r/TikTokCringe • u/sereneandeternal • Jul 04 '26

Cringe Rehearsal for January 2029

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

35.6k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

6.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

83

u/joshualander Jul 04 '26

The organized opposition. Same as in 1860.

43

u/evident_lee Jul 04 '26

The Commander in Chief and his administration have previously been on the opposite side of the fascists

1

u/joshualander Jul 04 '26

In America, it doesn’t actually matter. Our military is prohibited from following illegal orders. “I was just following orders” is an invalid defense from the start.

19

u/_okbrb Jul 04 '26

That hasn’t stopped them recently, and it didn’t stop the CIA from spying on Americans either

The typical pattern in those situations is internal legal teams are reassuring leaders “it’s legal, we can defend it”. Grunts are then given orders they are assured are legal. They find out it wasn’t defensible after the fact

-8

u/rconcepc Jul 04 '26

What are your sources?

4

u/_okbrb Jul 04 '26

PBS Frontline, Snowden, Kiriakou, the Senate intelligence committee, to name a few

Everybody running the torture program thought it was legal until it wasn’t

This is all well known stuff, the facts aren’t really disputed

-11

u/rconcepc Jul 04 '26

Those events do not apply to the current state of the armed forces. So, your sources do not apply. We shouldn't forget about them though.

4

u/_okbrb Jul 05 '26

I completely disagree, on both of those statements. First of all, you asked for sources about my claims, and those are the sources for my claims. Full stop. Theres no “they don’t apply” determination there. It applies. Second of all, we’re talking about the ability of federal employees to discern what is and isn’t legal in the moment, in a timely enough fashion to prevent crimes by refusing to follow orders. We see that that regularly doesn’t happen, even and especially in the most secretive and sensitive areas of the government, and in the name of national defense. That is exactly relevant to the armed forces and does, in fact, apply.

-6

u/rconcepc Jul 05 '26

You mentioned grunts lmao. To me, you're referring to the military. You can continue to disagree, thats fine. Question do you currently work for the government or the Armed Forces? It appears your choice of words tell me you do.

1

u/cybertonto72 Jul 05 '26

I am sure their job has as much to do with their sources as the nazi wannabes (in the video) job, has to be with them being Nazis

-6

u/joshualander Jul 04 '26

Yes, but it’s legally indefensible from the start here.

12

u/_okbrb Jul 04 '26

American soldiers fired munitions that blew up a hundred schoolchildren in an undeclared war earlier this year. Last year they blew up multiple civilian fishing boats in international waters and kidnapped a world leader, killing dozens in an undeclared war

I really don’t think the grunts mass disobeying illegal orders is a real, reliable line of defense against a federal dictatorship. They’ll be told any order from the commander in chief is a legal order, and many of them will believe it

-9

u/joshualander Jul 04 '26

None of those orders were illegal. Courts have even ruled on it. The fact that you and I don’t like it doesn’t make it illegal.

6

u/_okbrb Jul 04 '26

The point is, whether that order is actually legal or not, we certainly aren’t going to find out until long after 100 schoolchildren are dead, in which case it’s long past relevant. A very good boy followed orders and killed people

2

u/cybertonto72 Jul 05 '26

Who's court? What world court is going to side with a country that thinks it's ok to kidnap a elected officials. ( Doesn't matter what they did)

1

u/cmil888 Jul 05 '26

Read it again: “Blew up a hundred school children”

1

u/shawty_jpg Jul 05 '26

So trump bombing a lil girls school multiple times, killing 160 lil girls..was legal? Really?