US-Soil Plot Foiled?


PDA






cavman
May 8, 2007, 10:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070508/ap_on_re_us/fort_dix_plot

By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer 31 minutes ago

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. - Six men from the former Yugoslavia were arrested on charges they plotted to attack the Fort Dix Army base and "kill as many soldiers as possible," federal authorities said Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The suspects were described as "Islamic radicals," said U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Greg Reinert.

They were scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in Camden later Tuesday to face charges of conspiracy to kill U.S. servicemen, said Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey. Five of them lived in Cherry Hill, he said.

"They were planning an attack on Fort Dix in which they would kill as many soldiers as possible," Drewniak said.

A law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because documents in the case remain sealed, said the attack was stopped in the planning stages.

Authorities believe the men trained in the Poconos for the attack and also conducted surveillance at other area military institutions, including Fort Monmouth, the official said. The official said that the men had lived in the United States for some time.

The six were arrested trying to buy automatic weapons in a sale set-up by law enforcement authorities, the official said.

State Police Capt. Al Della Fave said Tuesday that the investigation had been in the works for about a year. The arrests were first reported by WNBC-TV in New York.

Jerri Williams, spokeswoman for the
FBI in Philadelphia, said U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie and J.P. Weis, special agent in charge of the FBI in Philadelphia, would release further information later Thursday.

Five of suspects lived in Cherry Hill, about 10 miles east of Philadelphia and 20 miles southwest of Fort Dix, Drewniak said.

Fort Dix is used to train soldiers, particularly reservists. In 1999, it sheltered more than 4,000 ethnic Albanian refugees during the
NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.

After that war, refugees were allowed to return to the U.N.-run province of
Kosovo in Serbia or to seek permanent residency in the United States. The
U.N. Security Council is considering whether to approve a plan to grant Kosovo independence from Serbia under the supervision of the
European Union and the United States.

___


In this Dec. 2, 2004, file photo, Army trucks drive to the live ammunition ranges during military convoy training at Fort Dix, N.J. Six people were arrested early Tuesday on charges they plotted to attack the Army base and 'kill as many soldiers as possible,' federal authorities said. (AP Photo/Tim Larsen)

If you enjoyed reading about "US-Soil Plot Foiled?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sharps-shooter
May 8, 2007, 11:06 AM
Why were they wanting to attack the soldier fort? If they had been Serbs I could understand it as a standard revenge-type motivation. But if they're muslims from former Yugoslavia, then their side is the one that got helped out by the US. Maybe they don't see it that way?

armoredman
May 8, 2007, 11:15 AM
Because we are The Great Satan, no matter what we do. Because we do not bow to Mecca 6 times a day. Because the sole goal of Islam, as stated in the Quoran, is the forcible conversion of the entire world by force. Because they believe they will get thier 72 virgins when they die as martyrs. And lastly, because the reporting of terrorists trying to buy AKs will help the Demorats in thier quest to renew the AWB.

El Tejon
May 8, 2007, 11:35 AM
Why do you think it was Bosnian Muslims?:confused: Lots of people hate Americans in the Balkans. Serbs blame us for lots of stuff.

Once the USA releases the names will help us know who is responsible.

Onmilo
May 8, 2007, 11:43 AM
Heck I didn't think there were that many soldiers left at Fort Dix!
I thought they shut down the basic training facilities there.

Alex45ACP
May 8, 2007, 11:43 AM
Switzerland is predominately Christian and they don't seem to get attacked by terrorists for some reason...

Devonai
May 8, 2007, 11:44 AM
It's stuff like this that makes me wish every soldier was required to carry a loaded magazine no matter what the mission.

Loading this magazine at the wrong time is a serious issue, I understand that, but perhaps it could be stored in a single mag pouch in a plastic bag sealed by duct tape. The presence of the tape would be confirmed by squad leaders during pre-combat inspection.

I'm just thinking out loud, but this system would require the soldier to make a deliberate effort to load the live ammunition, thus reducing the chance that he will put a round into his bunk, blank adaptor, or buddy.

DogBonz
May 8, 2007, 11:51 AM
That’s in my neck of the woods. Damn, looks like it’s time to buy some more ammo.

ConstitutionCowboy
May 8, 2007, 11:52 AM
Got Gun? Wat'cha waitin' on, Armageddon?

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

romma
May 8, 2007, 12:14 PM
And lastly, because the reporting of terrorists trying to buy AKs will help the Demorats in thier quest to renew the AWB.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!!

wQuay
May 8, 2007, 12:14 PM
Switzerland is predominately Christian and they don't seem to get attacked by terrorists for some reason...

sshhh... we're in a fight to the death for our very survival... because they hate us for who we are...

lacoochee
May 8, 2007, 12:30 PM
Here is the FBI Report regarding this plot on Smoking Gun:

The Smoking Gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0508071ftdix1.html).

Definitely Muslim terrorists. In so far as the AWBII we can spin this our way with the public, there are muslim terrorists in the country, is now when you want to be disarmed? These guys are amateurs, imagine if they had been professionals, they wouldn't have needed to buy their weapons illegally, they would have just smuggled them in and then they would have been actual AK's and M-16's not semi-automatic knock-offs.

This should be used to promote concealed carry, GOA and the NRA should definitely apply pressure for national recognition of ccw's. The police cannot be there to protect you when you are standing in the WienerWald in the mall and shots ring out on the main concourse.

Prof. A. Wickwire
May 8, 2007, 12:33 PM
The six were arrested trying to buy automatic weapons in a sale set-up by law enforcement authorities, the official said.

Why didn't they just go to a gun show, buy "all the guns they can carry," and "use basic tools to easily convert them to fully automatic" I wonder? :rolleyes:

After all, isn't that what the press reports anyone can do? Especially someplace like Pennsylvania where all the illegal guns in New York are coming from (unless they are all coming from Virginia, or Vermont, or someplace in the South. Depends on the week.)

I think I need to go lie down.

Sincerely,

Prof. A. Wickwire

Ian Sean
May 8, 2007, 12:38 PM
Heck I didn't think there were that many soldiers left at Fort Dix!
I thought they shut down the basic training facilities there.

They stopped basic in '92 or so, but the base is still very active, and McGuire AFB is right next to it along with Lakehurst Naval Air Station to the south/east. It is one big military land reservation.

Lots of reserve activity there, Coast Guard uses it, the Navy, the Army still has some schools there and units...the rifle ranges are always active.

I grew up in the town next door (Browns Mills) and I was born in Walson Army Hospital on FT Dix.

Trumac
May 8, 2007, 12:38 PM
I was just at Ft. Dix last month for training. Onmilo, they dont do basic training there anymore, but we still train there. The article says they formerly housed Albanian nationals, they now house Iraqi nationals. My company actually stayed in the same barracks, on the same floor, that they were housed on.

rev214
May 8, 2007, 12:44 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007477.htm

some of the FBI affidavit on michelle malkin's blog as well...

Sniper X
May 8, 2007, 12:45 PM
I'd be willing to et that the "medis" drops this story very quick. They, the media as they are now, whioch is very left biased, does not want to show evidence that a plot against American's on US Soil was foiled "On George Bush's Watch!!" All they want to do is talk smack about the war in Iraq. Notice, we NEVER hear about the good being done in Iraq from the media.

joab
May 8, 2007, 01:03 PM
This was obviously meant as a demoralizing tactic
When are they going to learn we don't get demoralized so much as we get pissed off
We may get demoralized after we have time to think about it, but by then there are a few thousand dead people somewhere else

rev214
May 8, 2007, 01:07 PM
from CBS3.com:

Sources said the suspects trained for the plot in an area off of Route 380 in the Poconos.

cavman
May 8, 2007, 01:55 PM
good thing they said how they got them....

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/08/6_charged_with_plot_to_attack_nj_base/

From the Boston Globe:

The FBI was tipped off in January 2006 when a shopkeeper alerted agents about a "disturbing" video he had been asked to copy onto a DVD, according to court documents. The video showed 10 men in their early 20s "shooting assault weapons at a firing range ... while calling for jihad and shouting in Arabic 'Allah Akbar' (God is great)," the complaint said.

ceetee
May 8, 2007, 01:58 PM
Link to Story (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-58fortdixplot,0,4996190.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines)

Yeah... the media is really out to get Bush on this one. :rolleyes:

Republican U.S. Rep. James Saxton, who represents Fort Dix, said the base, along with adjacent McGuire Air Force Base, has been on its highest security alert level.

``This serves as a stark reminder that the threat of jihadists around the world and even here at home is very, very real,'' Saxton said. ``It is not a threat that exists only in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.''


Officials said four of the men were born in the former Yugoslavia, one in Jordan and one in Turkey. All had lived in the United States for years. Three were in the United States illegally, two had work permits, and the other is a U.S. citizen.

The men were identified in court papers as Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer, Dritan Duka, Eljvir Duka, Shain Duka, Serdar Tatar and Agron Abdullahu. Checks with Immigration and Customs Enforcement show that Dritan Duka, Eljvir Duka and Shain Duka are illegally living in the United States, according to FBI complaints unsealed with their arrests.

Yep. This is really gonna affect how those of us here in the cheap seats view GWB's management of the country these past six years. Better squash it now before we all go enlist...

rev214
May 8, 2007, 02:04 PM
good thing the dems in washington don't refer to a War on Terror anymore...:rolleyes:

El Tejon
May 8, 2007, 02:27 PM
Thanks for the links to the names. Saw the protected class names. The media will drop this faster than you can say "Lackawanna Seven.":D

eliphalet
May 8, 2007, 02:56 PM
Illegal aliens every one

starfuryzeta
May 8, 2007, 03:13 PM
Check out page 11 of the affidavit, where they are talking about acquiring their automatic weapons from.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0508071ftdix5.html

Kali Endgame
May 8, 2007, 03:53 PM
An attack on a US base on US soil wouldnt' do much strategicaly(sp), but it would do for them what the Doolittle(sp) raid did for us in WW2.

junyo
May 8, 2007, 03:59 PM
Attacking an Army base on US soil. But it's purely a police matter, we're most definitely not at war.

ilbob
May 8, 2007, 04:05 PM
Does it bother anyone else that these terrorists are so incompetent?

I got to wonder if there are so many incompetent terrorist cells that get caught, isn't that just teaching the other ones to be better at what they do?

On top of using up resources on expendable groups that might well better be put to working on the more competent cells?

buzz_knox
May 8, 2007, 04:09 PM
I got to wonder if there are so many incompetent terrorist cells that get caught, isn't that just teaching the other ones to be better at what they do?

I suspect that the better ones are the ones who help deter/bust these groups. Remember that before 9/11, groups within the US gave considerable cash and support to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Some but not all of that was cut off after 9/11. Those groups, which still receive funds, don't want to see their funds cut off, so they don't want to rock the boat within the US too much. So, they either stop actions here in the US before they start, or offer up the occasional numbskulls who don't know better than making life difficult for the fellow travelers and useful idiots within the US.

Colt
May 8, 2007, 04:12 PM
The idea of domestic terrorists attempting to gain the means to attack a military post rings hollow to me.

They've got all the opportunity in the world to attack military targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why "waste" resources within the US border to attack military targets? Why not use these resources to attack civilian or other "soft" targets?

Just doesn't make sense.

budney
May 8, 2007, 04:12 PM
Wow--what a bunch of hooey. Six Muslims decide to attack Fort Dix instead of, say, a shopping mall or an elementary school. Yeah, right. The same boobs that caught the "Miami Seven" now bring you the "Fort Dix Six."

If this is the best homeland security can come up with, then we should rejoice: there are obviously no credible threats out there.

--Len.

joab
May 8, 2007, 05:46 PM
Why "waste" resources within the US border to attack military targets?Come on an attack by six people against a US military base on US soil, how much more terrorist cred can you get.

When even military bases are not safe from the wrath of Islam how can the civilian population feel safe in their homes at night when their warriors are slaughtered like lambs.

obxned
May 8, 2007, 05:57 PM
Even on base, the people have fewer bullets than Barney Fife.

LightningJoe
May 8, 2007, 05:59 PM
America benefits from stupid enemies. We need them, because we've got a lot of stupid defenders (Pelosi et al).

budney
May 8, 2007, 06:09 PM
America benefits from stupid enemies. We need them, because we've got a lot of stupid defenders (Pelosi et al).

Make up your mind: are we fighting a war because against morons who can't find their posterior with both hands because we're terrified to "fight them here"? Or are we grasping at straws to inflate a nonexistent threat to keep the people afraid?

By "we" I mean the administration of course. So which is it? Is the administration a bunch of fools who launched an invasion because they're afraid of a duck, or are they a machiavellian bunch of liars?

--Len.

jlbraun
May 8, 2007, 06:20 PM
The first thought of terrorists with limited funds, training, and supplies is... ATTACK AN ARMY BASE populated by tens of thousands of men with guns?!?

Guess these guys never heard the phrase "soft target".

mdao
May 8, 2007, 06:45 PM
The idea of domestic terrorists attempting to gain the means to attack a military post rings hollow to me.

They've got all the opportunity in the world to attack military targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why "waste" resources within the US border to attack military targets? Why not use these resources to attack civilian or other "soft" targets?

Just doesn't make sense.

A lot depends on how these six guys see themselves and their objectives. Hating the US doesn't automatically make them homicidal mass murderers with civilian body count on their minds.

If they see themselves as terrorists, then they would be willing to attack civilian targets in order to maximize body count. If they saw themselves as freedom fighters, they're pretty much stuck hitting military and infrastructure targets. If they were trying to inflict the maximum harm on the US, then they would stay under the radar and perform raids against infrastructure targets. If they were trying for the maximum PR value, then they'd do a suicidal charge on a high significance target.

So, if the guys were self styled freedom fighters who wanted to make a huge PR impact by going out in a blaze of glory, a one time suicidal attack on a military installation makes a lot of sense.

geim druth
May 8, 2007, 06:46 PM
These types of small, independent cells are difficult to stop. They arise seemingly spontaneously. Their members are not suspected of anything by the police or by their neighbors. They have no links to a larger organization that counter-intelligence can use to find and track them. When the attack is over, they are all dead, leaving nothing but inspiration to other men of like minds.

budney
May 8, 2007, 06:48 PM
So, if the guys were self styled freedom fighters who wanted to make a huge PR impact by going out in a blaze of glory, a one time suicidal attack on a military installation makes a lot of sense.

Terrorists aren't usually interested in going out "in a blaze of glory" all by themselves. They like to take a few people with them. And it would hardly be a "huge PR impact," beyond Jay Leno and Jon Stewart calling them dipsh-ts on air for a few days.


--Len.

joab
May 8, 2007, 07:00 PM
ATTACK AN ARMY BASE populated by tens of thousands of men with guns?!?Ever been on a military base
Those tne of thousands of men are unarmed.
The only ones with quick access to firearms are the MPs and on many bases what you think are MPs are just overflow from the other units on gate duty.

Not only do they not have access to their military weapons but they are not allowed to carry guns or ammo in the private vehicle.

Once you get through the gate a military base is one of the softest targets you will ever find on US soil.

And not nly are there those tens of thousands of men there is also the wives and children of those men shopping, going to movies, bowling and just about any other activity that you will find outside the gates.

Six men
Two to the PX complex
Two to the hospital
and Two to the commissary
All unarmed soft targets suitable for your garden variety media attention getting bloodbath, and some would still stand a good chance of getting off the base if they know their way around

Elza
May 8, 2007, 07:21 PM
joab nailed it. VERY few are armed or have access to arms on an Army post. You would be astounded how many could be killed by six terrorists. I believe (hope anyway) that they would be more likely to be rushed and disarmed by troops than sheeple in a normal soft target situation. But in the meantime they could do a lot of damage.

Air,Land&Sea
May 8, 2007, 07:25 PM
Thank God for Assemblywoman Pam Lampitt, Democrat Cherry Hill, for just introducing more gun control legislation. Cherry Hill, the nation's most obnoxious town where there's literally more sheeple per capita than anywhere else in the world. No wonder terrorists are choosing this location. Look for the "Terrorists Rights" march any day in that liberal cesspool, I **** you not.

ArmedBear
May 8, 2007, 07:28 PM
Should have waited for them to actually try it.

I mean, it was a FORT, for chrissakes. Just alert all US personnel and make sure they're armed and ready. Keep tabs on the 6 and lead them into a trap. Kill them then and there, and be done with it.

But no, now they're going to live off my tax money for decades, while jerk-offs protest outside the jail and Noam Chomsky turns them into heroes to academics in the Social Sciences.

ilbob
May 8, 2007, 07:31 PM
Why not use these resources to attack civilian or other "soft" targets?

Sounds to me like most run of the mill bases are pretty soft.

I spent some time on an Army base once (about 9 months). I look back on it and think how easy it would have been for a terrorist to drive right past the civilian guard armed with a revolver and go just about any where on the base within a few minutes. i saw a lot of military people there but very few guns in evidence.

Hanzerik
May 8, 2007, 08:37 PM
The first thought of terrorists with limited funds, training, and supplies is... ATTACK AN ARMY BASE populated by tens of thousands of men with guns?!?

Guess these guys never heard the phrase "soft target".


After 8.5 years of running around the woods of Fort Dix and Lakehurst NAES with an AK-47 shooting the "Good Guys" as an OPFOR role player, I can say, with the proper planning, it would have been an easy task to shoot and scoot across vast areas of all three bases pretty much un-hampered. Unless the Army, Air Force, and Navy want to piss off a large portion of the population of central NJ by blocking off miles and miles of roadways, they cannot fully secure those bases without tons of money invested in remote electronic surveillance equipment. There is no way to do it with traditional fences and check points. Before 911, Texas Ave, the main road which traverses through Fort Dix, was open to public travel because it saved travelers about 15 minutes of drive time. Now unless you have a Mil ID, you have to go around Fort Dix and McGuire proper, but the vast majority of Fort Dix is on the "un-secure" Impact Area side which can still be driven on. Same thing with Lakehurst NAES, the main portion of that base is very small compared to the huge amount of land the base actually occupies.

ilbob
May 8, 2007, 09:23 PM
These types of small, independent cells are difficult to stop. They arise seemingly spontaneously. Their members are not suspected of anything by the police or by their neighbors. They have no links to a larger organization that counter-intelligence can use to find and track them. When the attack is over, they are all dead, leaving nothing but inspiration to other men of like minds.

Actually they do have links to organizations - they are called mosques.

I am hoping that the feds have at least one spy in every mosque. But my guess is they don't do solely to PC.

MikeG
May 8, 2007, 09:36 PM
Six men
Two to the PX complex
Two to the hospital
and Two to the commissary
All unarmed soft targets suitable for your garden variety media attention getting bloodbath, and some would still stand a good chance of getting off the base if they know their way around


There's also the DOD schools (ala Beslan) on some bases, plus the barracks and Base housing. This attack could have had a huge impact had it succeeded.

axeman_g
May 8, 2007, 09:50 PM
Cherry Hill is my hometown. It is a liberal bastion. Funny they lived here considering the Jewish pop of the town must be close to 50%. I dont think they would have felt very welcome...

Ft Dix is the largest mobilization center in the US for all forces going overeas. I hunted pheasant there last year... walked about 8 miles with a loaded shotgun and was only stopped at the gate when I checked in. I was suprised to say the least.

From what I understand these guys stuck out like sore thumbs here. Screw ups, thank god.

Solo
May 8, 2007, 10:24 PM
Actually they do have links to organizations - they are called mosques.

I am hoping that the feds have at least one spy in every mosque. But my guess is they don't do solely to PC.

Big Brother is an idea whose time has come.

budney
May 8, 2007, 10:35 PM
It's interesting how worked up some people seem to get over a ridiculous non-threat. It isn't high-road to call others "sheep," but I think there's a stronger reason that some of us shouldn't do that: people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

"ZOMG! So you're saying that three mentally retarded homeless terrorists were plotting to sneak onto the Nimitz with box cutters, take over and wreak havoc on the entire Eastern seaboard? Thank goodness the heroes at Homeland Security stopped them in time!" :evil:

--Len.

lacoochee
May 8, 2007, 11:17 PM
General comments not withstanding, should we be talking about security measures on our military bases on an open forum on the internet? A lot of us have had or do have access to things terrorists would love to know, maybe we should keep our mouths shut about specifics.

Does anyone want me to go into the security measures surrounding naval nuclear powered ships and their reactor compartments?

Didn't think so, and I never will.

Loose lips do sink ships.

MikeG
May 8, 2007, 11:43 PM
budney - you can only judge this to be a "ridiculous non-threat" after the fact when they've failed. Then you hint that we're sheep for being concerned.
And dream up a ludicrous hypothetical situation to illustrate how silly our concern is.

Just because the person trying to beat me up in the bar is a sloppy drunk and not a fully credentialled mall ninja doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned.

By the law of averages and luck, one of these days they might succeed in something. I'm concerned that they're here and trying, not that they're complete professionals.

Pork Fat
May 9, 2007, 12:17 AM
I think that these particular gomers rode to terrorist school on a very short bus. The FBI finally arrested them after months of observation out of pity. It just wasn't funny watching them step on their own cranks any more.
If this was the caliber of adversary we had to face overseas, Six Flags Over Mecca would have been the hot family getaway for the last 4 years.

hotpig
May 9, 2007, 12:58 AM
I have to admit that I'm surprised by some of the posts here.

IMHO any terrorist armed with anything is a danger. The fact that these guys was caught was a fluke. One shop keeper turned them in. If they had went to the same shop on a different day or shift they may not have been caught.

They were shut down when trying to buy full auto guns from a government informant. They were not just talking a tough game, they were going up to bat.

Walking on a military base and killing our soldiers especially on US soil would have a much larger impact than shooting up a mall or school. Any kid could do that.

LightningJoe
May 9, 2007, 01:06 AM
Make up your mind: are we fighting a war because against morons who can't find their posterior with both hands because we're terrified to "fight them here"? Or are we grasping at straws to inflate a nonexistent threat to keep the people afraid?

By "we" I mean the administration of course. So which is it? Is the administration a bunch of fools who launched an invasion because they're afraid of a duck, or are they a machiavellian bunch of liars?


Ah, well, it's more complex than that. The ones who flew the planes into the WTC weren't Einsteins, but they didn't have to be. They were still dangerous partly because the fools in the federal government enabled them. I mean, Atta showed up at a Federal agency in a corny disguise, asked for money to buy cropdusting airplanes, and threatened to cut the throat of the dumbass Liberal lady in the office. And they let him walk out. So instead he got a little flight training, bought an airline ticket, and drove the 757 into a building. He was a Grade A doofus but he still beat the AAA doofuses guarding the gates.

Oh, and then they finally got around to issuing his visa.

tanksoldier
May 9, 2007, 03:00 AM
Definitely Muslim terrorists.

Well, actually this may be the first non-terrorist thing the other side has tried. Ft Dix IS a legitimate military target... and since they don't represent a signatory to the Geneva Convention they aren't required to abide by it with regard to bearing weapons openly and wearing uniforms.

Illegal aliens every one

Illegal aliens, or invading enemy combatants? Our guys in Iraq and Afghanistan don't exactly get their passport stamped either.

The first thought of terrorists with limited funds, training, and supplies is... ATTACK AN ARMY BASE populated by tens of thousands of men with guns?!?

The vast majority of US servicemembers see a firearm once or twice per year when not actually deployed. The only Soldiers armed on a daily basis are MPs on duty.

mordechaianiliewicz
May 9, 2007, 04:48 AM
As you said tanksoldier, this is a legitimate attack by our enemy in a time of war. Attacking a military base of your enemy is one of a few M.O. s used during a war.

That being said, I'm glad the flunkies fell flat on their faces. Granted, as has been pointed out multiple times, these guys ain't too bright. Good work on the part of the FBI.

Oh, and wait, they didn't even have to use the Patriot Act, or suspend habeas corpus, or do a warrantless search to do it. Just had to do good police work.

And if all this evidence as is they've said, well... If I got to sit on the jury, I'd have no problem seeing these fine illegal immigrants were the recipients of a fair and impartial trial followed by a first class hanging.

Constitutional!

delta53
May 9, 2007, 08:35 AM
Back when I was at fort dix there were people stealing M16s from new recruits because we walked around with them without ammo so they would stop there car and a couple would grab them and be gone I doubt they let you walk around with them now.:fire:

budney
May 9, 2007, 09:12 AM
budney - you can only judge this to be a "ridiculous non-threat" after the fact when they've failed.

Are you trying to say that they might have taken Fort Dix after all? That we can't tell that they're a bunch of morons based on the mere fact that they intended to storm a military base with fewer men than, oh, a softball team? Please.


And dream up a ludicrous hypothetical situation to illustrate how silly our concern is.

Three men taking the Nimitz is "ludicrous," but six men taking Fort Dix is a legitimate threat to be feared? Wow.


Just because the person trying to beat me up in the bar is a sloppy drunk and not a fully credentialled mall ninja doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned.

Concerned enough to carry a firearm, maybe. Sure. But concerned enough to sell away your habeas corpus, fourth and fifth amendment rights? To abdicate your rights as a citizen and beg daddy government to protect you? From six dipsh-ts who've watched too many movies?

On the one hand we have the PATRIOT act, the MCA, the trillion-dollar forever war on a tactic, etc. On the other hand we have the Miami Seven and the Fort Dix Six.


By the law of averages and luck, one of these days they might succeed in something.

You mean that some collection of dipsh-ts might actually win a direct confrontation with the US armed forces? That's what the Miami Seven and the Fort Dix Six were planning. Well, maybe. But you'd be better off playing the lottery than betting on that. Which brings us back to the original question: do these ridiculously negligible risks actually justify the elimination of our rights as American citizens "for our own protection"?

--Len.

Air,Land&Sea
May 9, 2007, 09:15 AM
Two words -
Firing Squad.

budney
May 9, 2007, 09:20 AM
Ah, well, it's more complex than that. The ones who flew the planes into the WTC weren't Einsteins, but they didn't have to be.

True--but they did have a viable plan, which was created by men who at least had triple-digit IQs.


They were still dangerous partly because the fools in the federal government enabled them. I mean, Atta showed up at a Federal agency in a corny disguise, asked for money...

Exactly! Yet we're being asked to give up the 800-year-old right of habeas corpus so the same doofuses who allowed 9/11 to happen can "protect" us from further terrorist attacks. The protection is worthless, but the right we're asked to give up is priceless.

And they add insult to injury by parading deranged morons on TV as proof that they're "protecting" us! How stupid do they think we are? Well, unfortunately, we seem to be stupid enough for their purposes...


[Atta] was a Grade A doofus but he still beat the AAA doofuses guarding the gates. Oh, and then they finally got around to issuing his visa.

Yup. AFTER 9/11, the dead hijacker actually got his freaking visa. From the same idiots who promise that they can keep us safe, for the low low price of giving up our rights under the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments.

--Len.

ilbob
May 9, 2007, 09:21 AM
General comments not withstanding, should we be talking about security measures on our military bases on an open forum on the internet? A lot of us have had or do have access to things terrorists would love to know, maybe we should keep our mouths shut about specifics.
There are a lot of people who have access to these bases. Probably a fair number of Moslems, maybe some in sensitive places. I doubt they have any trouble at all getting all the detailed information they want, just for the asking.

Does anyone want me to go into the security measures surrounding naval nuclear powered ships and their reactor compartments?
One of the things that makes something secure is the knowledge by those who would attack it that it is secure. Exact details are not needed (like today's password, or the color of the badge one would wear today), but general details don't harm security.

mike101
May 9, 2007, 09:22 AM
"That’s in my neck of the woods. Damn, looks like it’s time to buy some more ammo."

Mine too. I'm in Mt. Laurel. I'm glad they weren't planning to shoot up the Cherry Hill Mall. There are so many easy targets in the Greater Philly area (lots of unarmed people, railroads, bridges, big buildings, etc.) that I have to wonder why they were going after Fort Dix.

Fortunately, these guys weren't very bright. They took their little jihad video to a local store, to have transfered to a DVD, and the clerk called Mt. Laurel's Finest, who called the FBI.

Way too close to home. Freaks me out, a little.

budney
May 9, 2007, 09:25 AM
IMHO any terrorist armed with anything is a danger.

Of course--just like a single hopped-up mugger with a shank is a danger. One worth preparing for by going armed. But NOT one worth giving up our civil rights in sheer terror. The guys who made the Fort Dix Six into a media event are the same guys who think we need the USA PATRIOT act and the MCA to be protected from... that?!?


They were shut down when trying to buy full auto guns from a government informant. They were not just talking a tough game, they were going up to bat.

Where "up to bat" means, "they appeared to intend seriously to attack a US military base." OK, that's pretty funny. Their arrest is funny, as would be their deaths in a hail of gunfire and the subsequent writeup for their Darwin awards.

But it certainly isn't "ZOMG! Save me! Take my 4th-8th amendment rights! Anything! Just save me!" material.

--Len.

budney
May 9, 2007, 09:26 AM
Way too close to home. Freaks me out, a little.

When asked to comment on the freaking out of Mike101, Homeland Security spokesmen replied, "BOO! heh heh heh."

ctdonath
May 9, 2007, 09:42 AM
Rule #1: All guns are always loaded.

This addresses both the safety issue (one must never think a weapon is not dangerous), and readiness (you exist, therefore you are a target).

Seems that "making guns safe" is actually more dangerous. Dorking around with loaded weapons leads to accidents. Leaving the thing be means not causing anything to happen. Guns only fire when you do something to them.

Every soldier should indeed be carrying a loaded weapon at all times (save when an AD/ND would prove devastatingly dangerous, such as setting off a fuel depot). They are soldiers, therefore they are targets, and may be hit at any time.

Which comes to...

The sheer absurdity of extending the "gun-free zone" notion to military bases. As we've seen repeatedly, "gun-free zones" attract would-be mass murderers precisely because nobody can fight back. For such a location to be a military base of all places requires a failure of leadership so perverse as to warrant wholesale abandonment thereof. That terrorists seriously considered breaking into a military base with machineguns to kill as many people as possible, based on the notion that they would not, after all, be shot on sight by the first people to see them, raises serious doubts about the sanity of our military leaders.

This incident gives lie to the popular notion that the 2nd Amendment is passe'. If a military base, within our borders, is a viable target for a few nuts with little more than submachineguns, then surely the occupants of that base are in no position to protect the rest of us who may suddenly find ourselves on the front line of enemy assault.

cavman
May 9, 2007, 10:00 AM
Talking to a buddy who is a major in the Army this morning and Fort Dix has the moniker of "Fort Disneyland" apparently.

Also, as many have previously said, an Army base is apparently great to go on a killing spree on, no one is armed except a few sparsely positioned individuals. Sounds like a huge win-win for the attackers: high body count of defenseless American soldiers, as well as bragging rights for their "daring".

AR-15 Rep
May 9, 2007, 11:17 AM
Well, as we all talk I am sure the military is reviewing security of military bases across the country. The one question to ask is:
Did the Security forces at Fort Dix know of the plot before the arrests?
Did they have any additional preparations made just in case?

And Now I would like to thank the shop keeper who turned them in. Every time something happens involving some kind of firearm, terrorist plot, etc it ends up costing everyone something. Money, just to investigate, and try to prevent another from happening. Our freedoms, Gun Control advocates just eat this up. Just the knowledge fo the whole thing encourages others to try. My best advice, either lock'em up down at gitmo and let them wait till we get to them, or just charge them with treason, and do away with them. This whole thing uses up way too much time, money, and still accomplishes part of thier goal.
I know agencies are doing things to prevent these acts, even though they are overwhelmed and often get complacent, they do what they can. Sometimes events like this should go unpublished. I am sure some do, but this one should be one of them. The money spent on this event will end up costing 10's of millions with newspapers, TV time etc. Money that should be spent other ways. I would love to hear how they used that money to train, and equip more agencies to get the job done rather than furthering the goals of terrorists. Anyway just my nickle (two cents is out due to inflation) on that.

DigitalWarrior
May 9, 2007, 12:24 PM
Do not worry, even though it was the army, I imagine it would have been short.

In the Marines, every "neighborhood" had a guard house or two with 30-50 Marines waiting to be told to kill some people. I nearly discussed response times, but that would not be smart. Instead I will simply say, it would end quickly and decisively.

I cannot imagine any enemy group on unfamiliar territory (we drilled several times a week) lasting long enough to see the HMMVs with heavy weapons, and they were there pretty quick. And that was before 9/11

Former Marine
Corporal DigitalWarrior
(I spent time in area guard.)

obxned
May 9, 2007, 12:42 PM
Foet Dix is a very 'soft' target, and access is easy because of all the public roads that go through it.

Correia
May 9, 2007, 01:04 PM
Are you trying to say that they might have taken Fort Dix after all? That we can't tell that they're a bunch of morons based on the mere fact that they intended to storm a military base with fewer men than, oh, a softball team? Please.

Budney, allow me to introduce you to my friend, the CLUE BAT.

They weren't going to "take Ft. Dix".

Thank you for the strawman. Set it up. Knock it down.

They were going to go and murder US soldiers, on US soil. This would be a huge win for them. Even if they only managed to kill twenty or thirty. (which anyone who has ever been on a base will tell you, no problemo).

They weren't going to "storm" the base. Thanks for another strawman. This isn't GI Joe vs. Cobra.

If I were them, and I had five other suicidal guys with rifles, and the element of surprise, I know that I would have no problem killing several dozen people in the first few minutes. My ultimate goal would be to take a building with military hostages, and try to milk the standoff as long as possible.

While the response was being prepared, I would make sure to saw off as many heads on video as possible.

And if you don't think a "group smaller than a softball team" is capable of doing that, then you don't know jack squat about small unit tactics or dedicated individuals.

As for them being stupid, and getting caught. If you knew jack about criminal investigation you would know that is normally how it works. Somewhere along the line, somebody screws up, talks to much, does something stupid, and that's how we get them.

So, because you are ignorant of small unit tactics, or the willingness of Muslim extremists to use them, then it all must be some sort of sinister plot by George Bush, and DHS to make us all scared?

No, everytime a crazy jihadi is arrested, then it is all a plot to support the patriot act. Surely there aren't any actual bad people in the world who want to saw your head off.

Man, I'm not scared yet. We better roll up some more innocent muslims and water board them. :rolleyes:

Give me a fricking break.

hotpig
May 9, 2007, 01:15 PM
It does not matter how smart these JO were.
It does not matter how fast the response would have been by the military.
It does not matter how many bullet holes the JO ended up having in their bodies.

All they needed to do is kill one person, military or civilian on a US base on US soil to win the battle.

We got a lucky break and they were stopped before the attack. I will narrow my mind down to some of the levels here and put it in words that some may understand.

Forget about the world wide war on terror. Lets just look at it real simple.

Terrorist buying weapons of any type off of American streets and using them to attack military bases on US soil is not going to help our cause. Nothing good could come of this attack.

rev214
May 9, 2007, 01:20 PM
Correia,
THANK YOU!!!:)

Titan6
May 9, 2007, 01:29 PM
They were going to go and murder US soldiers, on US soil. This would be a huge win for them. Even if they only managed to kill twenty or thirty. (which anyone who has ever been on a base will tell you, no problemo).

This is an excellent argument for allowing SM's concealed carry on post. All the SM's already have met every requirment that would be needed to get a CHL anyway.

There are a lot of people who have access to these bases. Probably a fair number of Moslems, maybe some in sensitive places. I doubt they have any trouble at all getting all the detailed information they want, just for the asking.

As the article pointed out the pizza guy can ride around post all day and look at pretty much everything.

Well, actually this may be the first non-terrorist thing the other side has tried. Ft Dix IS a legitimate military target... and since they don't represent a signatory to the Geneva Convention they aren't required to abide by it with regard to bearing weapons openly and wearing uniforms.

Disagree. Islamic terrorists have attacked multiple military targets throughout the years. It is just that our response during the old presidency was less than what was likely called for.

Correia
May 9, 2007, 01:36 PM
This is an excellent argument for allowing SM's concealed carry on post. All the SM's already have met every requirment that would be needed to get a CHL anyway. Agreed, but I wouldn't limit it to just NCOs. Regular civillians with less training manage to carry guns all of the time, and we manage not to do stupid crap. Especially nowadays when such a high number of regular troops have been deployed to combat zones, let everybody who wants to be armed, be armed.

Locally, the Adjunct General of the Utah NG has gone on a spree disarming everyone, including security. Personally, I think this makes him lower than pig dung.

DigitalWarrior
May 9, 2007, 01:46 PM
Corriea, I respectfully disagree. Were you a part of an area guard at any time in your service?

Without explosives, I suspect that you would have less than 3 dead per person in the attack team. And for that you would have to be both lucky and have your stuff together. Seriously, I am having a hard time imagining a situation with more than a dozen dead. Marines take cover and do not "go looking" for gunfire unless armed. The time spans involved are much shorter than you probably think.

My perspective might be a bit different, since I was part of the group designed to respond to this.

Semper Fi,
DigitalWarrior

Thumper
May 9, 2007, 01:51 PM
Budney, where do you get this ridiculous "take over Ft. Dix" stuff? Doesn't it seem a tiny bit more plausible that they were out to simply mass murder soldiers on the base?

You are aware that soldiers on a base are armed approximately as well as most elementary school students, right?

Six guys with AKs can build a big stack of bodies on a base before anyone gets there to make the bad guys dead.

No one here is arguing that suspension of Constitutional rights is a bad idea, but your poo pooing six suicidal jihadis with AKs as an illegitimate threat is strange. You might wanna rethink your world view.

ozwyn
May 9, 2007, 01:53 PM
1) it is a good thing these guys were caught. that's easy to agree with.

2) The patriot act seems to have played no part in the investigation or arrest. Doesn't sound like homeland security did much either. Can we get some pieces of the bill of rights back now?

3) the terrorists were incompetant. Give me 5 guys willing to die for whatever cause and there are plenty of easier way to kill people and cause terror. Hell they could have taken pistols, split up and hit the movie threaters and turned the Spider man 3 opening weekend into a bloodbath for starters in 5 different towns on the same time and cause a lot more fear and panic.

4) stupid terrorists work for me. I prefer them dumb and easy to catch.

Titan6
May 9, 2007, 01:54 PM
Agreed, but I wouldn't limit it to just NCOs. Regular civillians with less training manage to carry guns all of the time, and we manage not to do stupid crap. Especially nowadays when such a high number of regular troops have been deployed to combat zones, let everybody who wants to be armed, be armed.

SM= Service Member, that is all of them not just NCOs and up. Civilian's working on post? Sure so long as they submit to a simliar federal background check. Military installations need to follow different rules as the stakes are higher. Certainly Military Installations are among the lowest crime and safest places in the US though.

Locally, the Adjunct General of the Utah NG has gone on a spree disarming everyone, including security.

That could be dangerous. Did he give his reasons?

Correia
May 9, 2007, 02:07 PM
Corriea, I respectfully disagree. Were you a part of an area guard at any time in your service?

Nope, I'm a CEC 1st Class. Cake Eating Civillian. :)

I'm going off of my knowledge growing up in a Air Force family, and having spent a lot of time on an AFB. (Castle, now long since shut down). Perhaps the Marines would fare a lot better. Having done some stuff around Army NG buildings, I wouldn't place any bets there either.

SM= Service Member

Sorry, read that as Sergeant Major.

That could be dangerous. Did he give his reasons?
Besides being a scumbag, political hack, pile of crap? Not that I'm aware of. PvtPyle had a thread on here about it.

Biker
May 9, 2007, 02:16 PM
I was a member of a React Team 30some years ago as a young Army E-3, and that's what we did - React. You're always behind the 8 Ball when confined to reaction. If the Ts shoot-and-scoot, they'll do whole bunches of killing before they're cornered. If you have sappers inside the wire, ya gotta play catch up and that ain't no fun at all.

Biker

MrDig
May 9, 2007, 02:40 PM
The idea that a small group of people can't do a lot of damage in a short period of time is ridiculous. Ask any Spec Ops Squad what a team can do.
Couple that with the fact that the "Squad" that the FBI Captured was not planning on suviving the Mission and a lot more damage could have been done. The Idea that they planned on "Taking" Ft Dix is pure confabulation. They never planned to "Take" the Fort they planned on inflicting as much damage and Casualties as possible in a short period of time.
Having been to Ft.Dix in the late 70's to begin my tour in the "Green Dream" I can tell you that it would be fairly easy to Gain access, Get in position, and create casualties and havoc, that was their, inept as it was, plan.

October
May 9, 2007, 02:51 PM
Wait a minute. I thought a reason for the Iraq occupation was so that we could “fight them over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them over here.” Does this mean we should add one more to the growing list of failed strategies?

buzz_knox
May 9, 2007, 02:52 PM
The Idea that they planned on "Taking" Ft Dix is pure confabulation.

The proper term is "red herring," and is often used in such circumstances to make the threat appear nonsensical by attributing false ambitions to the group. Kind of like saying on Dec. 6, 1941, that the Japanese would never attack Pearl Harbor because they couldn't invade and hold Oahu, ignoring the fact that such a goal was never in consideration.

Anyone remember the lone soldier who opened fire on the morning formation some years back? One dedicated (if deranged) can do massive damage, let alone a small group.

buzz_knox
May 9, 2007, 02:53 PM
Wait a minute. I thought a reason for the Iraq occupation was so that we could “fight them over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them over here.” Does this mean we should add one more to the growing list of failed strategies?

Only if you consider the European campaign in WWII a failure because we had to deal with German saboteurs in the US.

budney
May 9, 2007, 02:56 PM
Budney, where do you get this ridiculous "take over Ft. Dix" stuff? Doesn't it seem a tiny bit more plausible that they were out to simply mass murder soldiers on the base?

To ask the question is to answer it, wouldn't you say? "Mass murder" on a military base? Completely ridiculous.

--Len.

buzz_knox
May 9, 2007, 03:02 PM
To ask the question is to answer it, wouldn't you say? "Mass murder" on a military base? Completely ridiculous.

Been done before. So it's not ridiculous, it's fact.

tanksoldier
May 9, 2007, 03:08 PM
Are you trying to say that they might have taken Fort Dix after all? That we can't tell that they're a bunch of morons based on the mere fact that they intended to storm a military base with fewer men than, oh, a softball team? Please.

It's not about "storming" the base or "taking" it. All they have to do is shoot up the PX or commissary and scram. They don't even have to kill very many, or even any at all. It would be a PR coup just to try. Guerrilla warfare is as much about perception as actual effect.

To be perfectly honest, I could get in and make such an attack myself on any post I've been assigned... getting out may or may not be possible depending on the MP's SRT, but making the attack would work.

budney: Your denials aren't well thought out. They seem quite... hysterical, almost manic as if you absolutely cannot accept that there might be some sort of danger from Islamics. You also persist in denigrating those who would defend you. Certainly people make mistakes, and the enemy follows his own plans not yours. By your reasoning WWII was a failure because of the Battle of the Bulge or the casualties on Omaha Beach.

budney
May 9, 2007, 03:08 PM
Been done before. So it's not ridiculous, it's fact.

Sigh. So the soldiers in their bases are as helpless as a as a pack of Brownies at a picnic. Great. I guess it's high time to discharge the sissies (dishonorably) and go back to a civilian militia, like the framers intended anyway.

Meanwhile, someone should tell the boys at the Pentagon that a military base ought to have some sort of security provisions. In fact, how about armed guards? Strange that that never occurred to the brass. And here's an even better idea: why not arsenal weapons right there are the base? You know, to stop that rash of military-base massacres.

Sigh. Are we sheep, or are we felines? I can't decide...

Meanwhile, provide references for the previous times "it's been done."

--Len.

hotpig
May 9, 2007, 03:10 PM
buzz_knox

Some people can not see the forest because of the trees.

buzz_knox
May 9, 2007, 03:11 PM
Some people can not see the forest because of the trees.

No, some people just couldn't care less about the trees, if they aren't convenient to the agenda.

budney
May 9, 2007, 03:13 PM
budney: Your denials aren't well thought out. They seem quite... hysterical, almost manic as if you absolutely cannot accept that there might be some sort of danger from Islamics.

Exactly: I'm hysterically, manically unafraid of the famous "half-dozen retarded muslims" brigade. So much so that I view with contempt the government's decision to gut the 4th-8th amendments and suspend habeas corpus in order to "protect" us from such "threats."

I'd agree that there is "some sort of danger." Certainly. That's why people should be armed. If the current administration gave a damn about countering that danger, they'd strengthen the second amendment, encourage all citizens everywhere to be armed, and roll back restrictions on armed flight personnel.

That would have eliminated all danger from the "six retarded muslim" platoon, because the people at Fort Dix wouldn't be "as unarmed as kindergarteners" when the loonies arrived with their pop-guns.

Instead, they're busy confiscating our civil rights in order to "protect" us. And the sight of six retards in handcuffs is enough to make us say, "Thank goodness for their vigilance!" :barf:

--Len.

buzz_knox
May 9, 2007, 03:17 PM
Instead, they're busy confiscating our civil rights in order to "protect" us. And the sight of six retards in handcuffs is enough to make us say, "Thank goodness for their vigilance!"

If your goal is to balance rights versus security, you're not helping your case by coming up with BS excuses to explain why what looks like a threat isn't a threat.

DigitalWarrior
May 9, 2007, 03:17 PM
It is true that sapper inside the wire ain't no fun. I still can't see more than 15 dead from rifle fire in the time allotted. Explosives change the equation dramatically. Biker, since you have been a part of a team, do you remember how long it took you to get to the farthest area of responsibility? How about the juicy targets? If your numbers were similar to mine, I think you can imagine why I say 3 each, on the high side.

Shoot and scoot would be a bad situation, but forget about comparisons to Special Forces. SF have more intel support and training than a company of infantrymen. Mockups and drills. These guys are not of the "ImUpTheySeeMeImDown" crowd.

I do not remember any attack on a morning formation, what were the specifics?

budney
May 9, 2007, 03:20 PM
If your goal is to balance rights versus security...

Definitely not! There is no "balance." Rights are absolute. That's actually why they included that "Bill o' Rights" thingie in that thar Constitution.

I'm just pointing out that we've given up our rights as citizens in sheer terror of a pissant half-dozen guys who would promptly be gunned down by an armed and alert populace. If they actually managed to kill, say, two dozen people before they were taken out, I'd still be saying, "And THAT'S why 300 million people have given up habeas corpus and other civil rights. Don't YOU feel like an idiot?"

Indeed, I'd say the same thing if Fort Dix were depopulated by those crazy Muslims. Our rights are not up for grabs. If you think you can avert terrorism by taking away our rights... too bad: come up with another plan.

The only reason I'm highlighting the triviality of the threat is that it's especially ironic to see grown, armed men quiver in terror at such childishness. However many they managed to kill, it would be far fewer than died that same day in traffic accidents (namely, about 110 people).

--Len.

buzz_knox
May 9, 2007, 03:33 PM
I do not remember any attack on a morning formation, what were the specifics?

Back in the late '80s-early '90s, a soldier waited for morning PT on a wooded hill. When the formation assembled, he opened fire. I want to say this was in the mid-West, but could be wrong. I remember several were killed/severely wounded, including in the rush to take his position unarmed.

The only reason I'm highlighting the triviality of the threat is that it's especially ironic to see grown, armed men quiver in terror at such childishness.

When you falsify information like claiming they were planning to take Fort Dix, you get trivialized, not the threat.

October
May 9, 2007, 03:36 PM
Only if you consider the European campaign in WWII a failure because we had to deal with German saboteurs in the US.

The objective of the European campaign wasn’t to prevent German saboteurs. President Roosevelt never said, “We have to mobilize and wage war in Europe to prevent the Germans from sending saboteurs to our shores.”

However, President Bush has said, “The best way to protect the American people is to stay on the offense and defeat them overseas, so we do not have to face them here at home.”

So I say again, now that we are facing them at home, is this evidence of another failed administration strategy?

budney
May 9, 2007, 03:42 PM
When you falsify information like claiming they were planning to take Fort Dix, you get trivialized, not the threat.

Says the guy who referred to a "mass murder" at Fort Dix. (Whoops, that was Thumper, not you. He was on your side, though.) :D

Once again from the top. This "threat" is hardly on the scale of another 9/11, yet "preventing future 9/11's" is the claimed justification for creating the HSD (heimatsicherheitsdienst) in the first place, as well as for passing laws like USA PATRIOT and the MCA. There have been bank robberies involving more than six bad guys. This is at worst on the scale of ordinary crime, and even if it came to fruition would be less bloody than just about any other scenario involving six gunmen, since they're attacking a facility with security and heavily armed guards.

It's hardly something to get your undies in a bunch over. On average, 110 people will die on America's roads today, but that doesn't have you widdling your pants in terror, does it? Those six guys wouldn't have a prayer of killing 100 people before they were taken out.

As for my rhetorical exaggeration, I agree that the unexaggerated facts are ridiculous enough. But people are actually getting worked up about this, and praising the HSD as if they did something noteworthy. They didn't do anything remotely comparable in magnitude to the evil of the MCA.

--Len.

rev214
May 9, 2007, 03:44 PM
So I say again, now that we are facing them at home, is this evidence of another failed administration strategy?

man, grabbing complete defeat from the jaws of a single victory?:D

budney
May 9, 2007, 03:45 PM
So I say again, now that we are facing them at home, is this evidence of another failed administration strategy?

Of course. But it's worse than a failure. Iraq has been converted into an incubator of terrorism that will not cool down for decades. When the US pulls out, as sooner or later it must, it will leave behind a ready pool of volunteers and a chaotic nation in which they can act unrestrained. So far the "terrorists" apprehended in the US have been home-grown copycats (not to mention half-witted). Given a few years to regroup, there's good reason for expecting worse.

--Len.

Titan6
May 9, 2007, 03:49 PM
Back in the late '80s-early '90s, a soldier waited for morning PT on a wooded hill. When the formation assembled, he opened fire. I want to say this was in the mid-West, but could be wrong. I remember several were killed/severely wounded, including in the rush to take his position unarmed.

You mean the shooting of 21 people at Fort Bragg, NC in 1995? Including the murder of the Brigade S-2. Never happened. Just ask Len.

Total fabrication:
Fort Bragg, N.C.

Soldier Killed in Shooting
ONE paratrooper died and 20 others were injured in a late October shooting incident in the 82nd Airborne Division area at Fort Bragg, N.C.

Maj. Steven Badger, an intelligence officer with the 82nd's Headquarters Company, 2nd Brigade, was killed when a soldier fired on troops during morning physical training.

Of the 20 injured soldiers, 18 sustained gunshot wounds. One soldier fell as he tried to leave the scene, and another was hurt helping to apprehend the suspect.

Nineteen of the 21 soldiers injured or killed in the incident were from the 82nd Abn. Div. Two others were assigned to U.S. Army Special Operations Command, also at Fort Bragg.

The shooting suspect, Sgt. William Kreutzer, was from 4th Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment. He was apprehended by Fort Bragg soldiers and is being held at a confinement facility at Camp Lejeune, N.C.

See related story, "Violence at Work," beginning on page 28. -- XVIII Abn. Corps and 82nd Abn. Div. Public Affairs Offices

budney
May 9, 2007, 03:53 PM
You mean the shooting of 17 people at Fort Bragg, NC in 1994? Including the murder of the Battalion S-3. Never happened. Just ask Len.

You're putting words in my mouth. Anyway, I can't find a reference to the incident you describe. Please post a link.

--Len.

Titan6
May 9, 2007, 03:55 PM
Link and edit above. My memory is fuzzy also.

http://www.army.mil/soldiers/dec95/p6.html

Yes those felines at the 82d Airborne. You know how they are.

budney
May 9, 2007, 04:04 PM
Titan6, thanks for the link. Your story illustrates what I'm talking about: a trained soldier who knew his way around the base and knew actual tactics, only managed to kill 1 and wound another dozen and a half.

The six Muslims in question apparently "trained" by shooting paper at a range in Eastern PA, using pistols and semi-auto rifles. They have no known training in team tactics, or even one-man tactics. I'd expect them to kill a few people, but their attack would be short-lived and the body count low. It would certainly be an unhappy day, but as a blow against the United States it would be insignificant.

--Len.

rev214
May 9, 2007, 04:11 PM
It would certainly be an unhappy day, but as a blow against the United States it would be insignificant.

i think the MSM would report it a bit differently...

Titan6
May 9, 2007, 04:15 PM
only managed to kill 1 and wound another dozen and a half.:barf:

Well at least I know who the fans of the military are. :barf: He was shooting a .22RF rifle at a range of over 100 yards. Turn that into and AK-47 or AR-15 and you have a whole other ball of wax. The soldiers that eventually stopped him charged his position unarmed and were all shot on the way to get him.

The six Muslims in question apparently "trained" by shooting paper at a range in Eastern PA, using pistols and semi-auto rifles. They have no known training in team tactics, or even one-man tactics. I'd expect them to kill a few people, but their attack would be short-lived and the body count low. It would certainly be an unhappy day, but as a blow against the United States it would be insignificant.

Some of this is not true and some this you have no way of knowing but none of it is correct. I suggest until you know what you are talking about to stop making inflamatory statements. Otherwise this is futile.

budney
May 9, 2007, 04:15 PM
i think the MSM would report it a bit differently...

Well sure! Aside from any bias that might come into it, there's the simple fact that sensationalism sells. They'd make a huge deal of it. Unfortunately, that's why their goals line up with those of the terrorists: both want us to be afraid, though for different reasons.

For that matter, government officials want us to be afraid too--for yet a third reason. Namely, so they can whip us into a frenzy and motivate us to vote for them.

--Len.

budney
May 9, 2007, 04:21 PM
only managed to kill 1 and wound another dozen and a half.

Well at least I know who the fans of the military are.

That's not a very high-road remark, and I can't think of a high-road reply to it. I don't think it's necessary to point out what's wrong with your comment.

Once again, the point is that folks on this thread are talking about dozens of soldiers being killed, or describing them as "unarmed as elementary schoolers," or just generally suggesting that these six dunces could have built up a "pile of corpses."

By contrast, I point out that a soldier who knows what he's doing set out to kill his fellow soldiers, and managed to kill exactly one.

I could argue that the folks who think a basefull of soldiers will go down like a bunch of little girls are real "fans of the military." I'm saying that these soldiers are honest-to-goodness men and are capable of dealing with the threat from a bunch of untrained yahoos.


I suggest until you know what you are talking about to stop making inflamatory statements.

There's a certain amount of speculation on this thread, but for some reason you only object to the guy speculating that trained soldiers can take on untrained nincompoops. You're perfectly fine with speculation to the effect that the nincompoops would be able to pull off a sizable massacre.

--Len.

Titan6
May 9, 2007, 04:25 PM
I agree completely. For you to attempt to minimize and dismiss those killed and wounded is NTHR and disgusts me.

I could argue that the folks who think a basefull of soldiers will go down like a bunch of little girls are real "fans of the military." I'm saying that they're honest-to-goodness men and are capable of dealing with the threat from a bunch of untrained yahoos.

Again you do not understand the threat.

AZTOY
May 9, 2007, 04:28 PM
I disagree!

If the six yahoos opened fired on a Battalion formation with AKs, a lot of solders would die!:banghead:

budney
May 9, 2007, 04:32 PM
For you to attempt to minimize and dismiss those killed and wounded is NTHR and disgusts me.

That's a pathetic argumentum ad hominem. We're discussing the effectiveness of an attack by six guys armed with pistols and semi-automatic rifles, with no tactical training.

One way to discuss the effectiveness is to compare their proposed attack with an actual attack. You originally claimed that seventeen soldiers were killed in the actual attack, but it turned out that only one was killed and not seventeen as you originally thought.

That's certainly informative: it tells us that a trained soldier actually assigned to that base, in attempting to kill many of his fellow soldiers, was unable to do so. It suggests that untrained individuals with small arms are unlikely to succeed at creating the bloodbath that you and others think they could.

Nothing in that discussion makes me glad to see anyone die, so your attempt to suggest otherwise is simply a cheap attempt at argumentum ad hominem.

--Len

budney
May 9, 2007, 04:35 PM
If the six yahoos opened fired on a Battalion formation with AKs, a lot of solders would die!

Maybe, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion that many would die. In the actual incident linked above, the soldiers were in formation and many didn't die.

--Len.

Correia
May 9, 2007, 04:41 PM
Maybe, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion that many would die. In the actual incident linked above, the soldiers were in formation and many didn't die.

Out of curiosity, do you know the difference between .22LR and 7.62x39?

Just so you know, if you shoot 18 people with a 7.62x39 at that kind of range, you don't get a 94% survival rate.

Titan6
May 9, 2007, 04:41 PM
One way to discuss the effectiveness is to compare their proposed attack with an actual attack. You originally claimed that seventeen soldiers were killed in the actual attack, but it turned out that only one was killed and not seventeen as you originally thought.

That is not what I said. What I said was:

You mean the shooting of 17 people at Fort Bragg

The number was higher. You feel this is better? You really do have issues.

We're discussing the effectiveness of an attack by six guys armed with pistols and semi-automatic rifles, with no tactical training.

All of the bold face parts are either unknown or untrue.

budney
May 9, 2007, 05:08 PM
The number was higher. You feel this is better? You really do have issues.

The number of dead was substantially lower. At no point have I ever expressed approval of the shooting of US soldiers (or anyone else). Your dishonesty is unbecoming.



We're discussing the effectiveness of an attack by six guys armed with pistols and semi-automatic rifles, with no tactical training.

All of the bold face parts are either unknown or untrue.

It would be nice if you'd point out exactly what is untrue, and provide sources. You can't of course, because you're wrong, but it would be nice.

First, there were six guys (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-fortdixsix-sg,0,832980.storygallery?coll=ny-top-headlines). The only weapons they actually possessed were handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic (http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/05/09/3034-six-arrested-for-plotting-to-kill-soldiers-at-fort-dix/) rifles. Their "training" consisted of watching jihadist videos (http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/05/6_arrested_in_plot_to_kill_sol.html), shooting for a week in Gouldsboro PA (http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/05/this_doesnt_happen_in_gouldsbo.html), and playing paintball. (http://www.wnbc.com/news/13279046/detail.html)

--Len.

Correia
May 9, 2007, 05:26 PM
Thanks Budney, this has been a very informative thread. So far I've learned:

1. The government can never do anything right.
2. If it seems the government does something right, once in a great while, like break up a terror plot, then it must be fake.
3. Terrorists are made up, kind of like the boogey man to scare us into supporting the Patriot act.
4. If there are real terrorists, then we must assume that they will be incompetant.
5. If real terrorists actually accomplish something, then we must assume that it was by luck. (unless Dick Cheney actually planned it).
6. Six muslim men, who make a video of them shooting, and screaming Allah Akhbar and Death to America, were just enjoying the 1st and 2nd amendment rights. Any plans found in their possession, or confessions made to .gov informants should not be believed.
7. The 82nd Airborne is the same as a local Girl Scout Troop.
8. Even though the soldiers are disarmed, the above mentioned terrorists won't be able to hurt them, due to the terrorist's incompetance.
9. If we disagree with you, we must love the Patriot Act, and think that soldiers should be disarmed.
10. A lone whackadoo soldier, who attacks a formation with a .22LR is the ultimate in total lethality. But six motivated, suicidal, terrorists armed with superior weapons are not a threat. We can assume the casualty rate will be the same for both incidents.
11. One .22LR is more lethal than six AK47s.
12. When your argument is attacked, and the flaws in your logic are shown, you should pull out an even more bizzare strawman.
13. After three or four increasingly fairytale like strawmen, (i.e. taking over the Nimitz with boxcutters, the six guys were going to take over all of Fort Dix) start casting dispersions on others, question their patriotism and mandhood, Sure. But concerned enough to sell away your habeas corpus, fourth and fifth amendment rights? To abdicate your rights as a citizen and beg daddy government to protect you?then change the subject.
14. Jihadists would never attack a military force here. Jihadists have never attacked a US military force anywhere else either.
15. If you think that terrorism is a bonafide threat, then by default you must belive in eliminating Habeus Corpus, and dissolution of the entire bill of rights. If you believe in the Constitution, but you also think that terrorists are real, then you are wrong.
16. Committing mass murder on a military base is totally impossible, because armed men would be there in minutes. Whereas committing mass murder at any other location is possible, becasue armed men would be there in minutes.
17. When you say something is ridiculous and dismiss it, don't retract that when people start providing links.
18. Anyone who disagrees with you is a sheep.
19. When your argument has been taken out behind the barn, and put down like Ol' Yeller, don't hesitate to whip out the old "Rights are absolute!" card. (see #15). Because other posters shouldn't infringe on your right to make crap up.
20. Jihadists who's only training consists of shooting at paper targets are not a threat, and are easily stopped by CCW holders who's only training consists of shooting at paper targets.

Well, that's what I've got so far. This has been one of the most entertaining threads, at least since I learned that "people like me" are personally responsible for global nuclear proliferation, as you so helpfully pointed out in another thread.

Of course, feel free to come back with how this just shows I love the Patriot Act, George Bush, and strangling kittens. :)

MD_Willington
May 9, 2007, 05:33 PM
These guys being so stupid make me think that they were patsies for something else...

"watch the hands folks, smoke and mirrors"... they were probably set up to fail by much smarter individuals...

And if you think that they were the ones who lost, I'd do a double take on that... everytime they get caught, someone from .GOV starts squaking about having more control over this, that ot the other, and starts intruding on your freedoms because the bad scary men might use that same freedom you enjoy to do something bad...

hotpig
May 9, 2007, 05:51 PM
AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed -AD) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.

America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait! , and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in1988, killing 259.

Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war. The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993 , two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993 , a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the WorldTradeCenter in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996 , another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the KhobarTowers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000 , when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001 . Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979 .

I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever.. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

If you believe in this please forward it to as many people as you can especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action. If you don't believe it, just delete it and go back to sleep.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------------------------- (Comments: You have to read the catalogue of events in this brief piece. So ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, sit back, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again....?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

budney
May 9, 2007, 06:01 PM
Correia, none of your characterizations are accurate. That being the case, discussion appears relatively futile.

I repent: six guys with semi-automatic weapons attacking a fortress is good enough reason to suspend habeas corpus, protection from search and seizure, due process, the right to a speedy trial, and all the rest of it. What could I EVER have been thinking. :barf:

--Len.

To be more specific:


1. The government can never do anything right.

That's actually close to my actual view, but not exactly. All initiation of force is immoral; government is synonymous with the initiation of force; therefore, government is immoral. In addition to being immoral in that high-level sense, however, they're also inefficient and corrupt.


2. If it seems the government does something right, once in a great while, like break up a terror plot, then it must be fake.

NO. The plot was real enough. I never said otherwise. Well, for some definition of real, anyway; their aspirations were real. It's only their competence I question.


3. Terrorists are made up, kind of like the boogey man to scare us into supporting the Patriot act.

NO. The terrorists are real enough. Threat inflation is used to increase public support for things like USA PATRIOT, but that doesn't make the threat fictitious.


4. If there are real terrorists, then we must assume that they will be incompetant.

NO. The 9/11 guys were certainly competent enough to get the job done. And the government failed to stop them, despite all sorts of advance intel that might have tipped them off. My real position on competence is two-fold. First, the competent ones will generally thwart the government DESPITE these draconian measures. Second, the government hasn't interdicted any competent terrorists recently, because if they had we'd have heard about it.


5. If real terrorists actually accomplish something, then we must assume that it was by luck. (unless Dick Cheney actually planned it).

NO. I never said that. And bringing Cheney into it is a feeble attempt at painting me as a liberal. Luck certainly helps, of course. Even the 9/11 guys benefited from a bit of luck: for example, it was lucky for them that intel on Muslims in flight schools was bungled so badly by the government.


6. Six muslim men, who make a video of them shooting, and screaming Allah Akhbar and Death to America, were just enjoying the 1st and 2nd amendment rights. Any plans found in their possession, or confessions made to .gov informants should not be believed.

NO. Never said that. I never said these guys weren't sincere. Just that they're idiots.


7. The 82nd Airborne is the same as a local Girl Scout Troop.

NO. I said the opposite. It was someone else who likened them to elementary schoolers, and I parodied their slander by mentioning Brownies. I believe that they aren't Brownies, but rather are competent adults who know how to handle military situations.


8. Even though the soldiers are disarmed, the above mentioned terrorists won't be able to hurt them, due to the terrorist's incompetance.

I'll give you that one, your sarcasm aside. So far you're 2 for 8. They're in a fortified compound with armed guards. Unless those armed guards are incompetent--which is more in line with your view than mine--they will respond quickly. So the fact that there are unarmed men in the base is countered by the fact that the place is crawling with heavily armed guards trained to respond to incursions.


9. If we disagree with you, we must love the Patriot Act, and think that soldiers should be disarmed.

NO. That's pure slander. At least some people regard the threat as much more serious than I do, yet agree with me about the MCA and USA PATRIOT.


10. A lone whackadoo soldier, who attacks a formation with a .22LR is the ultimate in total lethality. But six motivated, suicidal, terrorists armed with superior weapons are not a threat. We can assume the casualty rate will be the same for both incidents.

NO. I never said any of that. I only pointed out that the precedent advanced in support of the lethality of the "Dix Six" was a poor precedent, because it actually militates the other way.


11. One .22LR is more lethal than six AK47s.

NO. Never said any such thing.


12. When your argument is attacked, and the flaws in your logic are shown, you should pull out an even more bizzare strawman.

NO. So far, no logical flaws have been pointed out. In fact, the actual military guys in the thread have agreed with me that the body count would be low. The "attacks" on my argument have consisted primarily of naked assertions, ad homina and ridicule. Sort of like the ridicule in this list of yours.


13. After three or four increasingly fairytale like strawmen, (i.e. taking over the Nimitz with boxcutters, the six guys were going to take over all of Fort Dix) start casting dispersions on others, question their patriotism and mandhood, then change the subject.

NO. As I've already indicated, I've parodied the "Dix Six" to point out the inflation of threat here. The assumption that a base full of soldiers would experience a "mass murder" (others' words, not mine!) and a "pile of bodies" (their words, not mine!) and that "lots of soldiers would be killed," etc., represents a ridiculous level of fear. You're suggesting that our best and brightest are sitting ducks when attacked by six untrained men with small arms.

And I've certainly never changed the subject yet. I've been like a broken record. :neener:


14. Jihadists would never attack a military force here. Jihadists have never attacked a US military force anywhere else either.

NO. I never said that; of course they might. If they have triple-digit IQs, however, they'll attack our military using IEDs and sniping. A single "blaze of glory" assault by untrained men is an extremely poor use of limited manpower. Some damn fool might try that, of course, but that's great: if they all tried it, the terrorists would all soon be dead.


15. If you think that terrorism is a bonafide threat, then by default you must belive in eliminating Habeus Corpus, and dissolution of the entire bill of rights. If you believe in the Constitution, but you also think that terrorists are real, then you are wrong.

NO. I never said any such thing. As I've already said, terrorism is a real enough threat, but NO threat justifies the loss of our civil rights. Folks can believe it's real, and even inflate the threat, without believing in the loss of our civil rights. The two issues are independent. Unfortunately, too many believe that the threat justifies the loss of civil rights, or foolishly deny that civil rights have been lost in the first place.


16. Committing mass murder on a military base is totally impossible,
because armed men would be there in minutes. Whereas committing mass murder at any other location is possible, becasue armed men would be there in minutes.

NO. I never said either of those things. It's difficult to mass-murder in a military installation, because for some odd reason military installations and personnel are actually set up specially to deal with exactly such risks. Dealing with killers is their job. The reason it's easier in, say, a shopping mall, even if police response time is the same, is because (1) the civvies in the mall are hopelessly untrained, and (2) the police are no match for a bunch of MPs. But I never said anything about "possible" or "impossible."


17. When you say something is ridiculous and dismiss it, don't retract that when people start providing links.

NO. Give one example of this.


18. Anyone who disagrees with you is a sheep.

NO. I never said that either. A "sheep" is someone who is easily led. Folks on this forum mock the unarmed because they're "easily led" in the area of self-defense. Yet some, and I do stress SOME, on this forum, are easily led by the administrations claims about terrorism. That applies to domestic threat inflation, but also to the current build-up toward an invasion of Iran.


19. When your argument has been taken out behind the barn, and put down like Ol' Yeller, don't hesitate to whip out the old "Rights are absolute!" card. (see #15). Because other posters shouldn't infringe on your right to make crap up.

NO. This is a repetition of #12.


20. Jihadists who's only training consists of shooting at paper targets are not a threat, and are easily stopped by CCW holders who's only training consists of shooting at paper targets.

NO. I never said they "aren't a threat," only that the threat is inflated. Nor have I compared six jihadists with six CCW holders; I compared them with an armed populace. Six jihadists versus hundreds of armed CCW holders. That tilts the odds slightly in our favor, which raises the interesting question: if Bush really cared about the threat, why isn't he attacking the anti-RKBA laws in New Jersey?


Well, that's what I've got so far...

You're 2 for 20. Might need more practice.


This has been one of the most entertaining threads, at least since I learned that "people like me" are personally responsible for global nuclear proliferation, as you so helpfully pointed out in another thread.

Don't start that again. I merely pointed out that it's funny to talk about non-proliferation when you have a great big government-sized blind spot. Governments have actually used nukes--and our government has used them on civilians. Yet some of us believe that it's right and proper for government to (1) own nukes, and (2) decide who gets them. :neener:

--Len.

Correia
May 9, 2007, 06:04 PM
Accurate?

:D :D

And you respond with this?

I repent: six guys with semi-automatic weapons attacking a fortress is good enough reason to suspend habeas corpus, protection from search and seizure, due process, the right to a speedy trial, and all the rest of it. What could I EVER have been thinking.

You should have thrown in the girl scouts, the Nimitz, boxcutters, and the patriot act, and you would have rehashed the whole thread! Don't hold back now.

I couldn't have made up a better quote to illustrate the problems with your argument. (edited to say, in fact, you used #15)


Edited to say disregard this post, since Budney went back and added about 1,000 words to his prior post.

Titan6
May 9, 2007, 06:11 PM
You are missing the point Len. Fort Dix is not a fortress. It is a military post full of mostly unarmed people. Six (or ten depending on which account you are following) armed with fully automatic AK-47s (or even semi-autos), acting in concert could easily kill hundreds of troops if they were massed in formations.

Public Law 107-56 has nothing to do with that. If you want to draw that conclusion you are two years too late. That said, it needs to go.

hotpig
May 9, 2007, 06:13 PM
Maybe we are talking about different terrorist. The ones that were going to attack Ft Dix were arrested while trying to buy full auto rifles. RPG's were reported to be on their shipping list also.

These guys were going to attack a base that is full of unarmed people. They would have met little resistance for the first few minutes.

All they needed to do to win the battle is to cause one casualty. Be that a MP at the gate or a 5 year old on a bicycle. Just doing the attack makes them martyrs.

beaucoup ammo
May 9, 2007, 06:18 PM
H. L. Mencken and Newton Minow..still correct after all these years!


Associated Press

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 - Updated: 04:26 PM EST

"DEBAR, Macedonia - Three Muslim brothers who allegedly helped plot to kill soldiers at a U.S. Army base have roots in one of Europe’s most pro-American corners - a region that remains grateful to the United States for ending the Kosovo war.

Dritan Duka, 28, Shain Duka, 26, and Eljvir Duka, 23, who were arrested in New Jersey this week in what U.S. authorities said was a bungled scheme to blow up and gun down soldiers at Fort Dix, were born in Debar, a remote town on Macedonia’s rugged border with Serbia’s Kosovo province.
****
Relatives in the ethnic Albanian-populated town of 15,000 said they had not seen the brothers in more than two decades, but expressed disbelief Wednesday that the three would attack the United States."

budney
May 9, 2007, 06:38 PM
Maybe we are talking about different terrorist. The ones that were going to attack Ft Dix were arrested while trying to buy full auto rifles. RPG's were reported to be on their shipping list also.

Right. They were trying to buy them from the FBI. That doesn't speak well of these particular guys' competence.

I can't comment on the availability of full-auto weapons in the US, but if they're gettable, they're most likely gettable from inner-city gang sources. I've never heard of a drive-by RPG shooting. In short, there's a big gap between wanting something and having it.

--Len.

budney
May 9, 2007, 06:41 PM
I repent: six guys with semi-automatic weapons attacking a fortress is good enough reason to suspend habeas corpus, protection from search and seizure, due process, the right to a speedy trial, and all the rest of it. What could I EVER have been thinking.

I couldn't have made up a better quote to illustrate the problems with your argument. (edited to say, in fact, you used #15)

So far you still haven't directly addressed anything I've said; here you're using ridicule to dismiss my sarcasm out-of-hand. In fact habeas corpus has been suspended in the MCA, and that plus USA PATRIOT has suspended the fourth-amendment protection from search and seizures without due process. Holding someone without habeas corpus nullifies the right to a speedy trial, or to confront one's accusers, or to know the charges against oneself. And so on. My characterization of the Constitutional situation is completely accurate.

If you regard the "Dix Six" as a potentially terrifying terrorist plot, but oppose USA PATRIOT and the MCA, then that's good news. We're mostly on the same page, and there's nothing left to banter about. Generally, folks who support the Iraqi invasion also support Bush's other measures, including the MCA. It is to those people, wherever they may be, that my sarcasm is addressed.

--Len.

beaucoup ammo
May 9, 2007, 06:49 PM
If Budney punched Hotpig in the eye and Hotpig went after some guy across the street changing the oil in his car, I'd have to question Hotpig's reason for doing so.

I can see where Budney's coming from.

hotpig
May 9, 2007, 06:53 PM
If the guy across the street paid Budney to punch me in the eye I would kick him in his balls.

Correia
May 9, 2007, 07:15 PM
If you regard the "Dix Six" as a potentially terrifying terrorist plot, but oppose USA PATRIOT and the MCA, then that's good news. Gee whiz Budney, welcome to this webpage, it's called THR.

You think that maybe some of us belive the above, and we don't like being treated like we're stupid?

2 for 20? Your scoring is mighty harsh since you disregard most of your early posts.

Some of your highlights:

NO. The plot was real enough. I never said otherwise.

You never said it wasn't a threat? But wait! I can use the quote key too.

If this is the best homeland security can come up with, then we should rejoice: there are obviously no credible threats out there.

Or are we grasping at straws to inflate a nonexistent threat to keep the people afraid?

It's interesting how worked up some people seem to get over a ridiculous non-threat.

You only called "some" of us sheep? Cast that sheep net kinda wide here.

It isn't high-road to call others "sheep," but I think there's a stronger reason that some of us shouldn't do that: people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Wait, there's more. First off, So far, no logical flaws have been pointed out. is not the definition of a Strawman argument. A strawman is when you bring up something absurd, framed as if it is your opponent's argument, and then smack it down. It is considered one of the weakest and most pathetic props for a failing debator.

These are strawmen:

"ZOMG! So you're saying that three mentally retarded homeless terrorists were plotting to sneak onto the Nimitz with box cutters, take over and wreak havoc on the entire Eastern seaboard?

Are you trying to say that they might have taken Fort Dix after all? That we can't tell that they're a bunch of morons based on the mere fact that they intended to storm a military base with fewer men than, oh, a softball team?

You mean that some collection of dipsh-ts might actually win a direct confrontation with the US armed forces?

And here, you hurt your own argument:

But concerned enough to sell away your habeas corpus, fourth and fifth amendment rights? To abdicate your rights as a citizen and beg daddy government to protect you? From six dipsh-ts who've watched too many movies?

Which brings us back to the original question: do these ridiculously negligible risks actually justify the elimination of our rights as American citizens "for our own protection"?

Do you really think the posters on THR are that stupid?

Because even when people who AGREE with you about those issues find themselves wanting nothing more than to beat you over the head, then you're probably not gonna win any battles with your flaming rhetoric.

And we've got one military man here who doesn't think the body count would be very high. No offense to him, as it is his area of expertise, but I think it depends on the base. From the ones that I've been on, there isn't much difference between most base buildings, and most regular office buildings. Only the victims getting their heads sawed off are more likely to end up on Al Jazeera.

Yet when this is brought up, because it goes against your earlier posts trying to dismiss these six whackadoos, we must somehow be in favor of disarming soldiers. Guess what dude, I teach CCW to anyone in the National Guard for free. On my own dime, on my own time, I put my money where my mouth is. So once again, your insinuations are nothing more than annoying, and do nothing more than make people who should be your allies mad at you.

A single "blaze of glory" assault by untrained men is an extremely poor use of limited manpower. Who cares? I'm glad the enemy is logistically stupid. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that it can't happen, or that it hasn't happened hundreds of times in Iraq, and thousands of times in Israel.

geim druth
May 9, 2007, 07:25 PM
For what it's worth, the Newark Star Ledger reported today that these guys already had:

an SKS
a Beretta Storm 9mm rifle
a Mossberg 12 ga.
and a Beretta 9mm handgun

Moondoggie
May 9, 2007, 08:48 PM
Coming late to the discussion...lots of reading to digest.

I disagree with DigitalWarrior as to the response from security forces. It would be minutes before the alarm was translated into response, and longer before the responders could effectively take action. Pretty much the same as you would expect in a civilian situation.

BTW, DW, I retired from the Marine Corps in '99 as a MGySgt. I participated in many security exercises and vulnerability assesments aboard almost every post and station in the Corps, plus a few ships in my career. Sorry, DW, but despite our mythos as supermen, Marines are constrained by the same laws of time/space as the rest of the planet. Also, remember that this attack was planned against an Army (cough, cough) base.

If the "Dix Six" had been able to scam their way past the security at the gate they would have been able to rack up quite a body count. 60 plus among six assailants armed with AK's would be easy to do. If they would have split up into teams it would have created considerable confusion among responding security units.

Once you get aboard any military base, it's very similar to most towns. A mall, a medical facility, office buildings, a grocery store, residential areas, "apartment complexes", possibly a school, probably a day-care center. About the same police presence as you'd encounter in any civilian town.

Obviously, these attackers would have been looking to hit the softest, most target-dense spots. The "mall" and the "grocery store" plus the day-care center would be the most likely spots. The only difference between Ft. Dix and Cherry Hill, NJ is the security checkpoint at the gate. Since one of these guys had access to the base due to pizza delivery, it's not a stretch to say that the probability of success was very high.

In any event, these guys had the potential and the intent to commit mass murder. Fortunately, they were discovered and apprehended.

Now, walk 'em up the 13 stairs to the noose! Let Al Jerkzera broadcast that to the ME.

Caimlas
May 9, 2007, 09:09 PM
Why were they wanting to attack the soldier fort? If they had been Serbs I could understand it as a standard revenge-type motivation. But if they're muslims from former Yugoslavia, then their side is the one that got helped out by the US. Maybe they don't see it that way?

No, they don't. The critical qualifier is that they're radicalized Muslims, not that they're from the former Yugoslavia. Conservative Islam (of all the sects) does not recognize national borders; it only sees allegiance in the context of "Islam", "corrupted Islam" and "kaffir/dhimmi/Jew". By saving them, we weren't generous or kind, just foolish kaffir, slitting our own throats.

tanksoldier
May 9, 2007, 09:10 PM
Says the guy who referred to a "mass murder" at Fort Dix. (Whoops, that was Thumper, not you. He was on your side, though.)

On this you are correct. Dix is a valid military target, so killing Soldiers assigned there would not be murder, it would merely be an act of war and hence perfectly acceptable... much like the attack on the Pentagon.

Once again from the top. This "threat" is hardly on the scale of another 9/11, yet "preventing future 9/11's" is the claimed justification for creating the HSD (heimatsicherheitsdienst) in the first place, as well as for passing laws like USA PATRIOT and the MCA. There have been bank robberies involving more than six bad guys. This is at worst on the scale of ordinary crime, and even if it came to fruition would be less bloody than just about any other scenario involving six gunmen, since they're attacking a facility with security and heavily armed guards.

So because THIS attack wasn't on the scale of 9/11 ALL future attacks will be similar? Because they didn't use a nuke on THIS attack, no nukes will be used in the future? Because this attack involved 6 less-than-perfect gunmen, the NEXT attack won't involve driving a nuke across the border into downtown San Diego?

I agree with much of what you say re: The Patriot act and such (and what an ironic name for it...) but dismissing ALL future threats based on this one is ludicrous.


It's hardly something to get your undies in a bunch over. On average, 110 people will die on America's roads today, but that doesn't have you widdling your pants in terror, does it? Those six guys wouldn't have a prayer of killing 100 people before they were taken out.

Really? Even been in a military PX at lunch?


As for my rhetorical exaggeration, I agree that the unexaggerated facts are ridiculous enough. But people are actually getting worked up about this, and praising the HSD as if they did something noteworthy. They didn't do anything remotely comparable in magnitude to the evil of the MCA.

What magnitude does evil need to reach before we worry about it?

Of course. But it's worse than a failure. Iraq has been converted into an incubator of terrorism that will not cool down for decades. When the US pulls out, as sooner or later it must, it will leave behind a ready pool of volunteers and a chaotic nation in which they can act unrestrained. So far the "terrorists" apprehended in the US have been home-grown copycats (not to mention half-witted). Given a few years to regroup, there's good reason for expecting worse.

9/11 happened before we invaded Afghanistan OR Iraq... what country were we occupying where THOSE guys were "created"? We're damned if we do, damned if we don't... so we might as well do.

OCTOBER:However, President Bush has said, “The best way to protect the American people is to stay on the offense and defeat them overseas, so we do not have to face them here at home.”

So I say again, now that we are facing them at home, is this evidence of another failed administration strategy?

That's an asinine assertion. A counter attack by the enemy does not a lost war make.

DIGITALWARRIOR:I do not remember any attack on a morning formation, what were the specifics?

I believe it was the 82nd at Benning. Neo-Nazi related.

tanksoldier
May 9, 2007, 09:28 PM
BTW, DW, I retired from the Marine Corps in '99 as a MGySgt. I participated in many security exercises and vulnerability assesments aboard almost every post and station in the Corps, plus a few ships in my career. Sorry, DW, but despite our mythos as supermen, Marines are constrained by the same laws of time/space as the rest of the planet. Also, remember that this attack was planned against an Army (cough, cough) base.

Gee thanks... I think. Mainside on Camp Pedleton wouldn't have been any harder to hit than any Army base catonement area.

The point is that most installations in the US, and even overseas, aren't set up with defense in mind. They are too big, they are too spread out and most have few if any defensive emplacements prepared. Attacking a missile silo is a bad idea, it's set up for defense. Ft Monroe, not so much.

"He who defends everything defends nothing." Fredrick II

It would take say, 500-1000 troops to actually defend the typical Army base catonement area and housing. Remember that it has to be a 360 defense because you AREN'T going to defend the perimeter of the entire base itself it's WAY too big in most cases. You need multiple shifts. So, now multiply that by every single Army installation in the US and overseas... and multiply THAT by every other US base from the other services.

All those troops who are not training, not doing the daily work of the military and who are unavailable to do anything else like deploy.

carpettbaggerr
May 9, 2007, 09:35 PM
When the US pulls out, as sooner or later it mustReally? Just like we pulled out of Germany? Or Japan? Or South Korea?

Or you mean like Great Britain pulled out of Ireland?

And as for the 'Dix Six' they weren't home-grown. And it's lucky they were inexperienced, or they would have gone with Molotov's and semiauto rifles.

If one emotionally disturbed punk could kill 33 with a 9mm handgun, imagine the damage 6 coordinated and determined men armed with rifles could do.

Unarmed soldiers would be harder than college kids, and I'd expect the death toll to be high. Probably in the hundreds, if Molotov's and IEDs were used

Autolycus
May 9, 2007, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Alex45ACP:
Switzerland is predominately Christian and they don't seem to get attacked by terrorists for some reason...

We need a foreign policy like theirs. One of nonintervention and just leave us alone and we will leave you alone. Unfortunately our current administration wont admit it and continues to send US troops out to die for no reason.

Autolycus
May 9, 2007, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by ilbob:
Actually they do have links to organizations - they are called mosques.

I am hoping that the feds have at least one spy in every mosque. But my guess is they don't do solely to PC.

And gunclubs to because Tim McVeigh was a gunny. Dont forget the Churches as they are against the war. That godhatesfags guy is a Christian leader and represents all Christians.

Sorry but ethnocentrism and letting us give up our rights because of some six doofuses is not a good idea. If you feel this way then its only obvious that since some nut in VA killed 30 people that we should lose the 2nd Amendment protections.

hotpig
May 9, 2007, 10:13 PM
Hello- these people want to kill every man woman and child here. Foreign policy is irrelevant. We could pack up and leave the middle East and the terrorism against us would only increase.

Every man woman and child in Switzerland would also be killed if they win against against us big boys.

Caimlas
May 10, 2007, 12:23 AM
Switzerland is predominately Christian and they don't seem to get attacked by terrorists for some reason...
sshhh... we're in a fight to the death for our very survival... because they hate us for who we are...

Nope. Switzerland does have Muslim problems - taking the form of immigration, social welfare use, and crime rates. Specifically, they're all up, and largely due to immigrants from Muslim lands.

As for actual "terrorists" in their countries, they do have them, though they typically leave to fight in/against countries where their enemies are - in the same fashion as we fight them over there instead of here, and why there were no active Yankee troops stationed in Maine during the Civil War while there were sympathizers everywhere, or why we didn't have active Vietnam deployments to Southern California: you fight your enemy where you're able to do the most damage.

Caimlas
May 10, 2007, 12:26 AM
On another note...

While I do not want, nor condone acts similar to this, it is inevitable that one will eventually be successful. Indeed, I think it is "necessary" that one might be successful in order to help put this fight into a proper context - both for the general citizenry as well as for the government, which is prosecuting this war as a regional conflict, which it is not. When your enemies act globally, it is foolish to intentionally localize and then restrain one's efforts.

hotpig
May 10, 2007, 12:35 AM
They did attack us in DC and NYC. Most Americans have forgot about it though.

Thumper
May 10, 2007, 01:00 AM
Believe it or not, hotpig, there's someone in this very thread trying to convince you that there's no viable terrorist threat in the US.

I get my feathers ruffled at the concept of stripped liberties as much or more than anyone, but some have allowed perceived threats against liberty to overwhelm their sense of clarity.

The image of burning, crumbling towers is inconvenient to some, but it really did happen.

October
May 10, 2007, 08:15 AM
OCTOBER: However, President Bush has said, “The best way to protect the American people is to stay on the offense and defeat them overseas, so we do not have to face them here at home.”

So I say again, now that we are facing them at home, is this evidence of another failed administration strategy?

Tanksoldier: That's an asinine assertion.

Oh, I agree that it’s an asinine assertion. I don’t think fighting in Iraq will positively or negatively impact whether terrorist attacks are carried out in the U.S. But that is what our commander-in-chief has stated as a reason we are fighting in Iraq. Since this foiled attempt shows that attacks are being planned here in the U.S., even while we are fighting them “over there,” does this mean that President Bush will acknowledge that this strategy isn’t working?

Or will he stay the course and insist that it just needs more time to work?

KINGMAX
May 10, 2007, 09:11 AM
I went through Fort Dix back in 1971 on my way to Europe

budney
May 10, 2007, 09:32 AM
You never said it wasn't a threat? But wait! I can use the quote key too.

I admit it: I'm guilty of hyperbole. It's a common manner of speaking. And in debate, some people like to try and score points by taking hyperbole literally. I wish they wouldn't; it comes across as ignorant or dishonest.


A strawman is when you bring up something absurd, framed as if it is your opponent's argument, and then smack it down.

Hyperbole again. There is a difference between hyperbole and a straw-man.


What magnitude does evil need to reach before we worry about it?

I think I made it clear that our rights are sacrosanct even if the Muslims discovered the means of destroying the entire universe. There is no point at which the threat justifies negotiating our rights.


9/11 happened before we invaded Afghanistan OR Iraq... what country were we occupying where THOSE guys were "created"? We're damned if we do, damned if we don't... so we might as well do.

I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous statement. Since WWII, our history with the Middle East has been one of endless interventionism (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html). Some in support of Israel, yes, but mostly to secure access to their oil fields. We propped up the Shah, fought Gulf War I, bombed Tripoli, intervened in Lebanon's civil war, armed Iraq to fight Iran... the list goes on.

But I forgot. They "hate us because we're free."

--Len.

budney
May 10, 2007, 09:35 AM
Really? Just like we pulled out of Germany? Or Japan? Or South Korea?

You have a point. Currently, the US appears to be planning a permanent presence in Iraq. For example, they're building the largest US base in the universe, right there in Baghdad (the locals call it "Bush's Palace"). In that sense, I wouldn't expect us ever to pull out.

But we haven't conducted active hostilities in Germany, Korea, etc. We can't afford the money or the manpower to fight an eternal hot war. So the fighting in Iraq will inevitably de-escalate--and when that happens, Iraq still won't be a stable, secular, pro-western democracy.

--Len.

budney
May 10, 2007, 09:37 AM
For what it's worth, the Newark Star Ledger reported today that these guys already had:

an SKS
a Beretta Storm 9mm rifle
a Mossberg 12 ga.
and a Beretta 9mm handgun

Right--they were less well armed than most on this forum. :D Which, in all seriousness, is my point: the best counter-measure to threats of this type is an armed populace. But that's the one counter-measure that the current administration shows no interest in taking.

--Len.

hotpig
May 10, 2007, 09:56 AM
I know the Liberals need a failed war with a high body count to win the White House back. They are willing to do what ever it takes to make it happen.

I think we need an immediate pull out of the middle east by all American Politicians. The Military has been burden with them so much they are not being able to get their job done.

October
May 10, 2007, 10:18 AM
I know the Liberals need a failed war with a high body count to win the White House back. They are willing to do what ever it takes to make it happen.

Just to clarify, the war was an amazing success. The military drove to Baghdad in a very short period of time with very few casualties, and quite clearly accomplished its mission of removing Hussein from power and his perceived threat of WMD. It’s the subsequent occupation that has been poorly planned, suffered from mission creep, and is in the process of failing miserably.

budney
May 10, 2007, 10:23 AM
Just to clarify, the war was an amazing success... It’s the subsequent occupation that... is in the process of failing miserably.

Exactly. If the goal was to eliminate Saddam, it was accomplished speedily. By itself, though, that's a poor goal: decapitating Iraq and then leaving it headless promotes chaos, not peace and stability.


I know the Liberals need a failed war...

Not everyone who opposes the Iraq war is a liberal. It's highly doubtful that any "liberals" frequent THR, since opposition to RKBA is a defining trait of liberals.

--Len.

October
May 10, 2007, 10:34 AM
If the goal was to eliminate Saddam, it was accomplished speedily. By itself, though, that's a poor goal: decapitating Iraq and then leaving it headless promotes chaos, not peace and stability.

Just a minor quibble – it resulted in chaos in Iraq – but it didn’t have to, if the proper decisions had been made. Just look at how the 1989 invasion of Panama decapitated the head of state but did not result in chaos.
The same could have happened in Iraq if the politicians had understood Iraq and had undertaken the right decisions.

budney
May 10, 2007, 10:39 AM
Just a minor quibble – it resulted in chaos in Iraq – but it didn’t have to...

You're 100% right. The problem is that they didn't just take out Saddam; they completely destroyed the existing government, and purged all Baathists. The Baathists aren't my favorite people, but they were the only ones around that knew squat about running the place.

--Len.

Correia
May 10, 2007, 11:02 AM
So when you lie, it is hyperbole. But when someone pokes holes in your asinine arguments, then it is dishonest.

Hoo kay then. I'm done here.

budney
May 10, 2007, 12:13 PM
Stripped of all rhetoric, here's my position:

1) No threat, no matter how great, justifies the compromise of any part of the bill of rights.

2) This particular threat, while real, is much smaller than people are painting it.

3) Specifically, it's nowhere near the magnitude of "another 9/11," the prevention of which is given as the excuse for measures like the MCA and the existence of the Homeland Security agency itself.

4) No threat currently exists anywhere near the magnitude of "another 9/11," and we know this because much smaller threats, like this one, are so highly publicized.

5) Almost all threats, and in particular this one, are best countered by arming the populace. Measures such as the MCA are much less likely to prove effective.

6) Because measures like the MCA are preferred by the current administration and their allies in Congress, threat inflation is routinely used to garner support.

7) The opposition also uses threat inflation for their own ends, of course: all rulers prefer a frightened populace to turn to them for salvation.

Feel free to identify which of the above statements is "asinine," and then go ahead and explain exactly where the error is. Thanks.

--Len.

Titan6
May 10, 2007, 12:44 PM
Your arguements are way to general.

1) No threat, no matter how great, justifies the compromise of any part of the bill of rights.

Asinine. So we should not imprison people and deprive them of their rights if they are a criminal?

2) This particular threat, while real, is much smaller than people are painting it.

Asinine. You do not have all the facts. Only something you read in the paper, saw on TV or internet. Add to that your own philosophy on life and a few "gunshop" guesses and you are all set.

3) Specifically, it's nowhere near the magnitude of "another 9/11," the prevention of which is given as the excuse for measures like the MCA and the existence of the Homeland Security agency itself.

See above #2

4) No threat currently exists anywhere near the magnitude of "another 9/11," and we know this because much smaller threats, like this one, are so highly publicized.

See above #2.

5) Almost all threats, and in particular this one, are best countered by arming the populace. Measures such as the MCA are much less likely to prove effective.

Asinine. Really? When your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

budney
May 10, 2007, 12:57 PM
1) No threat, no matter how great, justifies the compromise of any part of the bill of rights.

Asinine. So we should not imprison people and deprive them of their rights if they are a criminal.

No part of the bill of rights prevents duly convicted criminals from being incarcerated, so your objection has no bearing whatsoever.



2) This particular threat, while real, is much smaller than people are painting it.

Asinine. You do not have all the facts. Only something you read in the paper...

True; there might be something we don't know yet. They might be much better equipped, trained or planned than the current reports indicate. However, you can't blame me for using the available information. You know neither more nor less than I do, so the playing field is level here. The currently-available information supports my position rather than yours.

Skipping your non-answers,



5) Almost all threats, and in particular this one, are best countered by arming the populace. Measures such as the MCA are much less likely to prove effective.

Asinine. Really? When your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

You didn't do what I asked, which is to explain the error. Instead you resorted to mockery by quoting an old saw about hammers and nails. Can you point to cases where an armed populace would be less effective than Homeland-Security efforts using MCA powers?

This plot, and 9/11 itself, are both cases in which armed citizens would be much more effective than government measures.

Everyone on this thread agrees that the primary risk to the denizens of Fort Dix lies in the fact that they're almost all unarmed. If citizens were armed, in particular the citizens at Dix would be armed, and able to respond immediately to the threat posed by the "Dix Six."

Similarly, the 9/11 hijackers were able to take over four airplanes using box-cutters because nobody on board was armed. If at least the flight crew were armed, the likelihood of success would have been significantly reduced. On one of the planes, unarmed passengers thwarted the terrorists' plans.

The reason I say "almost all," is that the armed citizens have a serious advantage over Homeland Security: they are actually present at the time of the attack. Homeland Security can only be present if they know about the attack, and their MCA powers are limited by manpower and other resources. They can't spy on everybody--certainly not on one billion Muslims. Some will always slip through the cracks. But whenever someone attempts an attack, armed citizens will be right there.

In addition, and armed populace means a populace all at condition yellow. 300 million people at condition yellow is a far more effective force than 10,000 at condition orange.

And that's not to mention the deterrent factor. High-roaders generally believe that an armed society is a polite society, do they not?

--Len.

Justin
May 10, 2007, 01:05 PM
This one's gone beyond being useful.

If you enjoyed reading about "US-Soil Plot Foiled?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!