Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sabotage: The "Peace Movement"'s Plans for War

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sabotage: The "Peace Movement"'s Plans for War

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=35

    Sabotage: The "Peace Movement"'s Plans for War

    by David Horowitz
    Volume 1 Issue 6- Tuesday, March 18, 2003

    THE THREAT: On the day after the U.S. military action in Iraq begins, the so-called peace movement will begin their own war at home. The plan is to cause major disruptions - illegal in nature - in cities across the country to disrupt the flow of normal civic life. These actions will tie up Homeland Security forces and create a golden opportunity for domestic terrorists. The Fifth Column left is also planning to invade military bases. Here is a report from Salon.com's Michelle Goldberg:

    "[Camp] Vandenberg is about 50 miles north Santa Barbara, Calif. In a few days, activists will start converging on a nearby four-acre plot of land…. They're going to camp there and train to breach the base's security and possibly vandalize some of its equipment.

    "The [leader of the activists] describes the base as 'the electronic nerve center of the global-surveillance-targeting, weapons-guidance, and military-command satellites that will largely direct the war.' The base is 99,000 square acres, with a perimeter running through rugged, wooded terrain. 'If people are committed and determined and in halfway decent physical shape, it is possible to get in, because it's enormous and much of the land is still fairly wild,' he says.

    "Within the base, [the action leader] says, are 'major off-limits security zones,' that, when breached, 'set off a series of responses in their own security procedures which require disruption and partial shut down of regular activities,' which means the base can't operate at full capacity."
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    if you get caught you get shot. simple as that.
    I'll post, You argue.

  • #2
    By tying up our forces at home, I'd vote they are "giving comfort to our enemies" so they could be handled as traitors or seditionists.

    Again, I applaud them for making it this easy for us.
    People have more fun than anybody.

    Comment


    • #3
      quote:
      Originally posted by SGT Dave:
      By tying up our forces at home, I'd vote they are "giving comfort to our enemies" so they could be handled as traitors or seditionists.


      can you arrest some for "sedition" according to US laws since there has been no "formal" declaration of war? that might be a thorny issue. but other than sedition, they can be arrested for numerous offenses no prob!!

      i'm all for it one way or the other. i just hope that some heads are cracked in the process. seeing idiot moronic protesters getting cracked, dragged, cuffed, and arrested beats ANY sitcom for laughs by far!!
      I'll post, You argue.

      Comment


      • #4
        I won't care if those clueless protesters want to do so peacefully OUTSIDE of the base and without interference.

        However, if they intentionally breach the perimeter/security in an attempt to disrupt operations then I say shoot them on sight. They would go from being protesters to domestic terrorists.

        Many protesters view arrests as like getting a badge of honor. Blocking a city street is one thing, trying to disrupt military operations is way over the line and a clear message should be sent- shoot them.
        Disclaimer: The writer does not represent any organization, employer, entity or other individual. The first amendment protected views/commentary/opinions/satire expressed are those only of the writer. In the case of a sarcastic, facetious, nonsensical, stirring-the-pot, controversial or devil's advocate-type post, the views expressed may not even reflect those of the writer.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ah, i thought i head something about protesters wanting to breach military bases. lol wold that not give base security etc, a go ahead to shoot those stupid morons? if so i can't see this being much of a problem lol.

          Comment


          • #6
            quote:
            Originally posted by BRICKCOP:
            However, if they intentionally breach the perimeter/security in an attempt to disrupt operations then I say shoot them on sight.

            I agree!
            Having a stupid opinion is one thing, and their right, But disrupting the war effort in this manner is domestic terrorism.
            Better idea than shoot them wouold be to draft 'em the second they enter a military base. Just grab 'em and ship 'em off to Iraq and give 'em a rifle. To save money make it a rifle that's a little cheaper than an M16 since they won't last long without training anyway(which also saves money) Problem solved.
            All of god's creatures are entitled to live without fear of "gun violence" except for you and your family. - <a href="http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/selfdefense_quiz.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>

            Comment


            • #7
              Especially in a high-security area like that. Getting into a local reserve center or something probably won't get you killed; but you start messing with sensative areas and the use of force continuum leaps to deadly real quick.
              On the wings of a dove
              Let's roll for justice
              Let's roll for truth
              Let's not let our children grow up
              Fearful in their youth -- Neil Young

              Comment

              MR300x250 Tablet

              Collapse

              What's Going On

              Collapse

              There are currently 8011 users online. 460 members and 7551 guests.

              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

              Welcome Ad

              Collapse
              Working...
              X