That means that the british army reported a *ten to one casualty ratio* against the enemy. Spoiler alert: the british army in fact had tanks. And aircraft, and even nuclear warheads. The IRA had none of those things. And yet the british army didn't simply roll over them.
1
10
0
268
So what did the IRA have, if they didn't have tanks, fixed wing aircraft, nuclear submarines, or armored cars? Well, they had AR-15s. They in fact liked them so much they even wrote a song about them! invidious.poast.org/watch?v=ehukpdse…
3
12
3
261
In closing, let's return to the US situation for a bit. The US armed forces combined will probably struggle to amass even 100.000 people you can really hand a M4 and tell to patrol Anytown, Idaho, keeping a look out for y'all Qaeda. The US army is *not* that large.
5
5
4
240
It's not designed to wage counterinsurgency in a country the size of the US, it's mostly designed to fight "near-peer competitors", to use the parlance of the Pentagon. That is, enemies that will *consent* to the sort of warfare where its shiny toys are likely to be of use!
1
6
1
247
Libs are flippant about this, because they don't understand this concept of consent. Without that consent, warfare against an enemy - especially your own population - is an *incredibly* gnarly affair.
2
4
1
281
Some estimates put the death toll of the Cristero war in Mexico to a quarter of a million people (!). The Cristeros didn't have tanks either, nor chemical weapons, recoilless rifles, airplanes, or even uniforms. And that is exactly what made the conflict so destructive.
1
5
1
223
The US is very, very big, it is incredibly polarized by region, the US army recruits from the areas that the army would likely need to suppress, and modern infrastructure is incredibly easy to disrupt. The US power grid is particularly easy to knock out.
1
9
1
257
In closing, libs simply don't know how to rule. They think this shit is somehow "free", that all a ruler has to do is press the big red button that says "boom" and then all the enemies get blown up. But that's not how it works.
1
18
0
315
Far from being assured of victory, the US armed forces are in fact fairly ill-prepared for any scenario approaching that of the Troubles - or especially that of the Cristero uprising. Meanwhile, all the libs can do is content themselves with fairly tales. The end.
3
6
2
274
Whether a civil war or a troubles scenario is *likely* is of course another question entirely, but the idea that it is *unlikely* due to "lol we'd just use our indestructible tanks to blow the chuds up" is such an incredibly foolish misconception about what warfare is.
7
15
3
316
END NOTE: the IRA in fact mostly used Armalite AR-18s, not AR-15s. Though for libs, they might as well be the same gun (and they are pretty similar in operation), which is why I stated they used AR-15. I apologize to any maga chuds who might have taken offense at this fibbing.

1:53 AM · Oct 11, 2021

19
7
1
282
Replying to @Tinkzorg
For resistance in the US the forces also have to defend their bases as well as government buildings and resource lines. Not easy. Also need to defend families and such, no guarantees against kidnapping, etc. Plus most military are anti-lib, oops. Only one side really has guns.
0
0
0
3
Replying to @Tinkzorg
@Readwiseio save thread
1
0
0
1
First public save of this thread! 🏆 Readwise users: Like this reply to save Tinkzorg's thread to your account without cluttering their replies 📚 Stats: • 1 total save of Tinkzorg's threads (ranked #12528)
0
0
0
2
Replying to @Tinkzorg
Sun Tzu level thread. Nice.
0
0
0
2
Replying to @Tinkzorg
You think they wouldn't be willing to completely annihilate the occupied?
2
0
0
1
How would they do that? That's where their grandma lives, bro. The ground. With people.
1
0
0
2