Another Combat Vet weights in on Ferguson.

Please note that these articles I'm finding are on Left Leaning (I use the term very lightly) outlets. I would think some Right Leaning sites would pick up on these, but as I'm yet to find any that mean my standards for citation, I'm asking for help from across the proverbial aisle.

Again I am anxious to find well written, researched and cited news outlets. I'm not looking for Think Tanks of either stripe - I'm looking for news and general commentary.

On to this article:

truth-out.org...

...titled "A Former Marine Explains All the Weapons of War Being Used by Police in Ferguson"

There is a growing chorus of military veterans who have chimed in on the absurdity of photographs like this one. Let me join the parade. What we're seeing here is a gaggle of cops wearing more elite killing gear than your average squad leader leading a foot patrol through the most hostile sands or hills of Afghanistan. They are equipped with Kevlar helmets, assault-friendly gas masks, combat gloves and knee pads (all four of them), woodland Marine Pattern utility trousers, tactical body armor vests, about 120 to 180 rounds for each shooter, semiautomatic pistols attached to their thighs, disposable handcuff restraints hanging from their vests, close-quarter-battle receivers for their M4 carbine rifles and Advanced Combat Optical Gunsights. In other words, they're itching for a fight. A big one.

It's a well-known horror that the US military greets foreign peoples in this fashion as our politicians preach freedom, democracy and peace. It's an abomination that the police greet black communities in the States with the same trigger-happy posture. Especially on the occasion of an unarmed teen's death by cop.

There's at least one line every Marine knows. It's ingrained at boot camp or Officer Candidate School and follows us to the front lines and back home again. It's a simple command and it's the second of the four weapons-safety rules. It says, "Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot." The St. Louis County Police Department apparently never received the memo. Either that or they intend to shoot. Although their tactical flashlights might be assisting them in spying on (and blinding) their targets, I suspect their air-purifying respirators and the smoke and CS gas they've released might be getting in the way of said objective. It's unclear whether it was cheap fuse-operated smoke bombs (think fireworks) or more expensive pin-operated smoke grenades that are responsible for the fog. Both tools have been reported onsite. For what it's worth, such smokescreens are usually executed during flanking attacks, retreats, close air support missions or casualty evacuations. All of these situations are presumed to take place under real or potential conditions of heavy enemy fire. Make of this what you will. My guess is that they've got a surplus of toys to play with, and a powerless demographic to experiment on.

The author goes on to detail the ordinance carried by Ferguson Peace Officers.

I think his introduction to the subject of militarized police is worth quote as well.

As smoke hangs over the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, it's important to understand its source. Some of this understanding will require us to reassess the history of police militarization in the United States. This will mean acknowledging its origins in the aftermath of the Watts Riots (1965) and the birth of the SWAT team shortly thereafter. It will mean noting the conservative reaction to the Warren Court's civil libertarian protections in the 1950s and 60s to President Nixon's launching of the drug war at the end of that same tumultuous decade. It will mean harping on President Reagan's wholehearted embrace of racial policing and mass incarceration in the 1980s. It will mean interrogating the devastating effects of the 1208 Program (1990), which became the 1033 Program (1996), both of which authorized the transfer of military hardware to domestic precincts, a practice that has only accelerated in the wake of the Battle of Seattle (1999) and the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Something I've seen posted on ats several times
"They'd never be able to get the military to turn on its own citizens"

It seems they dont need the military.

Who needs the military when you have the Civilian Security Force?

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

www.youtube.com...

National security objectives? What are they? A police state?
Full video below. Speech given in Colorado Springs, CO secret capitol of the NWO.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I think this is them prepping for war.
A civilian security force as well equipped as the military would lead you to believe the military will be elsewhere.

I'm just curious if there was air cover for the police as well. Nobody mentioned it. We're there drones above?

a reply to: FyreByrd

Dear FyreByrd,

As I'm sure the article used as your source meets your standards, let's look at it first. The portion you clipped should be an exceptionally fertile field for "weapons of war," "elite killing gear," and "ordinance."

What I propose is to focus on all of the equipment that falls into those categories, and things that civilians don't have routine access to. I'll leave out things that are purely defensive, like body armor. Anybody can get it, and wearing it doesn't hurt anyone else. With me?

OK. Here's the list from what you've mentioned of elite killing gear:

1.) the smoke and CS gas they've released

2.) That was it. Everything else was personal defense, common supplies, or not hurtful. Those frightening sounding "Close Quarter Battle Receivers?" It just means shorter barrels on their standard rifles.

The Close Quarter Battle Receiver (CQBR) is a replacement upper receiver for the M4A1 Carbine, developed by the US Navy. The CQBR replaces the M4 with a barrel 10.3 in (262 mm) length, making it the modern equivalent of the Colt Commando short-barrel M16 variants of the past. This shorter barrel makes the weapon significantly more compact, which makes it easier to use in and around vehicles and in tight confined spaces.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry, but the article snippets you provided are empty air.

With respect,
Charles1952

Falls in line with H.R. 5344 to ban the purchase of body armor that was shared earlier this month? One source of many,

H.R. 5344 is a bill currently going through Congress that would ban the purchase of body armor.
Violation would carry CRIMINAL penalties, including up to ten years in prison.

Many bullet-resistant items on the market now, such as bulletproof backpacks for school children, would be banned by this legislation.

This is incredible given that the legislation is all about banning something that is purely defensive.

Source

originally posted by: Snarl
I'm just curious if there was air cover for the police as well. Nobody mentioned it. We're there drones above?

Good question. I know the LAPD has them...

a reply to: FyreByrd

Protesters have been saying there have been drones above the whole time; some pointed out these drones to citizen journalists. I can find the Tweets for you if you want.

a reply to: Mikeultra

LIVED THERE for 40 years so no it isn't and NEITHER is Denver where iI live now

Well cav...what the hell IS going on at the Denver Airport?
The buried runways the buried three story buildings etc etc....???
The police are being converted into soldiers for the NWO...they are being equipped to kill civillians en masse.....
When they will be unleashed on us is debatable....but the time is near I think....

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Please note that these articles I'm finding are on Left Leaning (I use the term very lightly) outlets. I would think some Right Leaning sites would pick up on these, but as I'm yet to find any that mean my standards for citation, I'm asking for help from across the proverbial aisle.

Again I am anxious to find well written, researched and cited news outlets. I'm not looking for Think Tanks of either stripe - I'm looking for news and general commentary.

On to this article:

truth-out.org...

...titled "A Former Marine Explains All the Weapons of War Being Used by Police in Ferguson"

There is a growing chorus of military veterans who have chimed in on the absurdity of photographs like this one. Let me join the parade. What we're seeing here is a gaggle of cops wearing more elite killing gear than your average squad leader leading a foot patrol through the most hostile sands or hills of Afghanistan. They are equipped with Kevlar helmets, assault-friendly gas masks, combat gloves and knee pads (all four of them), woodland Marine Pattern utility trousers, tactical body armor vests, about 120 to 180 rounds for each shooter, semiautomatic pistols attached to their thighs, disposable handcuff restraints hanging from their vests, close-quarter-battle receivers for their M4 carbine rifles and Advanced Combat Optical Gunsights. In other words, they're itching for a fight. A big one.

It's a well-known horror that the US military greets foreign peoples in this fashion as our politicians preach freedom, democracy and peace. It's an abomination that the police greet black communities in the States with the same trigger-happy posture. Especially on the occasion of an unarmed teen's death by cop.

There's at least one line every Marine knows. It's ingrained at boot camp or Officer Candidate School and follows us to the front lines and back home again. It's a simple command and it's the second of the four weapons-safety rules. It says, "Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot." The St. Louis County Police Department apparently never received the memo. Either that or they intend to shoot. Although their tactical flashlights might be assisting them in spying on (and blinding) their targets, I suspect their air-purifying respirators and the smoke and CS gas they've released might be getting in the way of said objective. It's unclear whether it was cheap fuse-operated smoke bombs (think fireworks) or more expensive pin-operated smoke grenades that are responsible for the fog. Both tools have been reported onsite. For what it's worth, such smokescreens are usually executed during flanking attacks, retreats, close air support missions or casualty evacuations. All of these situations are presumed to take place under real or potential conditions of heavy enemy fire. Make of this what you will. My guess is that they've got a surplus of toys to play with, and a powerless demographic to experiment on.

The author goes on to detail the ordinance carried by Ferguson Peace Officers.

I think his introduction to the subject of militarized police is worth quote as well.

As smoke hangs over the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, it's important to understand its source. Some of this understanding will require us to reassess the history of police militarization in the United States. This will mean acknowledging its origins in the aftermath of the Watts Riots (1965) and the birth of the SWAT team shortly thereafter. It will mean noting the conservative reaction to the Warren Court's civil libertarian protections in the 1950s and 60s to President Nixon's launching of the drug war at the end of that same tumultuous decade. It will mean harping on President Reagan's wholehearted embrace of racial policing and mass incarceration in the 1980s. It will mean interrogating the devastating effects of the 1208 Program (1990), which became the 1033 Program (1996), both of which authorized the transfer of military hardware to domestic precincts, a practice that has only accelerated in the wake of the Battle of Seattle (1999) and the attacks of September 11, 2001.

When they come, they are coming for everybody. Not just blacks, mexicans, or the chosen minority being discriminated against. After 50 years of practice they are rearing to go. I just hope their poor judgement is akin to Hitler rushing into war, a decision that cost him in the end.

Kinda made me think of that scene in the movie "the town"

About the armered car guards...

" I don't like the guards on the next thing, alright. One kid is like f#cking G.I. Joe, He wears the vest on the outside and tucks his pants into his f#cking combat boots.

We'll find another truck with the driver who's a f#cking fat kid with his f#cking sh#t untucked who don't think he's special forces."

Great movie tough