Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

US Military "training for urban environments"

military marshal law civil war

  • Please log in to reply
163 replies to this topic

#76    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 3,500 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Posted 20 July 2013 - 04:16 AM

View Postshrooma, on 20 July 2013 - 03:15 AM, said:


.
can i ask you why you think words on a screen would scare "us soft-shell bodies"?

Hey, shut up. I'm getting nervous.


#77    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 July 2013 - 09:53 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 20 July 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

Lol classic Little Fish theory.  

Make up a situation that ONLY supports his theory and disregard the rest.

Paper targets don't fire back or make an attempt to kill you.  Exactly what makes you think the situation given was that the target on the paper was not attempting to take your life or the order given was to stop the threat in a non lethal way?

You merely took a look at the picture and jumped to conclusions that fit your theory.  Bravo.
http://www.infowars....by-us-marshals/

I am pointing out that the lady in the above story is more likely to have been killed had that officer undergone the "no more hesitation" training, this is surely obvious to everyone. there is no sensible reason to train police to shoot 8 year olds, pregnant women and geriatrics. a scenario where the police would encounter one of those situations where a pregnant woman, child or pensioner would be the aggressor against an armed police officer is extremely unlikely, but such training will lead to innocents being unlawfully killed as would have happened in the situation above. the implementation of such training only makes sense if a top down decision has been made to ignore the 4th amendment, as happened in the above story and after the boston bombing, where it seems to now be policy for armed police to aggressively raid homes without probable cause and without warrants. it's a pity for the moral majority that some people seem to enjoy this situation.


#78    Low Mage

Low Mage

    Low magic practitioner

  • Member
  • 3,606 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • Who has it all has nothing

Posted 20 July 2013 - 10:16 AM

The US military has been training for urban combat since before 1979. Most future battles will take place in urbanized theaters. Where else would they train for this?

Quote

Military Operations on Urban Terrain [MOUT] are not new to the US Army. Throughout its history the Army has fought an enemy on urban terrain. What is new is that urban areas and urban populations have grown significantly during the late twentieth century and have begun to exert a much greater influence on military operations. The worldwide shift from a rural to an urban society and the requirement to transition from combat to stability and support operations and vice-versa have affected the US Army's doctrine.

It is estimated that by the year 2010, seventy-five percent of the world's population will live in urban areas. The increased population and accelerated growth of cities have made the problems of combat in built-up areas an urgent requirement for the US Army. Urban areas are expected to be the future battlefield and combat in urban areas cannot be avoided.

*snip*

The US Army's Field Manual 90-10, Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain, was last issued in 1979, though a revision of FM 90-10 is under way.

http://www.globalsec...ry/ops/mout.htm


Quote

During World War II, as preparation for the allied invasion of Normandy, the population of the English village of Imber was evacuated compulsorily to provide an urban training area for United States forces.

http://en.wikipedia....arfare_training


It is not a conspiracy theory of planning martial law and the taking over of our cities. It is simply training where past and future battles take place. The days of two large armies using tanks and meeting on empty fields is long gone...

Edited by The world needs you, 20 July 2013 - 10:21 AM.


#79    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,312 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 20 July 2013 - 12:55 PM

I have no objections to MOUT per se, but I do object to such training taking place in CONUS cities, in our own cities.

Port Angeles and Miami are not the right place to conduct such training, for a variety of reasons.

During Vietnam, USArmy had a simulated Vietnamese village down at Fort Polk, and I think there are some simulated Afghan cities in the desert southwest of this country.  That's fine.

But training in actual US cities is not a good thing.  Our military was meant to DEFEND this country from invaders.  In the spirit of the Third Amendment, it was not meant to be turned in on our people.  So too the spirit and letter of Posse Comitatus Act.

The Global War On Terror is a magnificent hoax on the american people, and it's no surprise that it would bring "training exercises" in our cities.


#80    shrooma

shrooma

    Ugly bag of mostly water.

  • Member
  • 2,707 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 20 July 2013 - 02:17 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 20 July 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:


http://www.infowars....by-us-marshals/

I am pointing out that the lady in the above story is more likely to have been killed had that officer undergone the "no more hesitation" training, this is surely obvious to everyone.
.
yup, obvious to me she'd've been dead alright.
anyone pointed a gun at me, theyd've had a 9mm ventilated forehead, regardless of age, gender, or reproductive habits.
you never point a gun at someone unless you mean to use it, and in a "me or them" scenario, they'd have the fastest case of lead poisoning on record, even if we were stood in a manger & the virgin mary herself was holding it.
.
*edit to add*-
didn't see the link to the story until i reposted it. sometimes links don't show up on my phone, and i thought you were referring to the cardboard target of the armed pregnant woman, sorry.

Edited by shrooma, 20 July 2013 - 02:29 PM.

''One is all for religion until one visits a really religious country. Then, one is all for drains, machinery, and a minimum wage.''
-Aldous Huxley-

#81    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,577 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 20 July 2013 - 02:58 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 20 July 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

I have no objections to MOUT per se, but I do object to such training taking place in CONUS cities, in our own cities.

Port Angeles and Miami are not the right place to conduct such training, for a variety of reasons.

During Vietnam, USArmy had a simulated Vietnamese village down at Fort Polk, and I think there are some simulated Afghan cities in the desert southwest of this country.  That's fine.

But training in actual US cities is not a good thing.  Our military was meant to DEFEND this country from invaders.  In the spirit of the Third Amendment, it was not meant to be turned in on our people.  So too the spirit and letter of Posse Comitatus Act.

The Global War On Terror is a magnificent hoax on the american people, and it's no surprise that it would bring "training exercises" in our cities.

You object to it. Unfortunately for you, there are other people in the country, so you don't always get the final say.

Also, how exactly does training violate Posse Comitatus?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#82    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,312 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 20 July 2013 - 06:30 PM

I don't get the final say?!!

I am shocked I tell you, shocked that the President doesn't call me to ask my advice.

Just kidding Stellar.  I figured that out back in about 1960.  It's one of those 'rules of life' that one cannot escape.

Posse Comitatus was passed to restrain USArmy troops from harassing civilians after the Civil War, mostly in the south.  But the term PC precedes that piece of legislation, but quite a few years because of its Common Law heritage.  In that case, PC obliges every citizen to assist the local sheriff if he asks.  And I think that's a good idea.  3rd amendment is directed against military troops, and for the dignity of the home of the citizen.


#83    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 23 July 2013 - 05:00 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 20 July 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:


http://www.infowars....by-us-marshals/

I am pointing out that the lady in the above story is more likely to have been killed had that officer undergone the "no more hesitation" training, this is surely obvious to everyone. there is no sensible reason to train police to shoot 8 year olds, pregnant women and geriatrics. a scenario where the police would encounter one of those situations where a pregnant woman, child or pensioner would be the aggressor against an armed police officer is extremely unlikely, but such training will lead to innocents being unlawfully killed as would have happened in the situation above. the implementation of such training only makes sense if a top down decision has been made to ignore the 4th amendment, as happened in the above story and after the boston bombing, where it seems to now be policy for armed police to aggressively raid homes without probable cause and without warrants. it's a pity for the moral majority that some people seem to enjoy this situation.

Great that you pointed that out.  However, what you still fail to understand is the difference between when to use deadly force and when not to.

Your assertion to the targets purchased is that they are trained to use deadly force regardless of the situation.  Oh my, what a jump to conclusion that is.

Have ever stopped to think that the targets are only used to train in situations where deadly force is warranted?  That the use of unconventional targets to train police officers to use deadly force regardless of the target's gender or age?

Oh you didn't did you?  Much easier to claim that police are being trained to act like its the wild west all over again, since that does fit your and apperantly infowar's theory.

Edited by RaptorBites, 23 July 2013 - 05:01 AM.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#84    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,332 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 23 July 2013 - 11:47 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 23 July 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

Great that you pointed that out.  However, what you still fail to understand is the difference between when to use deadly force and when not to.

Your assertion to the targets purchased is that they are trained to use deadly force regardless of the situation.  Oh my, what a jump to conclusion that is.

Have ever stopped to think that the targets are only used to train in situations where deadly force is warranted?  That the use of unconventional targets to train police officers to use deadly force regardless of the target's gender or age?

Oh you didn't did you?  Much easier to claim that police are being trained to act like its the wild west all over again, since that does fit your and apperantly infowar's theory.

The odds that a pregnate women would be using a gun for anything but self defense is next to nothing. They are being trained as an agressor, against Americans defending themself against tyrants. How could it be explained any other way? Why spend millions on targets that 99.999% of officers will never encounter? Unless of course you are going to force them to make such encounters, for say gun confiscation.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#85    Colonel Rhubarb

Colonel Rhubarb

    Scrupulously Polite

  • Member
  • 22,231 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicken Itza

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 23 July 2013 - 04:49 PM

If, in, say, 10 or 20 years, they never actually have Taken Away America's Guns, or imposed Martial Law or rounded the people up into FEMA Camps, will people still be saying They're about to take Away America's guns, etc? i mean, they (people, that is, not They) were saying 10 years ago that 9/11 was staged in order to give a pretext for Martial Law and to Round the people Up, etc, and that never actually happened. if it still hasn't happened in another 10 years, will people still be saying the same thing, I wonder?

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#86    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 23 July 2013 - 08:18 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 23 July 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

The odds that a pregnate women would be using a gun for anything but self defense is next to nothing. They are being trained as an agressor, against Americans defending themself against tyrants. How could it be explained any other way? Why spend millions on targets that 99.999% of officers will never encounter? Unless of course you are going to force them to make such encounters, for say gun confiscation.

Again, a rapid jump to conclusions.

What about in cases where a pregnant woman holds people hostage and has executed innocent civilians.  Or maybe shot several officers?

They are uncommon situations, yes, however they are not beyond the realm of impossible.  

Like I said before, whatever situation fits YOUR personal theories is the only correct one yes?  I mean you and LF seem to want to throw out every OTHER scenario that may fit situations where use of deadly force is warranted by claiming it is impossible.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#87    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 23 July 2013 - 08:25 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 23 July 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

If, in, say, 10 or 20 years, they never actually have Taken Away America's Guns, or imposed Martial Law or rounded the people up into FEMA Camps, will people still be saying They're about to take Away America's guns, etc? i mean, they (people, that is, not They) were saying 10 years ago that 9/11 was staged in order to give a pretext for Martial Law and to Round the people Up, etc, and that never actually happened. if it still hasn't happened in another 10 years, will people still be saying the same thing, I wonder?

Of course they will.  The alternative media such as Infowars is all about fear ,mongering.  The are willing to take ANY situation and put their own personal spin to it.

If you haven't heard Alex Jones's Y2K radio broadcast, you should.  It was quite the circus show I was expecting someone with his crude imagination could cook up.

Fear is such a powerful and mesmerizing tool, and people such as Alex Jones and Infowars run the business like the catholic church runs religion.

Fear the government as it has the liberty to give and take your freedoms.
Fear God as he/she has the liberty to admit or decline your entrance to heaven.

Sound familiar?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#88    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,312 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 24 July 2013 - 12:35 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 23 July 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Of course they will.  The alternative media such as Infowars is all about fear ,mongering.  The are willing to take ANY situation and put their own personal spin to it.

If you haven't heard Alex Jones's Y2K radio broadcast, you should.  It was quite the circus show I was expecting someone with his crude imagination could cook up.

Fear is such a powerful and mesmerizing tool, and people such as Alex Jones and Infowars run the business like the catholic church runs religion.

Fear the government as it has the liberty to give and take your freedoms.
Fear God as he/she has the liberty to admit or decline your entrance to heaven.

Sound familiar?

Bingo!  Fear is indeed a powerful and mesmerizing tool, but it's silly to claim or suggest that somehow Alex Jones has a monopoly on such tactics.

May we use 'terror' to mean the same thing as 'fear', and consider it too a powerful tool to manipulate the individual and public psyche?

Boston Bombing, WTC attacks, Newtown.  These are events that have permanently damaged the public psyche, and allow manipulation.  Anthrax attacks were a powerful and mesmerizing tool, so powerful that our elected representatives gave away the rule of law and constitutional governance as a result.

The american people are scared silly of anybody with a turban or burka, because they have been successfully terrorized, and Kowalski's thread regarding the media and propaganda covers it.  The media is an essential tool to keeping the american people in a cowardly and fearful state.


#89    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 24 July 2013 - 08:20 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 24 July 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:



Bingo!  Fear is indeed a powerful and mesmerizing tool, but it's silly to claim or suggest that somehow Alex Jones has a monopoly on such tactics.

May we use 'terror' to mean the same thing as 'fear', and consider it too a powerful tool to manipulate the individual and public psyche?

Boston Bombing, WTC attacks, Newtown.  These are events that have permanently damaged the public psyche, and allow manipulation.  Anthrax attacks were a powerful and mesmerizing tool, so powerful that our elected representatives gave away the rule of law and constitutional governance as a result.

The american people are scared silly of anybody with a turban or burka, because they have been successfully terrorized, and Kowalski's thread regarding the media and propaganda covers it.  The media is an essential tool to keeping the american people in a cowardly and fearful state.

Uh...maybe you should stop putting words in my mouth.  At no point did I say Alex Jones has a monopoly on fear mongering tactics.

I clearly made a comparison between fear mongering made by fanatics such as A Jones and the Catholic church.  People gravitate towards those kinds of rhetoric because fear is such a powerful tool and both A Jones and the Catholic church do it so well.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#90    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,312 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 25 July 2013 - 12:31 PM

Glad you made that clear RB. :tu:





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users