US-Soil Plot Foiled?

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

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

That could be dangerous. Did he give his reasons?

Corriea, I respectfully disagree. Were you a part of an area guard at any time in your service?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Sorry, read that as Sergeant Major.

That could be dangerous. Did he give his reasons?

Click to expand...

Besides being a scumbag, political hack, pile of crap? Not that I'm aware of. PvtPyle had a thread on here about it.

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

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.

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?

The Idea that they planned on "Taking" Ft Dix is pure confabulation.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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

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?

Click to expand...

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

--Len.

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

buzz_knox

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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!"

--Len.

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!"

Click to expand...

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.

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?

If your goal is to balance rights versus security...

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

buzz_knox said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.