DC09 Posted July 25, 2004 #1 Share Posted July 25, 2004 With 15-foot fencing and black netting, the area around the FleetCenter was transformed yesterday into the so-called hard zone, where uniformed soldiers and police officers in bright orange raincoats patrolled outside while the Secret Service completed its sweep of the facility for security threats in preparation for tomorrow's start of the Democratic National Convention. Because of the security sweep, several hundred reporters and news crews spent up to two hours waiting to get to office space inside the zone. ''It's the Secret Service," said one Boston police officer, after he sent reporters to the wrong entrance. ''They keep changing orders." About 500 journalists toting briefcases and cameras were herded around almost the entire perimeter of the FleetCenter, and across two ramps to Route 93 and onto the parking lot of the Spaulding Rehabilitation Center. Another 200 journalists cooled their heels at one entrance to the FleetCenter for more than 90 minutes not knowing that the media at another entrance was finally gaining access, at least to the magnetometers. ''I've covered 10 conventions," said Mark Z. Barabak, a Washington correspondent for the Los Angeles Times. ''There's a lot of confusion. It doesn't seem like anyone knows what's going on." The Secret Service chalked up the confusion to necessary precautions. ''The whole security screening process is a thought out and complicated process when we're doing something like this," said Ann Roman, a spokeswoman for the Secret Service. Dump trucks from Boston Public Works blocked several streets leading to the security perimeter on Causeway Street, adding to the fortress-like atmosphere. Two private security guards stood watch by a local Fox 25 news satellite truck parked on Friend Street outside the perimeter. The Fox 25 logo was covered with blue duct tape, perhaps in response to the FBI warning issued last week that a radical group of domestic terrorists may target news vehicles. Most network and local TV news trucks were parked in a designated lot inside the hard zone, authorities said. A spokeswoman for CBS news said her bosses had instructed her not to talk about security preparations, but Sandy Genelius said, ''We feel we're as prepared as we can be." Asked for updates about threats to media vehicles, Coast Guard Petty Officer Zack Zubricki said, ''There have been no incidents. It's been quiet so far." Full Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted July 25, 2004 #2 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Is the M60 belt fed 7.62mm Heavy Machine gun really nessercary? Are huge armys of placard wielding protesters going to storm the building? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cufflink Posted July 25, 2004 #3 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Is the M60 belt fed 7.62mm Heavy Machine gun really nessercary? Was the 'M60 belt fed 7.62mm ' part of that sentence really necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted July 25, 2004 #4 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Was the 'M60 belt fed 7.62mm ' part of that sentence really necessary? Was this crap attempt at sarcasm really necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cufflink Posted July 25, 2004 #5 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Was the 'M60 belt fed 7.62mm ' part of that sentence really necessary? Was this crap attempt at sarcasm really necessary? Not necessary, but enjoyable all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted July 25, 2004 #6 Share Posted July 25, 2004 The point of my first comment is thus: Why are the government deploying heavy weapons, in a civilian area. Regardless of situation, there is no need for them. Unless they intend on mass slaughter of unarmed protesters. Or are they expecting company? Its ridiculous, why not send in the armored cavalry while they are at it, jus' incase the the protesters have anti government slogans daubed on there placards..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted July 26, 2004 #7 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Why are the government deploying heavy weapons, in a civilian area. Regardless of situation, there is no need for them. Unless they intend on mass slaughter of unarmed protesters. Probably Bush over reacting, or a show of strength for the up comming elections. We'll see if anything comes of the terrorist alert and then we can decide if it was all necessary or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted July 26, 2004 #8 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Well, the buzz here is, 'all hell might be breaking out', in the next few months. They feel we will be having a terrorist attack that will rival 911. Personally, I don't see anything happening; I think the US is tight and it's citizens are on the alert. Oh, well...I guess we'll see. There is some talk about the media being attacked...equipment and stuff, by domestic folk. Al Jazeera was booted out...can't imagine why. If we have big guns it is because it is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted July 27, 2004 #9 Share Posted July 27, 2004 There will be a terrorist attack, bush will send the goons, hiered goons, to make sure that there is enough of an impact that he wins the election or he can Cancle it. ~Thanato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted July 27, 2004 #10 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Is the M60 belt fed 7.62mm Heavy Machine gun really nessercary? Are huge armys of placard wielding protesters going to storm the building? no but it would be handy at taking out a car laden with explosives coming towards whatever it is guarding..better then peppering the car with smallarms fire at anyrate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted July 27, 2004 #11 Share Posted July 27, 2004 If we have big guns it is because it is needed. No a heavy machine gun is not needed. If you read the article, boston is locked up tighter than a eskimo's nadsack. no but it would be handy at taking out a car laden with explosives coming towards whatever it is guarding..better then peppering the car with smallarms fire at anyrate Cars weren't being allowed into the city, hence why they asked workers to "stay at home". On another thought protesters have to protest in a big razorwire tipped cage..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted July 27, 2004 #12 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Blood A. ...there isn't any other way. Should we let the protesters run wild? Then run after them when something looks suspicious? I think these boys know their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted July 27, 2004 #13 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Blood A. ...there isn't any other way. Should we let the protesters run wild? Then run after them when something looks suspicious? I think these boys know their job. Protesters run wild? I have seen multiple rallys, marches and protests...They are not as "rampant" as you put across there. Secondly since when did you see protesters armed with firearms, that pose enough threat as to warrant heavy gun emplacements, which are usually reserved for battlefields.....Thirdly, ALL the protesters have to protest in a cage, a razorwire tipped cage. How the hell do you expect them to run wild? Usually large riots are quelled with water cannons and riot police, not heavy duty rapid fire machine guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted July 27, 2004 #14 Share Posted July 27, 2004 That was back in the old days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted July 27, 2004 #15 Share Posted July 27, 2004 That was back in the old days. And what makes these days any different? lets examine a rhetorical situation: 40 or so protesters are in there "free speech area(wire cage.)" One of them happens to be a terrorist (if they were idiot enough to show up with thousands of security officers there.), with say a bomb strapped to himself. Over looking is a M60 Heavy Machine Gun, these weapons are notoriously inaccurate. Would it not be better to snipe the man/woman off instead of opening fire with a rapid firing inaccurate weapon? The point is this, whatever the situation, these weapons are going to cause EXTREME innocent civilian casualties. There is NO need for heavy weapons to be deployed, seeing as there is a large danger of civi casualties. How would it look on the news if they said "today security forces foiled a terrorist plot, but in the process killed 20 civilians". Security is to save lives, not destroy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted July 28, 2004 #16 Share Posted July 28, 2004 Blood A....You are kidding. "Back in the old days"... before 911. I'm sure we have snipers there, too. We will do our best to take care of civilians....is that what this is all about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted July 28, 2004 #17 Share Posted July 28, 2004 911, has no revelance on this at all. If they want to take every care not to harm civilians, then why the highly inaccurate battlefield weapons. THEY AREN'T NESSACERY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted July 28, 2004 #18 Share Posted July 28, 2004 we can't see the context in which the weapon is deployed, whats his position, what is he facing etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamford Posted July 28, 2004 #19 Share Posted July 28, 2004 we can't see the context in which the weapon is deployed, whats his position, what is he facing etc etc Presumably he's facing the hordes of Islamic Fundamentalists hiding behind that bush (no not that Bush). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted July 28, 2004 #20 Share Posted July 28, 2004 we can't see the context in which the weapon is deployed, whats his position, what is he facing etc etc Its not the fact of what position hes in, or where hes facing. The fact is they are deploying heavy inaccurate battlefield weapons in a civilian population centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted July 28, 2004 #21 Share Posted July 28, 2004 deploying heavy inaccurate battlefield weapons the gun is supposed to be pretty accurate up to 200 yards if my memories of Americas army are correct, how can you criticise its deployment without know why its been deployed there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted July 28, 2004 #22 Share Posted July 28, 2004 Blood A...why don't you give us some of your military expertice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted July 28, 2004 #23 Share Posted July 28, 2004 deploying heavy inaccurate battlefield weapons the gun is supposed to be pretty accurate up to 200 yards if my memories of Americas army are correct, how can you criticise its deployment without know why its been deployed there The M60 Heavy Machine gun is one of the most inaccurate HMGs in the world. I suggest you see World Guns. Whu is it being deployed there? that is the question isn't it? These weapons are fire suppression weapons, pouring out hundreds of rounds a minute to cause as many enemy casualties as possible. Consider its role, causing as much death as possible. Do you understand? To fire this weapon in a crowd, would mean death on a huge scale. THERE ARE CIVILIANS THERE, they DO NOT i repeat DO NOT need to deploy them there. There is no large scale threat, there isn't a army waiting in the shadows, the civilians are not there to be mown down by machine guns. Blood A...why don't you give us some of your military expertice? If you have been reading a single word i have posted, then you realise that i am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reese2 Posted July 29, 2004 #24 Share Posted July 29, 2004 (edited) I guess she is just wondering (and this is just my take on her remarks) how you can be so young, yet seem to know so much about Military weaponry.. Like, do you know about these things from reading about it, or do you actually have firsthand experience? (Something I would like to know also, if you don't mind) Reese Edited July 29, 2004 by reese2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted July 29, 2004 #25 Share Posted July 29, 2004 I guess she is just wondering (and this is just my take on her remarks) how you can be so young, yet seem to know so much about Military weaponry.. Like, do you know about these things from reading about it, or do you actually have firsthand experience? (Something I would like to know also, if you don't mind) Reese I'm not as "young" as people might think. I'm 22, and served in the british army since i was 19. I left just after my 21st birthday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now