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.


Vt. farmer draws a line at US bid to bolster border..UPDATED

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by prionace glauca

Bold emphasis mine

My educated guess would be that arsenals have been established in several of the following countries: Pakistan , Sudan , Saudi Arabia , Myanmar , Algeria , Indonesia , Malaysia , Abu Dubai , Iran , Syria , and Lebanon . The last three in light of the al Qaeda truce and bonding with Hezbollah. Myanmar looms large since very sinister events are taking place there. These events, including the construction of large reactors, have been made possible by fugitive scientists and technicians from the Khan Research Facility .But don't lose sight of the fact that nukes have been forward deployed to al Qaeda cells in Canada , Mexico , and the US .

Oh my God, your book writer has made an EDUCATED GUESS.

No top secret EDUCATED GUESS.

Quick, seal the Northern Border. He has mentioned Canada and Mexico and the US.

sorry, forgot your book writer interview link

[edit on 17-5-2010 by jam321]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:19 PM
An educated guess by an employee of not one but two Intelligence Operating Agencies is still more credible than Chertoff.

To spend $8million dollar in Vermont Location that barely sees 3cars per day is the kind of competence this administration displays, when the porous southern borders can use that same amount of money provide better equipment capable of handling the capacity of threats faced.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:31 PM
reply to post by RedmoonMWC

Uh yes?? So what's your point? I know full well who she is.
Are you referring to another poster?

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:39 PM
"By 2003, Canadian intelligence officials and Interpol told Mexican President Vincente Fox that al-Qaida had established several cells in Mexico to prepare for the next terrorist attacks, Williams tells readers."

this is such a disinformation story TO MAKE YOU AFRAID.


but but but but.....duh



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:46 PM
So you would claim to lets leave the borders open and all have a bonfire & sing kum baya.

The only disinfo is what you make yourself think that there is no dangerous element crossing the borders especially the porous borders down south. That my friend is disinfo to yourself.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:58 PM
reply to post by vermonster

23 Somali Terrorists Heading for the US from Mexico

Somalis with ties to a terrorist organization are believed to be plotting to illegally enter the United States after being mistakenly released from custody in Mexico, a confidential federal law enforcement report said.

The report, obtained by the Washington Examiner, said that 23 Somalis who entered Mexico illegally earlier in the year were caught there, then released in late January.

Only 16 of the 23 people were identified by both Mexican and U.S. law enforcement officials, while the "other 7 are unknown," the report says.

The terrorist threat is very real and has easier access through the southern borders and that is where the efforts should be applied. Not by taking over a families farm near a border crossing that sees less 15000 cars a year.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:11 AM
Being from Canada, I believe the Canada/US border security should be improved on both sides.

Terrorists and Drug Smugglers will always search for the easiest route. Just a couple years ago here, the RCMP caught a bunch of Columbian drug smugglers loaded up with AK47's coming in from the States with plans to break other drug smugglers from one of our prisons.

We also had that terrorist that tried to gain entry into the US from Canada a fewyears ago between British Columbia and Washington State.

I am from Nova Scotia. If you look at a map of Nova Scotia, you will see how hard it is to defend it's shoreline. It is wide open and thousands of KM's unprotected. Drug Smugglers have been targeting it trying to use it as a point of entry. Terrorists could basically do the same thing.

We have to batten down the hatches to a degree. We have to make it difficult for them.

I do agree that the US southern border should be the most primary concern for now, but we should at least try to plug the biggest holes in the northern side also. We can then fill the rest of the gaps later.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by deanorw]

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:32 AM
Leave it to the ignorant Federal Government to protect us from Canadians, but not Mexicans. We don't want those evil French Canadians sneaking in weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION!!! (imagine I said that with a deep booming scary man voice) ..

I could tie a chemical weapon to a donkey and walk it across the Mexican border wearing a bright red sombrero and singing loud Mexican party songs....

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:40 AM
not that I'm into smuggling things across the border, but if I were, I'd play the odds.
And odds are, the guards that are stationed at this HUGE border weak point probably know just about everyone that's crossing that border. I'd be willing to bet that that number of nearly 15000 cars crossing a year are mostly the same cars, same people crossing multiple times.
The guards probably get Christmas cards and baked goods...
So, if I'm going to try to sneak in a briefcase nuke, lol, I think I'll take my chances at a border crossing where there's thousands crossing a day and my chances are better of slipping by, than say a crossing where the guards know everybody and I'm going to stick out like a sore thumb just for trying to cross there.....
Weak point HA.... that's probably one of the most secure crossing points there is

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:19 AM
reply to post by reticlevision

I absolutely, 100% agree with you. Should an actual stranger or newbie show up at that border they would be noticed immediately and could be given a thorough inspection.

From experience crossing the US/Canada border almost daily while I worked as truck driver for awhile, I can tell you that the worst time to cross is when it is NOT busy. That's when they have all the time in the world to ask you a million and one questions and lots of time to do thorough inspections; just to fill their time. When its really busy, to avoid a bottleneck, you are more likely to be whisked through quickly.

Sure the Vermont port could use some minor upgrades by the sound of it, like fix the leak in the roof, but not millions. I say keep the port open to support the interdependence of the communities and relatives on both sides of the border.

I remember when Windsor, Canada and Detroit, USA were almost "one community" too, way back when. Its a shame really how things have changed.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:39 AM
Okay guys. Lets really think about this. What would Sun Tzu do in a situation like this if he wanted to attack. Create a distraction so all the attention will be on said distraction. While they are distracted slip in through the back door.

Some people will argue with that logic and say your just being paranoid. Our government is very paranoid. I think we can all agree that we are not attacked very often on our homeland. We do have the government to thank for that. Our military is a top notch military no matter how you look at it. I believe The Art of War is also taught at the academy.

Does it make this situation right? No. But it does make sense. I hate to hear about anyone, especially a farmer, who has to go through something like this. But make no doubt, a war has been declared.

Shouldn't we do all we can to keep our country safe? Its just a matter of what we are willing to sacrifice for our own safety.

This one is hard to decide.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:21 AM
reply to post by Conclusion

Shouldn't we do all we can to keep our country safe?

Yes. "... all we can" should include:

1. establishing friendly relations with as many people across the globe as possible and,
2. make as few enemies as possible, (ie. piss off fewer people) and
3. help other countries to have successful economies so their people don't need to move (ie. don't exploit them for their resources or cheap labour), and
4. prioritize your threats and deal with real issues instead of imaginary ones (like the Southern border instead of the Northern one.)

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:06 AM
reply to post by endtimer

Sorry about that, yes I was referring to prionace glauca's post referring to Janet Napolitano.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Conclusion
Shouldn't we do all we can to keep our country safe? Its just a matter of what we are willing to sacrifice for our own safety.

This one is hard to decide.

It shouldn't be hard to decide. Just look at the borders that represent "CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER" then you will see how the Southern Borders are the most dangerous spots that need to be strengthened. Once the borders are strengthened, the Law Enforcement can carry on and following immigration laws as they ought to be.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:52 AM
reply to post by wayno

So what your saying is that the scenario I described would not be a tactic for an enemy to possibly take action on?

Yes I agree make less enemies, but I think we can agree that it's to late because our government already has enemies.

Yes we need to take action on the southern borders. I agree with that 100%.
But...when at war it doesn't hurt to look over your shoulder as often as it takes.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:58 AM

Originally posted by prionace glauca

Originally posted by Conclusion
Shouldn't we do all we can to keep our country safe? Its just a matter of what we are willing to sacrifice for our own safety.

This one is hard to decide.

It shouldn't be hard to decide. Just look at the borders that represent "CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER" then you will see how the Southern Borders are the most dangerous spots that need to be strengthened. Once the borders are strengthened, the Law Enforcement can carry on and following immigration laws as they ought to be.

Yes that is very easy to see and has the attention of most of America right now. It is easier to get through the north side while all the attention is on the south. We are not talking about our Latino friends to the south. We are talking about actual terrorists who want to come in and kill a lot of people. They don't want to come here to improve their life like our southern neighbors. They don't want to come here and sale drugs. They want to come here and kill.

If one is strategic they have all their bases covered.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Conclusion]

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by Conclusion

The thing about the North is that there are also Canadian LE's doing their job to protect the border. In the South Mexican LE's are promoting the behavior of border crossings and also are making money off of it.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:05 AM
I find it funny they are this concerned over a border crossing in vermont, yet not concerned about the souther porous border. Right idea, wrong priority in my opinion in terms of controlling the border..

For areas like this ICE need to do the roving patrols. Customs has jurisdiction within 2 miles of the border to conduct their business (This might hve changed, but when I went though the academy for local law enforcement this is what we were trained when dealing with them).

At one poiint there was discussion about streamlining American-Canadian Immigration laws, and essentially merge both countries Customs/Immigration enforcement. Think of it this way: Instead of having to go through Us or Canadian customs at the American-Canadian border, you would go through it entering either country externally.

Essentially if you flew from say Mexico to Dalls Texas, you go through customs there. If cleared you would be able to drive a car from Dalls to Detroit to Windsor Canada without ever going through another checkpoint style crossing again (still could be stopped by the roving patrols).

The same would hold for flying into British Columbia, getting a car and driving to Seattle. There would be no "internal" border, just "external" coming into the Us or Canada.

There are glitches obviously with the whole system.. On paper it looks good and releases resources from a 2000+ mile border, strategically placing them at airports and at the mexican border.

I have not seen much more advocating this style since elections both here and in Canada. The technical issues are immigration laws. Taking a gun from Michigan to Ontario would still cause issues, just like taking a gun from michigan and driving through illinois, where you cant do that.

Either way, its on the slipperly slope to the north american union some will claim..

Eventually we will have to recognize the fact that we are one planet.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Xcathdra]

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by prionace glauca

Good thread.

Finally read through it all and gotta say I'm glad the trolls didn't ruin it. PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS FURTHER. Kill them with silence.

I gotta say I think Canada has more to worry about than the US when it comes to our shared border. Remember this people, if a terrorist comes to Canada there is a 90% chance he's trying to pass through to the US. In other words Canada is in danger from terrorist targeting the US. The US is causing us Canadians problems.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Thanks m8, it started to get ugly for bit. But all in all, the more postings of the said conduct that this current administration is doing will help American citizens and those neighbors up North about the misplaced priorities & agendas.

Not every new organization is out there touting these in-competencies. The latest incompetency this administration is now involved with is their ineptitude to read bills, especially the ones regarding to immigration alone.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in