Another Urban Military Exercise - Downtown LA

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Funny how it didn't seem to be a problem before, but now it is.

It was voluntary before, and still is now. All training takes place with permission landowners if it's on private property, and local officials if it's in a city. That sounds voluntary to me.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Funny how it didn't seem to be a problem before, but now it is.

It was voluntary before, and still is now. All training takes place with permission landowners if it's on private property, and local officials if it's in a city. That sounds voluntary to me.

No no no my friend!

You very much just pulled a fast one.

There is no permission givin nor does their have to be.

The term used is in coordination with.

Nice try though.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Na. They've been holding training exercise in cities for years now, in addition to training on their ranges.

are you referring to the joint training exercises with the local Police forces... to which the military leaves the street tanks and other equipment that effectively 'weaponizes/militaries the civilian police?


What involvement does the Strong Cities Organization have with these military training exercises in civilian cities... the 'Strong Cities' NGO is a Globalist run, UN affiliated program, that has no business in organizing USA cities and County Sheriffs Departments...


practice sessions to prep for Marshall Law or FEMA roundups, or just benign Urban training …

I think there's more to It than is being told...

I wear a thinking cap...not just a tin foil at all the time

a reply to: St Udio



still another plausible answer to 'What's going on in LA with Special Forces invasion disguised as training'


see:
www.youtube.com...
8:10 LA mobilization connected with Las Vegas massacre gun runner whose plane blew up over LA 4 days earlier

a reply to: St Udio

Thus confirming youtubers these days will believe any old bs, I mean Sorcha Fall? Really. Come on man, you've been around long enough not to fall for that haven't you?

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

And you're still wrong. Exercises have been moved before because local officials didn't want them happening in their location. And they've taken place in areas where local officials invited them in. "In coordination with" means that they're talking to local officials and getting their approval. You can deny it all you want, it doesn't change that it's true.

a reply to: St Udio

No, I'm not referring to those at all. These are military training exercises, practicing several things in and around high rise buildings. Not practice for marital law or other things claimed.

a reply to: St Udio

You have proof of who it belonged to, beyond Youtube, right?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

And you're still wrong. Exercises have been moved before because local officials didn't want them happening in their location. And they've taken place in areas where local officials invited them in. "In coordination with" means that they're talking to local officials and getting their approval. You can deny it all you want, it doesn't change that it's true.

Nope!

I never claimed otherwise.

I am informing you that people were not givin a choice in the matter and simply coordinating with someone is not the same as a choice.

You come off as if the city council took a vote on the matter or that it is usual procedure for that to happen. It is not.

Again you are giving cover for the rise of nationalism.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

It's usually the mayor or other official in charge. You're the one that's claiming I'm saying things I'm not. Funny though how several cities invited the military in for training, and several said no and had exercises moved. I guess those don't count.

There's no point in continuing this, because no matter what anyone says, it won't matter, and can be twisted to say whatever it's interpreted as. You're not going to get your vote on training, and city officials will continue to allow it. So in the end, it doesn't matter.

a reply to: St Udio

still another plausible answer to 'What's going on in LA with Special Forces invasion disguised as training'

Depends on just how loosely you define "plausible".

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

It's usually the mayor or other official in charge. You're the one that's claiming I'm saying things I'm not. Funny though how several cities invited the military in for training, and several said no and had exercises moved. I guess those don't count.

There's no point in continuing this, because no matter what anyone says, it won't matter, and can be twisted to say whatever it's interpreted as. You're not going to get your vote on training, and city officials will continue to allow it. So in the end, it doesn't matter.

I do not get why you make this so hard as to what i am saying.

I do not believe just getting the mayors position on the matter is fair in a town the size of la.. Let the city council decide as the public have a say.

This is what i mean when i say dictation from the military.

You seem to think that since some mayor is some town somewhere once stood up to the military in this matter that that equates democracy. It does not.

What do you think of the president wanting a military parade on the 4th.?

How do you think they should go about setting this up? Should potus just tell em it is coming or perhaps maybe it is something that should be brought to government and let the people decide.

This is actually a great opportunity as far as our little debate goes cause we have such happening and we can watch the progression and see if people get a choice or if it will be forced.

One thing we have agreed upon is that some towns are for this and some are not and i am saying let democracy decide and you are asserting that if a mayor or other official can be convinced then that is good enough.

It looks dangerous as hell if there are power lines on both sides of the street

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

The mayor is voted in , represents the people. If this is such a concerning issue, the citizens in that city would be taking it to the city council. Not enough care, so it is not really a big deal. We're you or have you been witness from your home or community of just such drills that made you upset??

Did you go to a council meeting to express your concern??

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

The mayor is voted in , represents the people. If this is such a concerning issue, the citizens in that city would be taking it to the city council. Not enough care, so it is not really a big deal. We're you or have you been witness from your home or community of just such drills that made you upset??

Did you go to a council meeting to express your concern??

Drill first ask questions later. That's rich.

So if the mayor wanted to bring in military to guard the streets then we could just see if the people will accept it.

I am not sure if you are familiar to how cities operate as far as matters that effect the citizens are concerned.

Many cities you can not even paint your house without city approval.

All i am saying here is that perhaps the city council and such should have a say since in many cases they represent the people. Yet all we get is coordination with the mayor.

If you want to do a parade in a town you need approval yet if it is the military they have the right to do it any ways if they choose but as another poster stated sometimes they change their minds.


Training in public is not supposed to happen any way unless no other options are available and in all cases options are available so there is no need for the military to be operating in public and any such efforts is just a push for nationalism.