weapons system. If im wrong flame away, but, I believe I made a point somewhere in this obsessive ranting.

The m16 needs to be taken care of, you can run over an AK with a tank, in the mud, Pick it up and keep on firing it.

Well that's the thing Alan, if you take care of your guns in the first place they will function reliably...I shouldn't have to throw my AK-47 under a tank. Nor should I have to fill it full of sand to see if it still fires. If you treat your rifle like it is your life rather than a tool...then you are bound to take care of it more so than someone that comes back after a patrol and tosses his gun in the corner after burning 400 rounds thru and then waits 2 or 3 days to clean the thing. Even in battlefield conditions you still have the oportunity to clean your rifle...honestly it doesnt take that much to run a patch or two thru and apply some CLP. If you choose abuse your rifles then you should expect nothing but failure from them.

Not having a finicky gun in combat is always an advantage.

The advantage of having a having an AK which can fire the N.A.T.O. standard is that I can use the ammo I find. Yea I will probably go with the AR-15. It always helps to have a tough and rugged gun. Chances are you will never have to throw it down and shit but I would have that capability and not need it than having it jamming up after I throw myself into some bricks and fuck up my weapon. Thanx I am still looking for good ideas for urban combat such as exploding bricks or something like that.

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

Well the main advantage of an AK I see besides the stopping power of the standard round is that you can ABUSE THE SHIT OUTA IT!!! Sure mabye you dont want to but if necessary you can hide the thing in the middle of a rice patty for a few weeks pick it up kick the bolt open and start firing.

Wher is the nearest rice patty? I am still going to use the modified AR-15 talked about on the first page. Why is it that knowone has responded to my question on urban booby-traps, this is like the third time that I have posted the question? Anyone have any ideas?

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

"AK47 when you have to kill absolutely every motherfucker in the room" Quote from a realy good movie I saw once.....

I agree with ya slit yo; FTG and all the nieve mothers who bought into their bullshit...this ain't no free country it's a incognito communistic community......but they can't fuck with me.......cuz I ain't buying their shit; and when it does hit the fan.......well all I gotta say is.. "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees!"

------------------
your personal opinion is the one thing big brother cannot rob anyone of...Enjoy Being!!

Would someone enlighten me on the term Grease Gun? I use one for lubricating machinery but it sounds like you guys are talking about a weapon of some sort.

NGNeer,

The M3A1 Grease gun is a compact, lightweight, close-combat submachine gun that resembles a grease gun used for oiling machine parts. Comparable in performance and price to the Sten gun that the brits used.
see a pic here: http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/images/m3sub.jpg

Operation: Full Auto, blowback
Caliber: .45 ACP, 230gr. bullet, 5gr. charge
Muzzle velocity: 920 fps
Capacity: detachable 30 round box magazine
Weight: 8 lbs.
Overall length: 2ft 5.8in, stock extended
1ft 10.8in, stock retracted
Rate of fire: 350-450 rpm
Effective range: 55 yds.

Thanks PheonixFire!

That gun looks GOOD. IMHO every Combat Engineer should have one of those.

My dad was using one when he was in Panama. It truly is a piece of shit however so are many of todays sub-machine guns. This is strange because the sten gun is a relitively good weapon compared to the grease gun. However the bset reason to have one is the fact that you can make them from stuff lying around the house on a saturday where you have nothing to do. WHAT ARE SOME GOOD URBAN BOOBY-TRAPS WHY THE FUCK WILL YOU NOT ANSWER DIE DIE DIE. Sorry I am kinda pissed because no one has answered that question and I have asked it like 16 times on diffrent posts.

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

slit yo


have you considered the m-14 that is the full auto version of the m-1 . its a little old and inferrior to the m-16 or ak variants but since since it shoots 3006 ,the ammo is very easy to obtain in an urban enviorment

The M-14 is full auto, but it kicks up so much that only the first three shots are going to go near where you want them to. Although It would be pretty kick ass if you put a good compensator on it. Pheonix fire, Having a gun that you dont have to treat well is an advantage because you dont have to worry about diving on the ground with it of having to oil it, combat is a nasty crucible of murpheys law.

alan your right about the kick of the m-14 which was a big problem for our millitary but the only reason i suggested it was the fact that it is slightly superior to the m-1 and that the ammo is easy to get.(available in k-mart sporting goods stores and virtually every gun shop in the U.S.)

Either way you look at it Alan, the M-16 is still one of the best rifles in existence. The only reason it has a bad reputation today is because in 'Nam they switched from stick powder to military ball powder for extra range...a few months later the rifles were jamming like hell and after they chrome lined the barrels that problem ceased to exist for the most part. I've fired hundreds of rounds thru my AR-15 and have had no problems (except for thoughs damn plastic Israeli mags...feed problems) so I would defiantly take it to combat as I trust it with my life. Would I rather take my scoped AK-47? Well lets just say I would have it accessible.

The M-14 is not the full auto version of anything. It looks like an M-1, operates functionally the same, but is not the same weapon. The M-1 Garand is .30-06, it appeared in WW2 designed by John Garand via the Springfield Armory. The M-14 is .308 and .223 versions do exist. The M1 is fed via a stripper clip, while the M-14 uses removable magazines. The M1 also held 8rnds while GI magazines for the M14 held 20rnds.
The only similarity in the weapons are their actions and sites.

However it was not issued as full auto and not even select fire to troops. The M14E2 was the full auto version of the M-14, it was a prototype for a squad auto weapon. But due to it's high rate of fire and being limited to magazines, it was uncontrollable and slow to operate. Select fire versions were reserved for specops and the OSS.

Today the M-14 is still used by the navy as a guard duty weapon, by specops, for ceremonies, and some have been revamped into Nat'l Match status for use in sniping as a role in the designated marksman rifle, started by the Army it quickly followed into the Marine Corps as well.

Also the M1 Carbine is not called the M1 Garand Carbine. Anyhow it is a good caliber. Some people call it weak but at 150yds it still has more juice than a point blank .357mag, not bad at all. It also has very manageable recoil. A good gun for urban combat.



[This message has been edited by The Real (edited 04-24-2001).]

The M-1 carbine was the carbine version developed by that guy in jail, it was used in ww2 and I think made its way into korea. If for some reason you do not know what I am talking about I am referring to the carbine used by our paratroops or more noticably by the sergent in saving private ryan. I still prefer a 2 gauge I can shoot a tanks and the fuckers uncles can feal it, if only they made those and the half pound of lead bullets that they shoot. KA FUCKIN BOOM

De Oppreso Libe

Yes I know what you are talking about the .30 carbine or the M1 Carbine, it however is not a Garand nor was designed by John Garand.

A 2ga? Weren't those boat mounted used too kill several ducks and geese at a time? That would be 6x the bore diamter of a 12ga. In other workds a big fucking gun.

Hello all.
Probably not the best of places for one to put his first post, but what the heck...

"....the next American revolution will be mainly fought in the cities...."

The next American Revolution will be fought EVERYWHERE.

"....1. Have the stuff to make war on hand, obtain them legally and don't do anything with them so they can't prove anything....."

The stuff to make war... Interesting phrase. So, was nails the best you could come up with? Have the stuff on hand, yes. Obtain legally, sure why not. Don't do anything with them so they can't prove anything... Say what? Sounds to me like what you are doing is reading how to make "stuff", saying "way cool man", and going no farther.

Alot of the 'how-to' stuff I've read in this site (regarding explosives, etc) is DANGEROUS to the person who doesn't have a clue. Some won't work and others are impractical for what you wish to discuss. You won't know which are which until A) you either get a clue or an education (preferably both); or B) you actually build, concoct, or try what you THINK you need. Mind that you don't eliminate yourself in the process... Even a molotov cocktail can burn you, figuratively AND literally.

"....How can we get the common person motivated to be our pawns in this struggle (you must remember that many have a I.Q. no higher than that of their shoes)...." "....What I meant was that they are, as one would say, the "slums" of society whih mostly includes members of the third-class....."

My my my... tsk tsk. Aren't we special. The 'people' is one of the MAJOR factors in any resistance or revolution. If you don't know the people, their will, their desires, or their breaking point, you'll never get them on your side. Guns, bombs, and military/paramilitary tactics are fine and dandy in a resistance, but if you have no knowledge of psychological warfare or politics then YOUR resistance will go nowhere.

Who are you fighting? More importantly, why are you fighting them? If you seek to topple a regime, what do you intend to replace it with? How do 'the people' fit into this new regime you're trying to bring about? Have the answers to who, what, and why BEFORE you begin working on where and how...

".....I was thinking though of two more major sites to raid which would probably take minimal resources and yield the most gain the glass recycling bens and gas stations combine that with some cloth and what do you have? A shit load of molotoves....."

In the beginning when resistance becomes armed resistance, fire will be a very valuable tool. It can evoke extreme primal and psychological reactions from everyone involved. It also has excellent tactical value. Don't limit yourself to just a simple cocktail however because fire is much more than glass and gas....

".....the raid would come after the start of the war and then there would be the need for the molotoves. ...."

War is an extension of politics. At what point does your politics find armed violence an acceptable alternative?

To the fella calling himself "raverz_choice",

".....destroy weapons. destroy weapons and they will be defensless......"".....there are no more wars won by smart military leaders, there won by weapons and following procedures......"".....either destroy the militaries weapons or learn how to deflect/block/avoid them....."".....A army runs on it's stomache.....maybe but......that was back when militaries were won by clever thinking and military plans.......now a military runs on its weapons......get rid of the weapons, and there will be nothing stopping you......when I say get rid of the weapons that includes tanks and war planes....."

You really don't know a thing about war, do you? I'll post later on your comments as they really should be discussed in more detail...

Back to 'slit' though,

".....Thasts one of the rules of guerialla warfare. Destroy the things that make him a superior fighting force. Thsi may include weapons, supply, the support of the people, manpower, technology and of course superior leaders....."

The thing that makes one force greater than another is the mind. Destroy the opponents "mind" and liberate the rest for yourself...

".....You got any ideas for really good urban booby-traps?.....""..... WHAT ARE SOME GOOD URBAN BOOBY-TRAPS WHY THE FUCK WILL YOU NOT ANSWER DIE DIE DIE......"

I know tons. But from your handle and the way in which you express yourself, I believe you don't possess the maturity or intelligence to use it, either wisely or correctly. So for now I'll keep it to myself...
**********************************
To the moderator,

If I have crossed any lines or posted in a manner which is inconsistent with this site or your forum, my apologies.




[This message has been edited by d1ng0 (edited 04-30-2001).]

Piss tracking radar? That's a new one to me can anyone extrapolate?[/B][/QUOTE]

Believe it or not, he's right. We, the US and other powers have the capability of using infrared and microwave to detect the acid in urine and the heat from the latrines. The rule of thumb for the latrines is one hole per 50 soldiers ( I think< It's been a while since I read the FM< ) So, they make up the bady count from the number of holes in the latrines.

True life story (It was also written into a book called Blackhawk Down). The Delta force thought the MP-5 and CAR-15's were hot shit. Until they were shot down in Mogadishu. They would shoot the enemy five or six times and the enemy kept getting up and coming after them. The one man they, The DF, always ragged about carrying a twenty-three pound weapon was using one round, one kill. He was using a BAR. If it is good enough for a buffalo, deer, mountain goat, etc, it's good enough for a man.

I like the way you think d1ng0. You appear to be an extremely educated and well rounded individual. Keep up the good work.

I will now proceed to throw most of what you just said right in your face. ENJOY

[This message has been edited by slit_yo_throat_bitch69 (edited 05-01-2001).]

d1ng0 I also like the way you think however I do not believe that you have read any of my other posts. I am incrediblly imature compared to the average 19 yr. old however subtract 5 years (thats 14 for the math impared) and I am about par for the course. I have forgotten most of the stuff that you have pointed out but here we go

A modern mechanized army does rely on the technology and numbers that it employs this became clear as early as 1861 with the American civil war although the leader makes enough diffrence most leaders today have instructions that limit their effectiveness

The next revolution will be fought in the general urban area (have those geography lessons rubbed clean) the U.S. is fuckin covered in cities! Do you really think that we are gonna go march outside of town and kill each other there FUCK NO.

I am fighting the goverment as a whole not the principles that it was based on freedom, liberty and equality for the masses are my biggest concerns. This can be obtained by the replacing of high officials by intelligent men who are from the working classes (like me)

I take your comment on my level of commitment as an insult that if I lived in your area you and I might have a talk about it. I have made no martial movements however I have spread the information needed to launch such.

Oh and you want to say that I dont have the maturity level for such an operation thats your thing however I have made about 1/4 of the things on this site and hav'nt blown my ass off yet and I dont intend on doing so.

You sound intelligent and I look forward to your replies on the many objects I dish out here so keep on replying

De Oppreso Libe

"......A modern mechanized army does rely on the technology and numbers that it employs......"

Yes it does. However, don't make the mistake of thinking that they are DEPENDENT on the technology OR the numbers. Relying and being dependent are two completely different things here, otherwise our military machine would have no need to teach its troops independent small unit tactics. We wouldn't have separate doctrines for MOUT, mechanized operations, or low-intensity conflicts. The grunts would never have to hump a ruck anymore and we would have no need for Special Operations Forces, etc.... Last time I checked every Marine is still a rifleman first.

Also, any resistance movement/revolutionary that doesn't make use of the best technology that they can lay THEIR hands on isn't too smart.

"......although the leader makes enough diffrence most leaders today have instructions that limit their effectiveness....."

The ROE's that troops and their leaders are meant to adhere to exist for a reason (can you tell me why?). Yes, they do have a limiting effect regarding troop effectiveness, but the effect won't be as pronounced as you might think. From the other side of the coin, an armed resistance will HAVE to have its own ROE's (again, can you tell me why? The answer IS important). But once again, let me caution you. Do not think that because the military operates under these rules of engagement that they will be a push over. The leaders will not be a bunch of mindless drones or robots just waiting for someone to tell them what to do. Even with ROE's in place, they will have great leeway in what they can and cannot do. They train regularly for this kind of stuff-- it is their job after all.

"......The next revolution will be fought in the general urban area (have those geography lessons rubbed clean) the U.S. is fuckin covered in cities!......"

My geography is fine, thank you for your concern...

When it starts, initially, it may be a generally urban conflict. If you limit yourself to just "the cities" though, you're finished before you start. This country is much more than a bunch of cities. Che Guevara and Carlos Marighella, while excellent insurgents/revolutionaries/guerrillas, both made very serious blunders that led to their failures and inevitable deaths.

Che believed that proper revolutions would start, grow and thrive in the countryside. Hidden in their remote enclaves they would collect members, train, plan, attack, and eventually win out against the hated 'whoever'... Tactically, he was a sound man. He knew the mechanics of revolution and what it took but because he didn't pay enough attention to a particular facet of revolutionary work, in the end he REALLY paid. Big time.... Rural guerrillas all across South America failed because they overlooked that same thing. What was it they missed slit_yo?

Carlos thought he had the answer and so attempted armed revolution from inside the cities. We know he failed, but do you know why? He overlooked the same thing everyone else did. Name it slit_yo, it's the most important piece of the "guerrilla puzzle"...

There have been many, many successful revolutionaries throughout history. Lenin and Mao most notably. They knew the answer. But I digress.

War is a very fluid thing, constantly moving and shifting. If you only limit yourself to one type of terrain, the 'enemy' will be more than happy to occupy the rest. Can you say total envelopment?? Success will come from taking the fight to them not static positioning. Do I hear you saying "But the cities are large places..."? Yes they are, but think about this.

If you fight alone you are of no strategic value to any movement. You will eventually fail and die... alone. But when you try to better your odds by joining a group, the larger a group, the harder it will be to maintain security and remain safe to fight. Eventually you will be found out, ratted out, whatever. There's only so many places a person can hide in the city (trust me, for a time I was homeless in several). Once you've been identified, you can expect to be surgically (even not so surgically) removed.

"...... Do you really think that we are gonna go march outside of town and kill each other there FUCK NO......."

No, I don't think that. What I do think is that when those of you who have limited yourself to one type of terrain (or one place) have run out of places to hide in your precious city, you will either be cornered and killed or flushed like a rabbit and chased out of town onto the 'waiting bayonets' of another force waiting for you. Again, strategically worthless.

"......I am fighting the goverment as a whole not the principles that it was based on freedom, liberty and equality for the masses are my biggest concerns. This can be obtained by the replacing of high officials by intelligent men who are from the working classes (like me)......"

Sounds noble and "like me" sounds delusional. Expound upon this please.

"......I take your comment on my level of commitment as an insult that if I lived in your area you and I might have a talk about it. I have made no martial movements however I have spread the information needed to launch such......."

I made no mention of commitment. I did, however, comment on your maturity and intelligence. I'm sure that if you were to visit me I would be duly impressed and intimidated (sarcasm). I HAVE made "martial movements" and had my share of combat. Also, I have read some (not all) of your posts. Yes, you have spread some information, but not enough to launch anything.

"......Oh and you want to say that I dont have the maturity level for such an operation thats your thing however I have made about 1/4 of the things on this site and hav'nt blown my ass off yet and I dont intend on doing so......."

Haven't blown your ass off yet? That's good. Everyone needs an ass.

Now this is a good subject (resistance) so I have a proposition for you slit_yo. If you are willing to be civil and refrain from the "chest beating", threats without substance, and the general stupidity that is so popular out here on the Internet, I would be more than happy to carry this all further with you. Okay?

Raverz_choice wrote earlier in this thread,

".....destroy weapons. destroy weapons and they will be defensless......"

Destroy the weapons and they will be issued new ones.

".....there are no more wars won by smart military leaders, there won by weapons and following procedures......"

By all means expand upon that please. As it stands it's awfully naive. The weapons are tools. Nothing more, nothing less. Please define procedures..... If a resistance doesn't have "procedures" of its own then it is nothing more than a mob of zeros waiting to be eliminated like weeds in the garden

".....either destroy the militaries weapons or learn how to deflect/block/avoid them....."

Well you know... You could also learn how to USE them and then proceed to LIBERATE them (or vice versa). How is an armed resistance supposed to grow otherwise? Surely you don't think that while people are out fighting a revolution that you'll just be able to go into the local S-Mart and buy some firearms when you need them or ammo when you get low do you? By all means stocking up and caching is a great idea, but you won't have enough to carry on a protracted struggle (if you do have that much then you don't have enough people on your side).

When TSHTF things are going to get draconian real quick. Things that are painfully easy to acquire now will be downright impossible when it's needed the most during "the revolution". Lest anyone think that the U.S. Government is too stupid, it is guaranteed that if hostilities break out they will quickly turn most of what would be useful to an enterprising guerrilla into a rationed and controlled substance. Fuel, chemicals, medicine, food.... Name it and you'll probably need a ration chit and ID for it. And as we are all aware, I'm sure, guns and ammo will disappear from the shelves too.

As paranoid as most of the folks in the "patriot" movement are they will soon be starved of what is needed materially to resist. The exception, of course, being the equipment and supplies the other side is carrying.

So if hostilities ever DO break out, ONE of the first things the resisters must begin is a program of acquisition....

".....A army runs on it's stomache.....maybe but......that was back when militaries were won by clever thinking and military plans.......now a military runs on its weapons......"

Sounds like you think military leaders are idiots. If you do then you sure won't last long. It takes a thinking person to use a weapon, and if they do know how to employ it (even if wrongly) then they are dangerous.

"......get rid of the weapons, and there will be nothing stopping you......when I say get rid of the weapons that includes tanks and war planes....."

Let's think globally for a second. You've gotten rid of the weapons (including tanks and warplanes). You've also destroyed the factories these weapons and munitions are made in. You say there will be nothing stopping you. Maybe, but there won't be anything stopping every Ivan, Chang, and Ahmed who wants a piece of us either. We don't live in a vacuum. Do you think that the whole world will sit motionless while we duke it out with each other? Of course they won't. Let's assume that 'the people' actually won a revolution in the U.S.. The process (the way most envision it) will severely damage our ability to defend ourselves from outside aggression. No hostile country is going to give you the time to rebuild your military/industrial base. Best to keep as much of it intact as possible.


Just some random rebuttals....


[This message has been edited by d1ng0 (edited 05-01-2001).]

[This message has been edited by d1ng0 (edited 05-01-2001).]

D1ng0 the answer to all you questions is change I can chew up and spit out anything you have to throw at me as long as you make your post shorter damn dude. Do you write 2,000 line poems for the fun of it. Whenever you write your things I have to write about that muc in responce now that I am done bitching I will in my next post show you guys the 10 rules of guerilla combat. Then you can help me with the editing process.

De Oppreso Libe

These are not in order of importance

_______The 10 rules of Guerrila WarFare______

1.Try to nulify the effectiveness fo the enemies most abundant resource whether is be manpower, superior leadership, loyalty of the people and ofcourse material

2.Use your weaknesses to your advantage

3.remain innovative, always!always do something new almost as soon as you have done something else new. Change operaions so the enemy does not evolve into an effective fighting force against you.

4.have the ability to use what you capture

5.have multiple uses for every piece of equipment and have as little as possible

6.have or create a purpose for every resouce that is readily availible

7.lead by example

8.pick the best, leave the rest

9.do the impossible strike where they do not defend even if it is on little strategic value

10. MOVE FAST, SHOOT STRAIGHT< REMEMBER WELL

"......damn dude. Do you write 2,000 line poems for the fun of it?......"

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Writing is one of my hobbies. Soon, if all goes as planned, it will be how I make my living. I have written several articles and am in the process of doing two nonfiction books and one fiction (with a few outlines for future projects). I have written many, many poems and a couple of them have even been published. Writing a lot comes naturally to me when it deals with subjects I enjoy, have a lot of experience with, or take very seriously.

When it comes to the subject of war, ESPECIALLY one which might involve (and possibly kill) my family, you can bet your pimply ass that I'm not going to just sit here and throw a bunch of meaningless, feel-good sound bites at every one. War isn't a game. BTDT. I've taught/instructed various military subjects to several officers and more enlisted troops than you could ever hope to shoot at slit_yo. War isn't a subject for stupidity or silliness. It's a subject that demands nothing less than total seriousness, like your life depends on it....... because it does.

If this sounds like I'm busting your chops specifically, I'm not. All across the Internet in the various 'patriot' and survival boards, too many people are living in some whimsical, half-assed fantasy land talking about how they're going to be the next hero/leader of 'the revolution'. Some of them even have the audacity to post their pictures decked out in their finest war-duds. You ever see 350 pounds of camouflaged flubber?? A mile and a half with full ruck, weapons and ammo, and he's dead, I guarantee it. Too many of them don't have the slightest clue about what they're in for. They're gung-ho about it and their hearts are in the right place so I guess that should count for something....

I'm sure (well, kinda sure) your heart is in the right place too slit_yo, but it would be nice if you turned down the aggressive ego a bit. Don't know how to help you about the length of the posts bud, so I guess you'll just have to suck it up and deal with it. :-)

Well, now that that happy horse poo is out of the way....

"......the answer to all you questions is change I can chew up and spit out anything you have to throw at me......"

I swear I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing WITH you..... :-) Seriously though, maybe you shouldn't have been so quick to 'spit'. I actually thought you would pop the right answer. Would you care to enlighten me as to how "change" relates to why military troops have Rules of Engagement? Or how overlooking 'change' could have undone Che Guevara and Carlos Marighella? You won't be graded. Really.

I have to get some sleep, but I'll be back to, uh, discuss your rules later. They look interesting. Be nice.

Alrighty then.... 10 rules.

Point 1 is a fairly standard mistake. The most abundant 'resource' doesn't necessarily make the most advantageous target. The longer a conflict lasts the better your chances are of being squished like a bug. A resistance force should target CRITICAL 'resources' to get the most bang for the buck. Anything else just makes you a minor annoyance. Before targeting anything, however, the force should gather as much Intel as possible and make a proper estimate of the situation. Also, the targets chosen to attack should work to further the military objectives or political goals of the resisting force.

For a short and vague example if you, a small force of 50 with limited resources, are facing 20,000 troops that uses only two supply lines then which would be the most advantageous target? Common sense right?

Point 2. Please explain how you would use your own weakness to your advantage. It was about as clear as granite.

Point 3. Also standard advice. The point to remember is that any action taken BY the resisting force furthers the military objectives and political goals OF the resisting force.

Points 4,6,7, and 10. Yes. No-brainers.

Point 5. "Have multiple uses for every piece of equipment..." Sound advice although hard to achieve. ".... and have as little as possible...." As a force overall, gather as much as possible. Newbies need outfitted and armed. As an attacking force, the key is mission specific equipment and munitions. Take what you need for the operation at hand.

Point 8. No, No, No.... A rebellion/resistance needs every warm body it can lay its hands on (while using proper security precautions). Maybe some are only suitable for combat, but that does not mean you should discard the rest. A movement/resistance force needs a support structure to survive. These people can fill it. To turn the others away is.... just.... plain.... stupid...

Point 9. If it's undefended, then it's not impossible to strike. As well, if it has little or no strategic value then chances are excellent that the resisting force is wasting valuable time, manpower, and supplies for nothing. Again, all targets chosen/attacked by a resisting force should further the military objectives or political goals of the resisting force. Otherwise it is nothing more than a bizarre form of masturbation...

D1ng0-Very well said several times. You are a very smart human being. I would like to challenge your wits one day but not today cuz im lazy. I think you had a good point on the threat of other countries invading/attacking the US whenever/if-ever. The only defense would be the new government and the everyday person that is still alive and owns a weapon. I say weapon because in combat or war everything is a weapon and can be used to destroy an enemy. Many so called revolutionaries seem to forget that there are enemies to the US that are waiting for us (US) to weaken just enough to stand a fighting chance. I feel that if a new govt would gain power and enemies did invade, american people will still have ties to their homes, schools and way of life to be taken over by robe wearing arabs or slanted eyed communists and would fight to the bitter end to protect their families and their futures. I thought you had a good point and wanted to elaborate in my own way a bit. One more thing i dont want anyone to forget about the people that risked everything to make us free. And that the views of patriotism need to be refreshed every so often.

It is true that i would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

I thought "pick the best, leave the rest" was in regards to salvageable equipment, not people. I may be wrong.

If he was speaking of equipment I wouldn't have much problem with it other than to say that equipment wears out, gets damaged, and eventually needs repaired. Salvage the good weapons and equipment FIRST, and then, if the force leader feels that he has the time he should grab what his people can reasonably carry and be gone.

Even if a firearm was rendered inoperable in battle it can still be cannibalized for parts (springs, pins, barrels, trigger systems, etc) to keep the other weapons repaired and functioning. That would work for the field equiment as well.

Hey I am back and I cant quite talk for much time but here it goes. Writing is awsome however Albert Einstein once declined to give a ceremonial speech at like yale or something like that because "I have nothing to say" six months later he telegraphed em' with his speech on like relativity or one of the other theories that he preposed (which I dont understand) writing is sorta a sore spot for me right now because I got kicked off of the paper cause I wrote about how the Dredd Scott case (see my article on politics) could be applied on the issue of allowing guns in publc places and my refusal to print an advertisment because I do not agree with the ideas (it was a diet thing for young ladies and I think most of the girls in my school already look like fuckin shindlers list) anyway this is absolutely pointless but anyway I am back.

But that would make me?
Dead
*shoots the fucker in the chest*

Ok heres something I never really relized or even thought about. Assuming we are discussing the U.S. government here the simple FACT is there is NO CHANCE watsoever of a military take over. You must gain support from the majority of the public and THE MILITARY! This however is a very difficult task especially with how military training etc. is making soldiers better constantly.

Heres why Clinton during his administration reduced the US militarty power by 40% overall that is a HUGE amount and ever AFTER this decrease the US military is still THREE TIMES LARGER than the next biggest military power, that being China, also Bush Is starting to rebuilt the military power as we speak. So consider this even if your guerilla force got equal support to the military power of ALL OF CHINA you still wouldnt stand a chance of military takeover.

Still this makes me feel a little safer in my home but also makes me relize why we are hated so and fear more of non military target terrorist attacks.

Frey, working under the assumption that I understood your point correctly...

You make a good point and I agree. Using the U.S. as the 'theoretical' focal point in this discussion, no resisting force--- whether it's the Revolutionary Communist Party- USA, or the 43rd Redneck Regiment of the Arkansas Militia--- will be able to gain a 'military' superiority.... ever. If fighting were to break out tomorrow, the resisting force would have an approx. 98% chance of becoming an abysmal failure with only a 2% chance of even REMOTELY PARTIAL success (based on a recent DOD "study"). Why is that?

It's because (it seems) almost everyone who believes that there should be revolutionary change in America (or in American politics) only approach it seriously from a military/paramilitary perspective. They seem to feel that armed action against 'the military' or a militarized fedgov will be (or is) the only way to gain their "freedom" (a word which is no longer an objective absolute to most).

You said a military takeover is impossible. You are absolutely correct, but what we want to work for is not a military takeover, but a political one. Military/paramilitary force is just ONE of the tools that might be used to achieve it, not the whole of it. I certainly don't want the country turned over to some military junta...

Please bear with me as I slip into "lecture mode"...

I'm sure everyone here who has read Clausewitz is familiar with this phrase-- ""The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes."" Or maybe you've heard this one-- "War is an extension of policy and politics with the addition of military force." You've noticed, I'm sure, that I keep harping on "political objectives" in these posts. That's because it is the political objective that will define the character, scope, and intensity of any armed action, now or in the future, and whether between countries or the citizens within one (revolution/civil war).

Without a political objective/goal there can be no unifying strategy.

Without a unifying strategy there can be no effective operations.

Without that unifying strategy creating (theoretically) effective operations, any tactical efforts become nothing more than an exercise in counterproductive force and violence for the sake of force and violence. Meaning no point to it (the Oklahoma City bombing is a brilliant example of this).

Now to achieve its political objectives, a country creates a strategy that attempts to use its 'tools', or instruments, of national power to enforce its will against other countries (and even its own citizens) whether it is in peacetime or 'war'. These tools/instruments of national power are:

1) DIPLOMATIC INSTRUMENT-- Diplomatic tools consist of such things as negotiations, 'treaties', alliances, and even some form of political recognition. While used to best effect before any application of 'hostilities' it remains an important part of the overall strategy during a conflict as well.

2) INFORMATIONAL INSTRUMENT -- The informational instrument (also known as the "psyops" element) refers to the concept of using information to achieve the political objective the nation. It's used to influence/outright change the attitudes & perceptions of allies, enemies, and 'observers'/fencesitters. Tools can include propaganda & press releases explaining intent and motive, information and personalities, food and care for refugees..... Anything that can influence the rational & emotional parts of the mind. NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THIS 'INSTRUMENT'.

3) EONOMIC INSTRUMENT -- Here we are referring to the application or denial of material resources to achieve the 'national objective'. Like the diplomatic instrument it is used to best effect before a crisis, but still plays an important part after the commencement of any hostilities. Practices such as the regulation of trade, loans and guarantees, investment policies, foreign aid, subsidizing, the transfer of technology, economic sanctions and trade embargoes, all contribute to protect a nations own industries and people (as well as that of its allies) from destabilization caused by the actions of hostile nations/forces.

4) MILITARY INSTRUMENT -- This refers to the use of (or THREAT to use) force to achieve a nations objectives. Military power = weapons/equipment, trained men/women, organizational/doctrinal concepts, industrial base (military/industrial complex), and its ability to sustain conflict. It can be used as a "show of force", to establish a presence, and even to train allies (the special operations forces, for example). While the main focus of the military instrument is, of course, the conduct of conflict/hostilities, without its integration with the other 'instruments' of national power. It is nothing more than a meaningless and wasteful display of violence.

Maybe someone is asking, "WHAT THE HELL HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH US TAKING BACK OUR COUNTRY THROUGH RESISTANCE OR REVOLUTION?"

I'm willing to bet some of you were beginning to realize while you were reading this that even insurrectional and revolutionary groups possess these instruments, whether it's a 10-man cell operating on its own or a whole 'army/political movement'. Of course, it's all proportional; the larger the force/movement, the more powerful the instruments overall can become. Also, the SMALLER the group the more it should rely on instruments other than the military one to gain needed strength.

How these instruments are employed is determined by the Political Objective(s) of the force/group using them. Using conventional military standards and doctrine, political objectives can be divided into two types--- Limited Objectives and Unlimited Objectives. The limited political objective generally means that the opposing political leadership SURVIVES while the unlimited political objective results in the opposing political leadership being REMOVED. As examples:

Limited Objectives- The opposing leadership survives...
1) Intimidate
2) Cause a change in policy
3) Reduce their military strength/capacity
4) Capture a piece of territory

Unlimited Objectives- The opposing leadership is removed...
1) Change the regime
2) Change/replace the form of government
3) Conquer/Absorb
4) Exterminate... as in genocide

As a resistance group or revolutionary movement our political objectives will define our strategy.

If I go on too much longer, slit_yo will probably have a heart attack or something so I'll stop here for now, but I'll pick up where I left off a little later...

Comments? Questions?

I enjoyed it.....

Uhmmm, let's see, where was I? Oh yeah, objectives and strategies... Last post I was talking about political objectives, and gave you some examples of 'limited' & 'unlimited' objectives that might be pursued by an individual, group, or movement. Generally speaking, armed actions are something that should be pursued as a last resort because once initiated there's no turning back, short of defeat/ failure/ destruction of either you or the opposition. With the exception of armed resistance in response to an invasion by a foreign power, a resistance movement is born, and grows, in the political arena. If you are initiating hostilities without the benefit of a truly political philosophy, then you're really nothing more than a criminal who is only claiming "resistance to tyranny" as an excuse to commit violent offenses.

Every political 'party', resistance front or "revolutionary" movement possesses a political agenda of one form or another. Some are rather indistinguishable in comparison to others (republicans vs. democrats vs. reform party) while others offer a definitely radical departure from the present power in place and each other (Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens, Communists, Revolutionary Communists). In the U.S. today all of these groups are engaged in a "war" of ideas and words (the old hearts and minds game), each trying to gain or keep power. Remember I said that ALL groups possess the 'instruments of power' (diplomatic, informational, economic, and military).

Anyway, when you have chosen to attempt the creation of a resistance group (and by extension, a resistance movement) it is assumed that you will have some form of political philosophy with which to base your actions on. That philosophy qualifies WHY you're resisting and will help you determine your political objectives (put another way, it'll help you figure out what you hope to accomplish by resisting) as well as stimulate thought on HOW you will (could or should) accomplish them.

So, just what DO you hope to accomplish as a resistance group/ movement?
Intimidate the government? To what end?
Cause a change in policy? Which policy?
Capture/ acquire a piece of territory? Why?
Change/ replace the current FORM of government? Replace it with what?
Conquer/ absorb? Who?
Exterminate? Again, who (or what)?

Once you understand explicitly what you hope to achieve, the next step is to realistically and objectively assess your relative position, or capabilities. Thinking in terms of the 'instruments of power' discussed earlier, what are your strengths and weaknesses? Simply stating "I'm only one man and ain't got jack shit," means that either you're not serious about this, or you don't understand how the instruments can be applied to individuals & small groups.

For those who don't understand I'll elaborate a little...

*************************

Every individual possesses the same instruments of power that nations do. Obviously, they aren't on the same scale as the nation-states but they're there (It helps to keep in mind that a society/ nation is nothing more than the sum of its parts- its citizens).

A) You possess the diplomatic instrument. You have the ability to negotiate and make alliances with groups and individuals, and also to freely (?) associate with those who serve your best interests.

B) You possess the informational instrument. At its most basic we are referring to what is hopefully a rationally functioning mind. Your powers of persuasion are limited only by your ability (or inability) to communicate ideas. You can influence others (positively and negatively) with lies, the truth, and rational/ irrational arguments. If you can write or use a computer you can reach even more than you ever could through face to face confrontations. You can empower yourself through the accumulation of information and empower others of like mind with the dissemination of needed information, which in turn could net you some worthy allies. THINK HARD ABOUT THIS ONE BECAUSE IT'S THE GLUE THAT HOLDS ALL THE REST TOGETHER...

C) You possess the economic instrument. For the most part this one only has a measurable effect when employed by large groups. You can influence through buying (support) or not buying (boycotting), as well as through sit-downs, protests and strikes. The best results will come when used in conjunction with the diplomatic and informational instruments. Your financial ability (ability to buy, sell, acquire, liquidate, etc) also falls under this category. For individuals and small groups who are on their own but trying to grow as they begin to resist, this instrument will mostly be an exercise in logistics.

D) And lastly, the one that most people seem to obsess about, you possess the military instrument. For some people this might consist of nothing more than an animalistic "fight or flight" reflex, while others might have extensive martial arts, military or law enforcement training to fall back on. This instrument is only as effective as your (and your groups) training, weapons, and equipment, as well as your ability to acquire & make what you need to sustain a conflict long enough to achieve your objectives. How would you (truthfully) rate yourself on this one?

As you begin recruiting people to 'the cause', the instruments of everyone (working in concert) creates a larger and more effective power base, thus increasing your leverage and ability to make a difference or effect change.

Hopefully that made it a little clearer... Almost gives a whole new meaning to the term 'sovereign citizen'...


TO BE CONTINUED.....


[This message has been edited by d1ng0 (edited 06-01-2001).]

ok
here's a cheap and very very easy and amateur boobytrap.
first, u steal a box of "boobytraps" they are fireworks that look like a firecracker with a string comming out of both sides. when u pull th estring apart, it creates a small "explosian." now, u get a coffee can and fill it with gasoline and gun powder.u make 2 holes in the coffe can about an inch down from the top on opposite sides of the can. you tie the string through one end and have the part that actuall explodes near the center of the coffee can. take the other string and put it through the other hole . you will then have to tie on fishing line. i choose fishing line because it is cheap and hard to see if youre not looking for it. u fill the can with the gunpowder and gas and set the can where it can not be seen. make sure when the can explodes a rock is in the way to prevent the explosian from reaching the victim. tie the can to a tree or pole so it cannot move easily. tie the end of the fishing line across a path or doorway. make it low to the ground so thatif it doesnt explode, it can still trip youre victim. when youre victim walks through the path, he should trigger the "boobytrap" causing the gun powder and gas to ignite and explode. (make sure the gun powder and gas reach the "boobytrsp".) u can also place nails on and in the can for shrapnel

also, u can get one of those motion detectors. take out the siren and place a homemade blasting cap in tis place. put the blasting cap in some explosive and set. make sure not to get in front of the motion dector. if u made the blasting cap right and the motion detector produces enough power, it should kill or mame youre victim.

happy hunting!!!

won't work if your lucky you get pile of burning gas and powder or just a scattered gas and powder sludge

o
ive never done it
i just guessed

Those "boobytraps" are so weak you'd be lucky if they'd ignite the gas and the gun powder definately wouldnt explode but if you were lucky enough to ignite the gas it would burn along with it.

Put a rock between the device and the victim? I take it then that you only want to scare the victim; and if that's the case why bother with putting nails in there? The device as described is mostly unworkable...

Forget putting the powder IN the gas- it's just a waste of good powder.

If the object is to send burning fuel all over the place, then don't use any 'explosive' that actually detonates (Waste of good explosives). Instead stick with something simple, like a "small" match head/aluminum flake charge or a nitrate/sugar charge contained in a pvc tube. Your explosion is meant to ignite THE FUMES given off by the fuel, not the fuel itself which means you need something that will still be burning when the fuel is scattered. The charge must be water/fuelproof (no moving parts exiting the bomblet) so using your little firecracker is out. Electrical ignition is the only reliable way to set this device off.

Put the charge and fuel in something that is easily ruptured such as a 1 gallon milk jug or large jar with a tight fitting lid. Using something like the coffe can, you'll likely just blow the lid off and send the fuel straight up with minimal scattering (unless it's really windy).

You can also use some gelled fuels with these types of devices.

Its use as a "boobytrap" is an iffy thing though because, depending on where you place them as well as how they're made, the odor of fuel could give the device away. They're good for sabotage operations though...



[This message has been edited by d1ng0 (edited 06-04-2001).]

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST...

Okay, your political philosophy explains why (and who) you're resisting;

Your political objectives define what you hope to accomplish;

And an assessment of your abilities/capabilities informs you of what you have to resist with (in the beginning) as well as what you lack.

Once these three things have been figured out, the next step is to begin developing a strategy that allows you to achieve your goals in the most efficient (cost-effective) manner possible. So let's look at the 'theory' of strategy now. In the most basic sense, your strategy is a plan, or road map, of HOW you have decided to reach the objectives you've set for yourself. Your strategy should encompass all of your instruments of power working together, not at cross-purposes with each other (this is why you should have a set of clear-cut political objectives beforehand--- so that each instrument is 'on the same sheet of music').

This plan of resistance is not meant to be inflexible. As the resistance you're beginning grows and the opposition begins reacting, situations and developments will dictate some tweaking (or a complete overhaul) of your overall strategy. Different phases of the resistance may also necessitate a shifting of the "focus" from one instrument to another.

Now when we talk about a strategy of resistance it might help to think of it as a coin. There're two sides to it. On one side is the political strategy, which will have a number of political objectives; and on the other side is the military strategy, which will have a number of specific military objectives (for the purpose of achieving your POLITICAL objectives).

The political side focuses mainly on the growth of the resistance movement; recruitment, the dissemination of propaganda, some form of economic/ material growth... the application of its instruments to achieve its objectives in a somewhat peaceful manner. Each instrument of power should have its own internal strategy that works cooperatively with the strategies of the other instruments.

As long as there is "peace" the military side also works towards growth; recruitment, training, the acquisition of equipment and the growth & maintenance of its 'industrial base' (mostly logistical functions). At the same time it should be developing its military objectives and the strategies to achieve them for the time when (if) hostilities break out.

At some point in the 'grand (overall) strategy', if the political strategy proves insufficient to achieve the political objectives, the shift of focus will turn to military strategy to achieve it goals. Once hostilities have broken out, however, this doesn't mean that 'political' work becomes unimportant (it remains important from beginning to end), it just means that the various instruments of power put a little more effort into helping the military instrument to achieve the political objectives. Throughout all the phases of resistance the military instrument must be subordinate to the political effort (unless you're TRYING to effect a military dictatorship).

For now we'll set the political strategy to the side and focus on the military aspect of strategy in a resistance... When you get right down to it, when the decision has been made to use military/ paramilitary force there are really only two strategic (militarily) objectives.

One objective is to completely overpower your enemy's "military capacity", making them helpless and unable to resist the demands made by the resistance. The enemy's military forces don't need to be physically destroyed, they just need to be made so demoralized/disorganized that they aren't able to interfere with the resistance movement's work to achieve its political objectives. This is known as a "strategy of annihilation" and, normally, is only a viable option when one of the participants has an obvious superiority (in terms of morale, strength, skill, leadership, technology, etc) over the other. A beginning resistance movement will NOT possess this superiority...

The other objective is for the resistance to make the conflict seem so costly to the enemy that they will be willing to negotiate an end to the fighting on the resistance's terms. Rather than destroying the enemy's ability to resist, his 'will to fight' is wore down or eroded instead. This is known as a "strategy of attrition or erosion" and is the strategy of the little guy. It has been used to great effect all over the world throughout history.

The strategy of annihilation is always used when trying to achieve unlimited political objectives (discussed earlier), while the strategy of erosion can be used to achieve both limited AND unlimited objectives. Knowing whether you will be pursuing limited or unlimited political objectives is a NECESSARY PREREQUISITE for deciding which form of strategy you will employ.

Remember;
Annihilation strategies target the enemy's military capacity--
Erosion strategies target the enemy's mind...

At first, a resistance will only be strong enough to pursue limited objectives and, depending on the strength & will of the enemy, may only enjoy limited success. But, if led well, as the resistance grows (in all of its phases and categories) its ability to pursue unlimited objectives with a good chance of success will grow as well. You just have to survive that long....

Now earlier in this thread I had called slit_yo and ravers_choice to task on their choices of targets and now I'll explain why (sort of). When developing your military strategy (deciding on your military objectives and how you intend to achieve them) there are two concepts that you should keep in mind. The military terms for these concepts are "the center of gravity" and "the critical vulnerability".

THE CENTER OF GRAVITY-- Basically, a center of gravity is a key source of the enemy's strength. It can provide them with either a physical or psychological ability to resist your actions. Using this concept, you should be able to focus your attention on what is MOST IMPORTANT to the enemy in a particular situation. The enemy's center of gravity may be its fighting forces, or its strength may come from a particular region or population center. Even public support can be their center of gravity in many situations.

THE CRITICAL VULNERABILITY-- Whereas the center of gravity concept pinpoints an enemy's key strengths, the critical vulnerability concept, in contrast, pinpoints a key (or potential) source of weakness. Any military force wants to attack their enemy where they can do so with the highest chance of success and the least exposure to danger. If you are a small force you certainly don't want to be exposing yourself to the enemy's strength. But what makes a vulnerability "critical"?
1) The capture, exploitation, or destruction of this vulnerability must either greatly undermine or eliminate a center of gravity (or strength), and
2) The 'critical vulnerability' must be something that we have the ability (or means) to capture, exploit, or destroy.

If you think about it long enough, you'll find that YOUR ENEMY'S 'centers of gravity' and 'critical vulnerabilities' will be found within one or more of his four instruments of power (diplomatic, informational, economic, and military). You can bet that once you have shown yourselves in a display of armed, and unarmed, resistance your opponent will be looking for YOUR centers of gravity and critical vulnerabilities within your instruments of power as well.

The most popular pieces of advice given to future resisters is always "avoid his strengths and attack his weaknesses" or "where an enemy is strong avoid him, where an enemy is weak attack him". Hopefully now you have a better understanding of what is meant. Attack his strengths by targeting those strengths vulnerabilities.....

Did I lose anyone? :-)

*shit*

Ok here I go

More or less my plan is utilizes short term actions to affect the general political climate. Someone mentioned the fact that it is impossible to take control of a country militarily to this there are to things to say
1. People think that politics andbasic hman behavior has evolved as we have become more sophisticated however this is not true "The more things change the more they stay the same"
2. If anyone has seen Braveheart. His father and the other highlanders just wanted to make a show to let the king know how displeased they were.

What Else?
Oh Yea Clauwitz was a dumbass and his book is boring

Whoever mentioned control of army gets the cookie. Almost all great resistance leaders had there loyaltys from the army

Oh and I would like to point out that(as i have before) that a peaceful rebellion (yes it exists) is much more likely to work and the most ethical however that comonly leads to the exact same people being in control which goes back to "the more things change the more things sty the same"

You See Guys Nice And Short

De Opresso Libe

To d1ng0 :
Very interesting and well put. I hope you will continue posting in 'lecture mode'

To slit_yo :
Please read the replies carefully, long as some of them may be. Don't try to judge them, but try to understand them. And if there are things you don't understand, try to ask the right questions. Maybe even in a reply

There will still be enough opportunity to decide if you agree or not. And you can always pick out the things that may be of use to you.

I'm telling you this, because you seem like an intelligent person, with great potential.