Adding to the backlash from the bloody crackdown on public protests in Ferguson, Missouri last year, leaked international Missouri National Guard documents reveal that the Guard was officially referring to demonstrators as “enemy forces” in mission briefings.
Missouri Army Chief of Staff Col. David Boyle realized pretty early on how bad that looked and in a November 18 email urged officials to reduce the “public militarization perception” and avoid potentially inflammatory language.
Still, the National Guard is defending the label, with Captain John Quinn insisting it was “standard language” in “general military planning.” Capt. Quinn went on to insist that the National Guard would also consider inclement weather and heat potential threats.
Which underscores just what a blunder it was to use the term “enemy forces,” as despite Capt. Quinn’s protestation, presumably state National Guards do not, as a general rule, refer to tornadoes or thunderstorms as “enemy forces.”
The decision to label civilian protesters as “enemy forces” is deliberately provocative, and part of a policy throughout the Ferguson debacle of treating civil unrest and unfriendly media coverage as problems to be solved through military force of arms.
They are telling us very clearly how they view us if we dare to be against their empire building that is greased with the blood of millions.
This is revealing. An uncomfortable truth at the very least.
Armed employees (even part time Nat. Guard) who carry weapons tend to regard non government citizens (i.e. civilians) whether or not they have weapons, as the "enemy."
Anyone who is not part of their particular tax paid gang is the enemy. Even intra governmental cooperation between services or the military and security forces (the alphabet Federal soup, local LEOs, state police and guard outfits) tends to be poor, with much rivalry and suspicion.
"We have met the enemy and it is us." Exactly. Only it's "them" the ones paying for all of the guns and armament. "They" are the enemy. After all, says this Guard honcho, it's "traditional" thinking.
To the statist, those who do not worship statism and obey without question are the enemy. It is a sectarian belief system: either you worship the things they do, or you are evil, and hence dispensable.
At least they weren't being called "terrorists" or "traitors".
They're already viewed as thugs by most of pro-state violence people anyway so calling them terrorists and traitors would be moot