The invasion of Texas, 1999

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Forgive formatting errors just thought this was important. From the WorldNetDaily http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/19990217_xcbtl_the_invasi.shtml

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/19990217_xcbtl_the_invasi.shtml

The invasion of Texas, 1999 by Joseph Farah Imagine it's 1984. Ronald Reagan is president. The Cold War is raging. The Evil Empire is alive and well. U.S. military forces are being rebuilt. Somebody gets the bright idea to hold unprecedented live-fire exercises for Army special operations units in selected Americans towns and cities. In the dead of night, Delta Force troops sweep into towns firing weapons, burning down buildings and exploding grenades. Civilians are terrorized. Yet, there is a virtual blackout on coverage of the events. Mayors tell newspaper reporters that they can't talk for national security reasons. Police chiefs won't comment. The Pentagon downplays the activity. Now, what do you think the reaction to this would be from liberals in the press, left-wing political activists and civil libertarians? Even while America was engaged in a titanic struggle against the Communist Soviet Union, such maneuvers would have been unthinkable, incomprehensible, dumb. Why then have those predictable voices of dissent about all things military been so still in the last week as the U.S. Army invaded a good portion of Texas and Louisiana with just such exercises? Finally, yesterday, The New York Times carried its first story on the Texas developments -- an Associated Press report designed to minimize concerns about militarization, I am still waiting for the first sign of outrage from anyone to the left of Attila the Hun. But it's not just the left that's characteristically silent. The Republicans and conservatives -- even in Texas --don't seem to understand the grave threat such exercises represent. Gov. George W. Bush, considered a front-runner for the 2000 GOP presidential nomination,professed ignorance over the maneuvers. It hadn't yet been reported in The New York Times. Now let me say that I respect the military. It has an important role in defending America. I am no pacifist. But I also believe in the Constitution of the United States. The law is quite clear in America that the military is not to serve as an occupying force or to be directed in any way against the people of the states. It should also not be used to intimidate civilians, to make them fear their own government. I believe that is exactly the purpose of these exercises in Texas and the vicinity. It's part of a trend I call the militarization of the federal government. Washington is playing gunboat diplomacy with its own people -- showing off its power and might, just in case anyone gets any ideas about rebellion or resistance. We've seen it in the civilian sector of government. More and more federal employees are being trained, equipped and armed as police agents than ever before. There are more than 80,000 armed federal law enforcement agents prowling around the country at last count. That in itself is the virtual standing army over which the founding fathers had nightmares. Add to that figure the U.S. military forces, which, apparently, are no longer prohibited from domestic missions. Remember, it's not just about the Texas maneuvers. Just a few weeks ago, President Clinton was telling the nation that what we needed was a new "domestic commander-in-chief" to protect us from threats to our infrastructure -- be they from terrorism or other internal threat. Hmmmmmm. Let's see. Live-fire military exercises in civilian population centers ... the arming of more federal law enforcement agents ... the creation of a new commander-in-chief for domestic preparedness ... and, of course, the continuing effort to disarm law-abiding civilians throughout the United States through a concerted legal attack on gun manufacturers, a media assault on the Second Amendment and political targeting of pro-gun laws in all 50 state legislatures. What's wrong with this picture? Why should the government have all the guns? Does anyone remember why the Second Amendment was crafted by our founders? Do you think it was intended to protect hunters or to provide defense against criminals? No way, the founders blessed us with the Second Amendment because they understood the biggest threat to the freedom of the American people would come from government. And the best way to hold a government in check -- in fact, the only way -- is through a vigilant and well-armed citizenry. Does anyone get it anymore? Left? Right? Middle? It's your freedom that is at stake.

-- Texan (stillfree@ranch.com), February 17, 1999

Answers

Texan:

Just another step in steady encroachment. "The death of a thousand cuts" as someone else mentioned.

This country has been a police state for years, ever since "peace officers" became "police officers."

99.9% of politicians, bureaucrats, judges, and police and military officers have violated their oaths of office. But, "What, me worry!"

I don't think "Big Brother" caused Y2K (didn't cause the stupdity, shortsightedness, and greed of hundreds of thousands of business execs), but "he" is sure prepping to take advantage of it to make the final turn of the screw.

BTW -- Still free? Hah! Just another nigger on the plantation (no matter what your race). Think you own your property? Try not paying property tax and see who the real owner is. (Unless you are one of very few having allodial title/land patent.)

-- A (a@AisA.com), February 17, 1999.


The federal government has been taking Atilla lessons for many decades,...it is now just becoming evident to many people schooled for years on pledges, and anthems, and myths.

"Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; even more when they superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption of authority."

Lord Acton,(John E.E. Dalberg, 1834-1902), English historian

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), February 17, 1999.


Lord Acton, by the way, is the same fellow who said, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 17, 1999.

What a great example of a well balanced, well-written piece.

There really is something happening here, what it is aint exactly clear...

Why is there so much silence about this? Where is the media? The protestors?

As mentioned around these threads before, there are just better, safer ways to conduct training.

I just remembered while reading this that about a year ago there was a military exercise not too far from me which utilized the area around what was once known as Marineland in the Palos Verdes area, So Cal.

My best friend lives literally right next to this area and one very, very early morning he and his wife and son and all their neighbors were violently shaken from their sleep by the sound of helicoptors and live, automatic weapons fire. They thought we were under attack. There was no warning regarding the "exercise" and no real explanation was ever given about the nature and details. It was creepy then but now it does seem difficult to draw a line between what it is that constitutes domestic terrorism.

Mike =====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 17, 1999.


a little postscript speculation...

"Gov. George W. Bush, considered a front-runner for the 2000 GOP presidential nomination, professed ignorance over the maneuvers"

IMHO, either of the two "Bush" brothers is on that short list for NWO leader.

Mike =====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 17, 1999.



Mike, the reason the goonverment is able to get away with such maneuvers, and much, much worse soon to come, is tacitly contained in your statement:

..."My best friend lives literally right next to this area and one very, very early morning he and his wife and son and all their neighbors were violently shaken from their sleep by the sound of helicoptors and live, automatic weapons fire. They thought we were under attack."

No mention of any response on your friend's and his neighbor's part, but I know full well what happened. They received no warning from the local authorities. They had no reason to believe that this was an exercise. They saw no U.S. insignia on either uniforms or helicopters. They thought their country/state/town/home was under attack and THEY DID NOTHING. Instead of acting like Americans, they cowered in their den, maybe calling the authorities to express their "concern". Then, did nothing further, except gripe.

Talk about a people enslaved by comfort and complacency! When unidentified troops rappel into a town, from unmarked helicopters, firing live ammunition and setting off explosions, any REAL Americans present would see to it that casualties ensued among the aggressors.

But this won't happen, because 99% of Americans are SHEEP, and SHEEP DON'T STICK THEIR NECKS OUT.

Baaaaaaa... Baaaaaaaa.... Pleeeeease, raaaape my wiiiiife, kill my chiiiiiildren, I'll do nooooooothing...... Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), February 17, 1999.


Sounds like I need 100 more rounds of armor piercing 30.06. They are engaging the enemy and the enemy is u.s.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), February 17, 1999.

"They thought their country/state/town/home was under attack and THEY DID NOTHING."

Get real.

In Britain the police started working with Doberman Pinscher dogs. In due course they found that the Dobermans were smart enough not to tackle a man with a gun. So they ditched the Dobermans and trained up a batch of German shepherds. This worked out ever so much better as the shepherds had no fear of attacking an armed man. A number of dogs were killed in these encounters, but the police could always get more. The shepherds never did figure out that guns were dangerous.

Any householder in the situation described here would be a damn fool to start shooting at the troops -- not only himself but his wife and children would be put at great risk. Heroes like that don't live long enough to be much use to anybody.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 17, 1999.


<>

The above is pure BS. The clown wouldn't know "Live" fire if it went up his butt. Folks This DID NOT happen; no matter how much the fruitcakes want to THINK it happened. Anything is dreamable after enough six packs of Bud.

Try this rational explanation of the event.

There is nothing sinister here from a US or Y2K perspective. The LAST military force that would deploy in the USA during ANY domestic problems is Delta Force or any other Spec Ops unit. These folks DO NOT train to control crowds, arrest looters, restore order; guard important facilities or anything like that. They are NOT gentle. The Kill people and BREAK things with kidnapping as a side line.

Their intensive training is geared to three general missions. 1. Clandestine insertion into foreign countries to gather intelligence. This includes target illumination for Air Strikes (as they did in downtown Baghdad during the Gulf War.) 2. Clandestine insertion to a specific location to save, recover, evacuate hostages (hostage holders are taken out -no questions asked. This is NOT an arrest the bad man mission). (They roamed behind Iraqi lines to recover downed pilots, locate SCUDs and gather intelligence during the Gulf War) 3. Clandestine insertion to a point target to destroy that target or destroy or "snatch" specific personnel located at that location. (This they screwed up in Somalia) All these missions are followed by equally clandestine egress

Now comes the "live fire BS" from this clown who got it off the web (NOT from some good ol boy) from World Net daily- the panic mongers rag sheet

This is total BULLSHIT Only someone totally ignorant of military training doctrine; ANY and ALL military training doctrine would say such a stupid thing. I have always maintained World Net Daily was a rumor mongering rag and this proves it. Their total agenda is to whip up Y2K fear to a panic frenzy. Anyone repeating this slander is a part of their conspiracy or VERY DUMB.

No military uses LIVE ammunition in ANY training exercise except on specific Live Fire training ranges on military bases with specific criteria (huge safe impact areas, total control over access, strict observation,) and under very restrictive (sometimes too restrictive) safety rules. To say otherwise is just more BS.

Here is my SUSPICION of what this whole incident is all about.

The Bosnia conflict is in the news every night. We are going to get further involved in that. Many Serb leaders have been indicted for war crimes of slaughtering innocent people. These leaders are hiding in towns and villages deep in Serb territory. IF the NATO forces wanted to Snatch them for later trial they might just send in eight Pave Blackhawks with several Delta Force Teams onboard to the town where the bad guys are located. They would arrive suddenly, fast rope down, and, using Flash Bang distraction devices, seize the building where the bad guys are hiding, search the building, locate their target, secure them, load them on the Blackhawks and egress the area quickly. Other team members would fan out a couple of blocks to secure the area and engage any enemy forces that might try to intervene in the Snatch.

Does this scenario sound familiar?? That is exactly what the TX training session seemed to be.

It had nothing to do with Y2K or action against American citizens in this country. Regular Army and Marine units, along with National Guard and Reserve outfits have extensive training in Crowd control. THESE are the units IF ANY, that might be deployed to deal with any Y2K related civil disorder. There are many new Non- lethal techniques now declassified that will make ANY crowd think long and hard about rioting. The question is whether the political authorities will let the military use them.

Live ammo.....?, get a grip. I have come to expect very little from the Chicken Little Crowd and I have not been disappointed once again. It is only sad that some of the more intellectually challenged here will believe this HS and spread it as "truth". Oh well, Morons will always be with us but Y2k is bringing them ALL out.

-- James Gardner (gardner@aol.com), February 18, 1999.


Dear Mr. Gardner:

Ref the use or not of live (ball) ammunition. There are enough mainstream press stories refered to in other threads to indicate that there were indeed damages to buildings in Tx consistent with the use of ball ammo.

Ref the uses of specwar teams

You are correct in that these warriors are NOT involved in nice apprehensions, using Miranda and the rest. They ARE involved in making specific, limited applicatins of incredible force, so as to make specific people very dead, very quickly. Precisely what did NOT happen and SHOULD HAVE at the Branch Davidian compound, assuming that the objective was to remove the specific people from the compound without hurting non-combattants. The difference is that the Davidian raid was NOT done by the SPECWAR book. Hence, the debacle.

C

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 18, 1999.



Hey Tom and Jim,

The Army has now gone on record as saying that live rounds, albeit "low-powered training rounds" were used in these maneuvers. This contradicts the statements of eyewitnesses who stated that these so-called "training rounds" left holes in concrete walls, walls which have now been conveniently boarded up. Even if only low-power rounds were used, along with paper grenades, they are not blanks, they are LIVE AMMO. How can one tell the difference between blanks and live rounds? Easy, if you've ever spent any time around firearms. Projectiles add to the "signature" of a report, and will make a characteristic sound that blanks do not.

But this is unimportant. The whole point is, it is folly to assume that an unidentified, unannounced invading force is using blanks. If sufficient warning is given to the local populace that American troops will be training in town, obviously one would have to be an idiot to shoot at one's own countrymen. But such has not been the case in the incidents we are examining here.

I get the impression that you fellows would've stood a ways back from the green at Concord and muttered such statements as "Those stupid patriots are endangering their families by resisting the British troops!" and "Those soldiers don't mean us any harm." Or better yet, "Obey the King's men, throw down your arms!"

BTW, do you guys work for the government?

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), February 18, 1999.


Well, James Gardner, you are certainly full of it. It WAS live ammo, check out tday's article on worldnetdaily where former knight stalkers and rangers confirm that.

-- b (b@b.b), February 18, 1999.

A coupla points.

1. From what I've read from different sources, damage was done to buildings consistent with live ammo.

2. Granted, special ops. teams need to train realistically. What is not realistic is to play wargames in a functioning real live honest- to-goodness town.

Go do it in the boonies - why advertise what you are capable of doing in any case? In the UK the SAS and Police have built "riot towns" and "hostage buildings" where they can play to their hearts content.

3. Were thay after publicity? If so it worked. A little muscle flexing?

4. Read Hardliners piece for his more knowledgeable take on this.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 18, 1999.


AisA,

Do you have more information on the alloidal title or land patent that you mentioned above? I am going to pay my house off this year and in the time remaining would like to look into getting rid of my rent, er, property taxes too.

Any leads would be much appreciated.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), February 18, 1999.


James,

There are now several mainstream news sources reporting this story complete with video of damage from live ammo. Check out other threads in the Government or Military categories. WorldNetDaily was the first to report on it. Try Corpus Christi's newspaper or NYTimes.

IMHO: As a corollary, please note that it was an internet news source that first broke Clinton's coverup story...The Drudge Report. The world's a'changing and many traditional news sources are gasping to keep up. If you surf much at all on the internet you will notice that in the last couple of years many media sources get there material from the internet. Of course, that is not to say that one should believe anything reported without colloborative evidence. However, discounting the information due to the medium of the source is foolhardy.

It's interesting that you make such emphatic blanket statements before obviously doing any research on this topic. You owe it to yourself and this forum to so some preliminary research before attempting to make a contribution.

Texan

-- Texan (home@ranch.com), February 18, 1999.



"But this is unimportant. The whole point is, it is folly to assume that an unidentified, unannounced invading force is using blanks. If sufficient warning is given to the local populace that American troops will be training in town, obviously one would have to be an idiot to shoot at one's own countrymen. But such has not been the case in the incidents we are examining here."

The hole in this way of thinking is for citizens completely assuming that our military wouldn't be able to detect incoming enemies, and so we shouldn't assume that those helo's were our countrymen. I don't expect any enemy/unidentified helicopters ever be able to make it pass our borders, or even inplanted terrorists flying around in unmarked helicopters undetected by the military, so I would not worry about that. On the other hand, if I had witnessed in my town such an unexpected operation, I would have assumed either our military were after some real terrorists or they were practicing with blank ammos. What blows me is that they were practicing with live ammos. I still can't understand why they would be so reckless.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 18, 1999.


Chris, I respect you and previous posts you've made, so please understand where I'm coming from in what I'm going to say:

Aircraft slip through into our airspace every day along our borders. The air-defense radar coverage is spotty in some places, non-existent in others, depending upon the altitude of the incoming aircraft... for example, drug runners fly just above the bushes in the Arizona desert to evade radar. Please don't think of the U.S. radar assets as being monolithic and infallible, even the military's - they're not. Not every small aircraft carries a radar transponder, and even so, transponder signatures can be mimiced. Foreign forces, flying low, could easily penetrate U.S. airspace. I'm not saying that a squadron of Russian high-altitude bombers could visit unannounced, but a large helo squadron, using NOE (nape-of-the-earth) low-altitude flying techniques, could very easily do so. And, in fact, this is just what the helos in Texas have been doing - coming in low enough to hit power lines.

That said, examine your own remarks: " What blows me is that they were practicing with live ammo. I still can't understand why they would be so reckless."(italics mine). Chris, I think you do understand, deep inside, but are having a very difficult time coming to grips with that terrible knowledge. I know that, years ago,I had a terrible time wrestling with what was becoming only too obvious - that forces within our own government do not have our best interests at heart, are only concerned with keeping the current power structure intact, and will eliminate anyone who becomes too much of a problem. It'd be like finding out that your father killed kittens for fun, or that your best friend was into human sacrifice... the cognitive dissonance of wanting to believe the best about them, yet being faced with an awful fact. Yes, they used real ammo. No, they don't give a damn about the citizens. You've partly woken up... now just open your eyes and see.

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), February 18, 1999.


Sorry - italics off.

-- Why2K? (who@knows.com), February 18, 1999.

I have to agree with WHY2K on this. If they are in unmarked craft, with no visible insignia, not identifiable as US troops, under circumstances where it appears that they are using live ammo on my fellow citizens, I'd be very tempted to inflict a few casualties on the "invading" force.

It behooves them to 1) announce what they're up to, and 2) use one of their many deactivated bases out in the boonies for this kind of training. If they do otherwise, they take their chances.

If you must engage these guys, remember that they probably wear armor, and they do have the kind that stops rifle rounds. Head shots are a must.

I am not advocating that people resist in such a manner, but for those who think that they must, keep it in mind.

-- Bill (billclo@hotmail.com), February 19, 1999.


Bill, they wear Kevlar helmets too.

-- Runway Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), February 19, 1999.

Cat,

They sure do. However, those helmets are typically level II armor equivalent, and useless against rifle rounds. Even the best commercial copies are level III-A, and still won't stop CF rifle rounds.

Try it out yourself on a surplus Kevlar helmet. At 25 yards, my .223 rounds go in one side, and out the other. SO much for bulletproof. Actually, the helmets are not designed to stop rifle rounds, and they'd be damn heavy if they did exist, which I doubt.

-- Bill (billclo@hotmail.com), February 19, 1999.


Why2K, "Chris, I think you do understand, deep inside, but are having a very difficult time coming to grips..."

Indeed I do have a hard time.

Hardliner, what do you think of what Why2K said?

BTW, my dad did kill puppies rather brutally...when our dog had too many pups in the litter to feed. I cought him once, with a shovel. My dad was also a WWII vet, and my hero. I was 8. That was an event that shocked me and jarred my naive, all trusting desilusion about mom and dad and grown-ups in general. (He turned out to be a pretty decent dad, all told.) But what you said about the mil... that's no puppy genocide. And my percieved protection against enemy attacks...

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 20, 1999.


Chris,

I'm not sure exactly which, "what Why2K said?", that you're referring to, but I'll give it my best guess.

As far as what he said about the ability to penetrate US airspace, he's generally correct. Those remarks, however, should be read within the context of, "Who would be doing that and why?" and with the realization that a large scale invasion of the US mainland is simply not a logistically viable proposition for anyone except Mexico and/or Canada. Also, don't make the logical error of assuming the general case because of the existence of the specific instance, that is, because a single low flying smuggler can do it, it does not logically follow that an entire squadron of enemy aircraft could do it.

I suspect however, that the thrust of what he thinks that you understand on a non-conscious level is the following:

". . .that forces within our own government do not have our best interests at heart, are only concerned with keeping the current power structure intact, and will eliminate anyone who becomes too much of a problem. This is correct, but don't make the mistake of assuming that those "forces" are the armed forces. They are not. The two major stumbling blocks to a "takeover" (by "Slick", the NWO or anyone else) are the fact that the American population is "armed and dangerous" and the fact that the American military would not support such an action. In fact, they are sworn to prevent such.

It'd be like finding out that your father killed kittens for fun, or that your best friend was into human sacrifice... the cognitive dissonance of wanting to believe the best about them, yet being faced with an awful fact. "Why2K?" simply assumes facts not in evidence here, and your subsequent post seems to have put paid to this idea.

Yes, they used real ammo. Now here there is a problem. All ammo, including blank ammo and dummy ammo, is real. Training ammo (whether blank small arms ammunition or training grenades, etc.) makes a loud "bang" and produces a bright flash and can injure someone that is too close. Under certain circumstances it can even kill. "Live" ammo generally refers to "the real thing"; the same as used in actual combat. I can easily imagine some "gung ho" commando planning officer justifying the use of live ammo to himself and his superiors as being an, "acceptable risk, considering that the mayor has assured us that the training area will be empty of civilians". My point here is that we simply do not know. I will not accept the unsubstantiated report of World Net Daily as being completely accurate any more than I would the report of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc. We simply do not know. I personally can not justify the raid in the first place, let alone the use of live ammo if such was used.

No, they don't give a damn about the citizens." Again, this statement is right on the money, as long as the right "they" is the subject of the sentence. Until "they" are definitively identified and that definition mutually agreed to, how can you determine the accuracy of the statement? I am certain in my own mind, that there are "forces" (they) that don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and their own objectives, but the question of who "they" is/are continues to be the unknown.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 21, 1999.


Thanks Hardliner for your perspective (although it was dificult to make out what you said in light yellow ;-))

You haven't put my mind at ease at all. I understand that you are skeptical about any media reports, and whether the ammos were live or not, I am skeptical too. But the fact that different sources report that they were live ammos is disturbing. Worldnetdaily appears to me as having a streak for fear mongering, but the caller.com/Corpus Cristi articles?

Hardliner, don't you feel a strong need to know for sure? If we can't trust any media completely, how can we trust the military? You're bias in favor of the mil yourself. How will we ever get to the truth about anything?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 21, 1999.


Hardliner, can't read the yellow- age must be here sooner than realized.

-- PJ (Just@here.com), February 21, 1999.

Hardliner:

Ditto the yellow. try red, or green, as most of us are reading this forum in black on white.

There are reputable reporters with evidence in hand of the use of ball ammo as distinguished from simple live ammo in the Kingsville incident. The photos available also iclude none of the paper debris from training charges.

Chuck

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 21, 1999.


I'm cut/pasting below the paragraphs where Hardliner used yellow highlights to bring out the hard to see sentences.

"I suspect however, that the thrust of what he thinks that you understand on a non-conscious level is the following:

". . .that forces within our own government do not have our best interests at heart, are only concerned with keeping the current power structure intact, and will eliminate anyone who becomes too much of a problem. This is correct, but don't make the mistake of assuming that those "forces" are the armed forces. They are not. The two major stumbling blocks to a "takeover" (by "Slick", the NWO or anyone else) are the fact that the American population is "armed and dangerous" and the fact that the American military would not support such an action. In fact, they are sworn to prevent such.

It'd be like finding out that your father killed kittens for fun, or that your best friend was into human sacrifice... the cognitive dissonance of wanting to believe the best about them, yet being faced with an awful fact. "Why2K?" simply assumes facts not in evidence here, and your subsequent post seems to have put paid to this idea.

Yes, they used real ammo. Now here there is a problem. All ammo, including blank ammo and dummy ammo, is real. Training ammo (whether blank small arms ammunition or training grenades, etc.) makes a loud "bang" and produces a bright flash and can injure someone that is too close. Under certain circumstances it can even kill. "Live" ammo generally refers to "the real thing"; the same as used in actual combat. I can easily imagine some "gung ho" commando planning officer justifying the use of live ammo to himself and his superiors as being an, "acceptable risk, considering that the mayor has assured us that the training area will be empty of civilians". My point here is that we simply do not know. I will not accept the unsubstantiated report of World Net Daily as being completely accurate any more than I would the report of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc. We simply do not know. I personally can not justify the raid in the first place, let alone the use of live ammo if such was used.

No, they don't give a damn about the citizens." Again, this statement is right on the money, as long as the right "they" is the subject of the sentence. Until "they" are definitively identified and that definition mutually agreed to, how can you determine the accuracy of the statement? I am certain in my own mind, that there are "forces" (they) that don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and their own objectives, but the question of who "they" is/are continues to be the unknown. "--Hardliner

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 21, 1999.


"...Special Forces use guns, explosives in practice operation...The crack of gunfire and the low, loud boom of grenade explosions could be heard across the city...During the exercises, helicopters have been seen swooping low over residential areas in Annaville, Kingsville and Port Aransas. The soldiers, wearing black face masks and night-vision goggles, use explosives and sometimes fire live rounds during the exercises, the soldiers said..."

Military Test Exercises

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx x

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 21, 1999.


FWIW Relating this story to a friend, I was told that Delta Force always use live ammunition in their training. Perhaps someone might verify this. Still the whole thing has an odor to it, a big brother odor! Got Bandages?

-- cynic (pop pop pop@pop.com), February 22, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ