It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. Army training to for issues with TeaParties...

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:12 PM
Oh, and all I can say here is 92Romeo... After that... Just stuff.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by Goethe]

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:26 PM
There's one major hang up: the teaparty is generally pro-Military.

I wouldn't bring it up except it means that the men with guns would be much more reluctant to shoot when they're wished well by people that thank them for their service. There's enough distrust betwen Officers and Enlisted that the grunts would gladly disobey obviously immoral orders from an Officer, especially if it meant killing those people that appreciate them (and for no reason).

Besides, the true prep work is for Mexico. Mark my word: the US will do something about illegal Mexican immigrants. It won't be pretty.

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:29 PM
Ok, I am throwing out the BS flag. What combat units are they using. Is all of the Basic and OSUT trainees????
Oh it must be the OPFOR (Opposing Force) unit that is used as the enemy.

No it must all of the soldiers from around the world that are there for Non-Commisioned Officer courses.

Maybe they released all of the prisioners from the detention center to fill in as the combat force.

I guess it could be the small force in charge of guarding the vault, but they aren't soldiers or even in the military. That is the Treasury Dept.

Hmm I guess the 113th band could be used with all of the soldiers from the Bradley and Tank training units

I can see that most people think all Army bases are full of combat Soldiers ready to fight. Next time, pick a base that isn't a TRADOC base (U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command )

This is ridiculous, and throw in that is the most fabricated order ever and you have a wonderful lie.

If you don't believe me, drive on to Fort Knox, its pretty open, and look at all of those hardened combat soldiers

[edit on 3-5-2010 by cavscout11cav]
Sorry had to add this, also Ft. Knox is still trying to unscramble what is suppose to happen with the 2005 BRAC

[edit on 3-5-2010 by cavscout11cav]

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:36 PM
While I agree theres not alot in way of combat vets there all the time, its a big base and many facilities. And yea, combat vets are there at times, like most other bases.

I still havent seen anything other than opinion saying this is fake. But I am very open.

Im sure there were, and still are people that deny Operation NorthWoods... But hey, Im just a conspiracy nut...

Anyone know anyone at Ft Knox personally?

Someone they can trust and find out whats going on?

Im sure if its legit, it might be tough to find out about, but word travels.

Lets go about it differently... Where was the article frist posted on the net?

I saw it first on InfoWars.

Yea Yea I know... But, most things Ive looked up from them talking about it, proved to be legit.

Anyone else know anything about this document or where it came from?

(most I think agree we train for 'all' purposes... For the most part that is)

Also, for the record, I have no stake in the race here. Im just curious as to its authenticity.

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:39 PM
Oh, and BRAC is not about closing bases for savings and cuts...

But I agree, Knox C.O.'s dont know what the hell theyre doing, nor the brass above them.

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:44 PM
I know Ft. Knox like the back of my hand. All my training is done there. I will make some calls and get the scoop. As for there being a bunch of combat soldiers at a given time, yes that is true. They are there for career progression schools (NCO academy). The Army doesn't use non cohesive forces (soldiers not stationed together, that have trained together) for force protection drills. I will add more tomorrow.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:42 AM
Thank you. And I assume you are serving... If so, Thank you!

To any other active, or former soldiers, this thread is not meant to cast doubt upon all of you. We know its not all of you.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:01 AM
Ok, this is what I got so far. Yes there was a force protection scenario that was created by an officer that changed a group protest of Ft. Knox to be "more realistic" and named the group the Tea Party.
The scenario was disapproved but was sent out by an unknown person to out side agencies (reporters). There was no exercise, no soldiers actually trained on that specific exercise.

It was to be included into the line up of the numerous exercises that they do throughout the year to keep the security forces on their toes. I have personally seen numerous exercise such as these and have participated in some of different degrees on other bases.

The officer was repremanded and relieved of his duties.

It was one persons ill attempt to throw his political views into training.

And yes I do serve, and thank you for your kind comments

[Edit for spelling] Sorry on a 24 hours shift

[edit on 4-5-2010 by cavscout11cav]

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:07 AM
"US army training to for issues with teapartiers"

wtf does that mean? so if i have a teaparty the army is gonna come get me? what happened to spelling/grammar on this site?

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:22 AM
Its called an extra word in a title... Sorry. It should just have... For... Issues with TeaParties...

And as to your question... I dont know really, but saw this document posted and thought Id post it here.

My bad, do I need to pay a fine or just be a stoning?

So, we have one outside confirmation of the authenticity then...

Can anyone confirm the confirmation?

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:37 PM
I'm currently stateside while rehabbing from shoulder surgery but my team's "over somewhere on vacation"
Good Intel by cavscout
. Just sounds like an Officer trying to make a point with an exercise which didn't get off the ground anyway.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:39 PM
So, for clarification...

As it stands, this document is real, just not official orders handed down fromthe top?

Thanks guys for doing some leg work and finding out the truth, as far as we know it to this point.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in