Posted on 02/25/2002 12:52:18 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:04:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Perhaps so they can deal with enemies in other countries?
Hmmm, other countries that have an armed populace that they are considering as their target along with local police who might resist such disarmament attempts? Hmmmm, that would mean we are planning to invade either Israel or Switzerland.
No, nothing to see here folks. Ignore the man behind the curtain. All countries allow broad gun ownership and disarmers would have to worry about local police defending the local populace's right to keep and bear arms. Move along...
Yeah,if you consider one case every 40-50 years inevitable,I guess it is. The military can't drop that practice because it is ESSENTIAL.
My sympathy to the cop, the same though a little less to the soldiers.
Why? They obviously thought he was role-playing too. Tough cop though, if two spec ops guys can't take him at a traffic stop.
Either one could have taken him easily if it had been a "real world" effort. It wasn't,though. They thought it was a part of the scenario that was being ran,so they didn't make any real effort to hurt him or "take him out". Only to restrain him. He was under no such restrictions,and the result is one dead and one wounded soldier.
Looks like the two soliders flunked graduation. Badly. Another article sited as to how the soldiers are trained in judgment and decision-making. Didn't learn well enough.
Only for people whose tinfoil hats are on too tight.
LOL! That's a classic, worthy of framing. "If you dare ask questions, you are a raving tinfoiler! So don't question anything!"
Geesh, when did asking questions about something become against the rules?
Lose your tinfoil hat. This has NOTHING to do with gun control,and they don't try to disarm the local population. In fact,they arm the locals and train them in explosives. What they THOUGHT they were doing was disarming a local cop who was working for the occupying enemy forces,and maybe taking him prisoner.
Well, folks like sneakypete, who DO know what they're talking about, get a wee bit testy.
We have some SFers here- are there exercise guidelines that specify how to deal with the local cops if one runs into them?
You've worked as a G-Chief too? FR mail me which team. We may know one another. We once took the covered bridge by having a couple park near there in their car and start making out. When the woman took her blouse off and both dissapeared in the bottom of the car,the 82nd MP's guarding the bridge couldn't take it anymore. They had to sneak up on the car to see what was going on. They met two M-16's(G),and the bridge was blown.
Since when does "new" mean the same thing as "sinister"?
We know the answer to that one. We'd be eating jail food.
I'd call it more than just a blunder. Unless a arrest of the two was a part of the scenario,I'd like to know why the guy driving the truck didn't tell the two soldiers this wasn't a part of the scenario,and to relax. Or if he did,why they didn't listen to him. This was one of the reasons I always drove the students on their recons myself when I was playing G-Chief. They might not listen to a civilian auxiliary,but they would damn sure listen to me because they knew I could get them bounced out of the program.
ROFLMAO! You need to increase your meds.
Posts like the one you responded to help me understand why so many people think we are in-bred, toothless, crusty-bottomed retards. Truly some of the most inane, uninformed gibbering I have ever seen.
Good job responding.
Yeah,I don't know from the POV of a G-Chief if they are "official" or not,but I ALWAYS made a point of talking with the local cops and not only letting them know what was going on,but involving them in some of the operations.
I have no real solid idea of what happened here. I can only guess,and my guess isn't much better than anybody else's at this point. I'm sure it won't do any good to ask anybody either,as everybody in a position to know what happened would have already been warned to not discuss it. The only people free to talk would be the ones who only know rumors. Rumors can SOMETIMES be the same as facts,but you can't count on it.
Who urinated in your breakfast cereal?
Probably because shooting a civilian during an exercise would be unacceptable. Also, believe it or not, there are times when getting a captive may be more important than killing someone.
But that doesn't fit as well into conspiracy theories, does it?
Uh, just an idea here, but perhaps they were training for conducting these operations in other countries. I was not a special forces guy, but whenever any unit I was in did training exercises in the U.S., it was not in preparation for actually fighting on U.S. soil. We trained here because that's where our base was located, not as part of some secret plot to impose martial law.
Better check under your bed for some listening devices to make sure "they" aren't tailing you. Sheesh....
This is nothing. You should have been around a couple of years ago when Delta ran that training operation in that small Texas city. WND jumped on the bandwagon and started writing stories about how the Apache gunships were conducting live-fire operations over the city,and even had a source they quoted who claimed to have read a secret "eyes-only for the president" executive order (that SHOULD have been a first good clue it was HorseHillary!)that stated this was training for disarming America. FR was full of threads about people outraged over US helicopters firing machine guns into the cities,etc,etc,etc.
BTW,myself,Chapita,and another poster who chooses to remain anomonous exposed WND's "source" as a phoney after the first story,and even pointed out flaws. They ignored us and continued to write these stories for a couple of weeks before finally backing down and admitting their souce "may be unreliable". The had been stating he was a Colonel in the Texas NG,and what he was was a Colonel in the Texas Militia. His "extensive background in military intelligence and covert operations in VN" amounted to his time as a enlisted man aboard a Navy ship floating offshore. Good job responding.
Thanks
That seemed to be your implication. If it wasn't,I apologize for reading you wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.