Plot to Attack Ft. Dix Foiled

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Maverick
Which was sarcasm, the first post I asked the question about or the ones you posted in response afterwards?

Seagoon wrote

As it is, the fact that it was detected means that it will be forgotten in one or two news cycles and we'll go back to believing that when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan we'll all live happily ever after.

I wrote - "Yeah boy howdy! Lucky we attacked Iraq!"


THAT is sarcasm.. and I might add, pretty non-subtle sarcasm.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Odee
Right spot on Dux.  From his comment, I do not think Fishu has ever been on a military base/reservation, or he'd not only know about the civvies, but that the majority of military on US bases bases are unarmed as they go about their daily duties.

The news specifially mentions that they were going to kill U.S. soldiers. Soldier is a soldier and everyone anywhere should have a weapon available as long as they are soldiers on duty. They don't suddenly become civilians just because they don't have a weapon available at all - They can become stupid soldiers though, maybe even dead. A military base should have armed guards at all times and there should be a weapon for every soldier at the base.

I'm amazed if the military bases on US soil doesn't have any kind of a weapons locker with enough guns for everybody.

[Maverick]

MT

You took the time to post in a thread about terrorism and really have nothing to add or detract from the real subject. Ok, so in other words. pretty much anyone should figure you don't have anything of substance to discuss in a thread of this nature and whatever you post should most likely be ignored as being of null content and thought. Check. I kinda figured that was the case.

[Shifty]

Originally posted by Fishu
The news specifially mentions that they were going to kill U.S. soldiers. Soldier is a soldier and everyone anywhere should have a weapon available as long as they are soldiers on duty. They don't suddenly become civilians just because they don't have a weapon available at all - They can become stupid soldiers though, maybe even dead.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Fishu
The news specifially mentions that they were going to kill U.S. soldiers. Soldier is a soldier and everyone anywhere should have a weapon available as long as they are soldiers on duty. They don't suddenly become civilians just because they don't have a weapon available at all - They can become stupid soldiers though, maybe even dead. A military base should have armed guards at all times and there should be a weapon for every soldier at the base.

I'm amazed if the military bases on US soil doesn't have any kind of a weapons locker with enough guns for everybody.

Here speaks fishu, military genius with extensive hands on experience with the military. Just ask him or not, he'll tell you anyhow.

Hey genius, did you ever think that perhaps that "gun locker" (real term is ARMORY btw) would be locked and just might take a while to open. Did it ever occur to you that the ammo storage facility (otherwise commonly know as an ammo dump) might also be locked and not co located with the arms room? Quite often it is located some distance away from the main post facilities, something about safety considerations with explosives and other things that make loud noises when ignited you know. That is of course if it is a permanent part of the post where they keep a stock of things that go bang which few Guard bases do. It's ordered on an as needed basis.

That means the only ones with loaded weapons would be the guards at the gate (likely to be civilian security guards) and any on duty MP's.

[john9001]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Seagoon wrote

I wrote - "Yeah boy howdy! Lucky we attacked Iraq!"


THAT is sarcasm.. and I might add, pretty non-subtle sarcasm.

and you are implying that if the US had not attacked Iraq they would not have tryed to attack the base?

[Odee]

Originally posted by Fishu
... A military base should have armed guards at all times and there should be a weapon for every soldier at the base.

I'm amazed if the military bases on US soil doesn't have any kind of a weapons locker with enough guns for everybody.

Allow me to edumacate you on a couple of aspects about Military Bases in America.
For the most part, the majority of bases in the USA are constantly training our troops in one fashion or another.  Save those training sessions requiring fire arms and live ammo, only a minority of our troops are actually armed at any given time.

First line of armed defense are Contract Guards/Police, with some Department of Defense Police.

Second line is Military Police.

Yes every base I ever was on, has an armory...  Under tight lock and key.  And on the opposite side of the base we have the Bunkers for ammunition.

Now you may ask, "WTF? Why is the USA using contractors for protection?" and I will simply answer "Political expediency, and budget cuts, plus a general malais in the American publics attitude towards funding of those that keep us safe, and allow us the freedoms we enjoy.

It costs far more to higher a contractor to cut the grass, paint the buildings, and maintain the plumbing than it ever did when you could detail troops to do the cutting and painting, and had a company of plumbers on hand that were at least as compitent as the over paid plumbers for hire.  (pardon my typos)

{edit} Mav!  Just saw your post aafter I had typo'd the above {/edit}

[john9001]

Originally posted by Maverick
Here speaks fishu, military genius with extensive hands on experience with the military. Just ask him or not, he'll tell you anyhow.

Hey genius, did you ever think that perhaps that "gun locker" (real term is ARMORY btw) would be locked and just might take a while to open. Did it ever occur to you that the ammo storage facility (otherwise commonly know as an ammo dump) might also be locked and not co located with the arms room? Quite often it is located some distance away from the main post facilities, something about safety considerations with explosives and other things that make loud noises when ignited you know. That is of course if it is a permanent part of the post where they keep a stock of things that go bang which few Guard bases do. It's ordered on an as needed basis.

That means the only ones with loaded weapons would be the guards at the gate (likely to be civilian security guards) and any on duty MP's.

i don't know how the army does it, but when i was in the Marines we kept our rifles in our barracks, unlocked, we also had ammo locked in the barracks and the person who had barracks duty had the key.

there was also one marine rifle company on 15 min alert, armed and ready to go with transportation waiting.

[Odee]

Gotta check with my Corp buddies to see if they still do that.  How long ago since you got out John?

[L'EMMERDEUR]

United States is actually involved in a world-wide war for an ideology that knows no borders and will be satisfied with nothing short of absolute hegemony.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Maverick
MT

You took the time to post in a thread about terrorism and really have nothing to add or detract from the real subject. Ok, so in other words. pretty much anyone should figure you don't have anything of substance to discuss in a thread of this nature and whatever you post should most likely be ignored as being of null content and thought. Check. I kinda figured that was the case.

Wrong again. I left a very succinct and well thought out message in this thread. The fact that you didn't understand it does not equate to it's absence. But I'm not surprised by this lack of understanding, and I will gladly accept your apology.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Ty, Flit-I completely overlooked that.

The clerk turned the video over in January of 2006. That's about a year and a half ago. Over a year before VT.

Why do you guys think they waited so long?

They waited as long as they possibly could without letting the attack actually HAPPEN-- else the press (and just watch, this is gonna happen ANYway) would have poo-poohed the whole thing "they were incompetent, wouldnt have hamred anyone ANYway.... the gang that couldnt shoot straight...") Remember the Miami thing? there was another..cant remember much of it... Reporting that people in the U.S. need to be worried about an actual attack does not suit the leftist-media mindset that the WOT is utter Bush BS designed to scare people into voting GOP

[lazs2]

mt.. I am a little confused by your latest debate tactic of losing and then to cover... offering to accept the winners apology..   I have noticed you using this tactic several times lately..   what is the point of it?   Is it something you learned from being a democrat?

lazs

[midnight Target]

Lose?

OK. I'll be even clearer for the challenged:

A comment was made in the 1st post that basically said people would forget the significance of the war in Iraq because this terrorist event was thwarted.

My sarcastic remark was basically saying that the war in Iraq has never had ANYTHING to do with the war on terror. Has never had ANYTHING to do with our security and has never achieved ANYTHING in terms of a more secure America or World for that matter.

Terrorist attacks are WAY up in 2006 in Iraq as compared to 2005. Terror cells are still active in the USA and we are expending resources in Iraq instead of here where they may do some good.

Osama bin Laden is still at large and we choose to send 10 times as many troops into a Country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 than into a place that actually makes sense in the war on terror.. Afghanistan.

So I repeat my succict and well thought out remark....

Yeah boy howdy! Lucky we attacked Iraq!

and I accept your apology.

[Shamus]

MT, could you please clarify your position?.

I don't understand why attacking Iraq has helped here.

shamus