It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

In 'Highly Unusual' Move, Marines Asked To Disarm Before Leon Panetta Speech

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

In 'Highly Unusual' Move, Marines Asked To Disarm Before Leon Panetta Speech


worldnews.msn bc.msn.com

In a highly unusual move, around 200 U.S. Marines were asked to leave their weapons outside the tent where U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was set to speak during his trip to Afghanistan on Wednesday.

Although the military said the order was not given in response to Sunday's shooting of 16 Afghan civilians allegedly by an American soldier, it possibly underlined how high tensions were running after the incident.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.nytimes.com




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus told reporters at Camp Leatherneck this was "no big deal".


He said he had given the order because the two dozen Afghan soldiers also there were unarmed and he did not want to treat them differently.


In another write up in the New York Times, some interesting comments...

The Marines

were abruptly asked by their commander to get up, place their weapons — M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols — outside the tent and then return unarmed. The commander, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders from superiors.

“All I know is, I was told to get the weapons out,” he said. Asked why, he replied, “Somebody got itchy, that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust.” www.nytimes.com...



Normally, American forces in Afghanistan keep their weapons when the defense secretary visits and speaks to them. The Afghans in the tent had not been armed to begin with, as is typical.


This begs the question, how could they equate
U.S. Marines responsibilities to Afghan Soldiers?

That question, and a many more.

Thoughts?


worldnews.msn bc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
My god, this decision carries several implications, the most important of them being that TPTB don't trust the average American soldier at the moment. Now sure, this makes us look weak to enemies, but it also means that should the US go police state, we may not actually have much to fear from US military men and women. Or, then again, more to fear.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Discussed here -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My opinions are in there.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


ETA: That this is also a headline now, very interesting.
I see earlier it was just included in another write up
about the blast.

Jibby, did a search several ways oh well then.
My feelings, this does not seem right. Not at all.
edit on 15-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


There can be 2 active threads as long as 1 is in breaking news and 1 is in a specific topic.
I'm sure it's worth further discussion regardless.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
If there is mistrust about the soldiers due to the shooting incident that means the United States Armed Forces have not done enough to distance themselves from the incident.

Probably becuase they are perceived as not having condemnded the murders strong enough and giving the Afghans the chance to administer their own justice. Probably because they didn't.

If the US clearly and strongly condened the man and his actions and turned him over to the Afghans rather than mumbling about medical excuses then these soldeiers might not have to disarm or to bear the shame and stigma as much.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
umm
I couldn't make up my mind
these are probably all over the edge
but the way i feel about the war in Afgahnistan and Iraq and Libya and Syria, and on Kony island ..I mean Africa
well these arent sticks and stones

Just think of me as Bob Nope doing USO
here we go:
Sorry Mr panetta the warlords won't take our bribes to keep the supply lies open in USD anymore... they want gold, rubles or yaun....you'll have to jump out over the base.... Guantanamoeeeee!
No Guns? Panetta doesn't look like an afghani child does he?
No Guns! I don't care how cold it is out side NO FREINDLY FIRE!"
No guns! I know he's kinda hot, and I know don't ask don't tell has been repealed, but you gys are going to have to ask nice,or bribe him to get him to take his shirt off...
Oh man, what ever you do, don't ask him down to the local pub after the show to get bombed
Yes I know that because off the NDAA bestiality is now legal in the barraks, that doesn't mean its open season if he makes an A$$ of him self on stage.
No Guns? What happens if HE goes over the top and mows US down?
No Guns...grenades OK?
no guns? couldn't we just paint AMERICAN on the back of his jacket?
how important is he going to feel if suicide bombers DON"T try to get him?
hey remember the time Artillary Clinton sid she had to run accross the tarmac because of sniper fire?
and they had to say she misspoke rather then admit the snipers were on our side?

OK mods I had my fun

edit on 15-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
As I said in the other thread. I don't know why this is a big deal. It is standard operating procedure when a VIP comes to speak. When I was active we had to do the same things. We used to have to shut down all live fire ranges when a VIP would come to the base. The Men gaurding the base had their weapons i'm sure so no threat was posed. This was by far not the first time troops have been asked to put their weapons aside to hear a speech.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Danbones,

Thanks for taking the stage. I think it get it.
And thanks for that, your good!


No guns...but...but...

Does it make sense to ask the ones who are there to
defend to disarm? I mean, the questions just run off in a wild
stream gushing like a dam broke.
edit on 15-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


OK that was really good.

I feel like I got a whole mini world-view there, delivered through poetry, always the nicest way. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by usmc0311
 


Thanks for weighing in, so I guess this is then the
MSM just making it out to be more than it is?
Headline and all?

Hmmm....



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Pretty much. If the VIP is out walking around on the base the amongst the working Marines they would have their weapons. You can see this in alot of photos. But when men are funneled into an enclosed area, they would have the weapons put aside. Also, most likely all weapons except for those belonging to who were on gaurd would be unloaded to begin with. The men would be carrying at least 30 rounds of security ammo usually in a pouch on their buttstocks. Some VIP's probably don't care but if the secret service was there it was probably their call. Anyway, that's just my take on it.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by usmc0311
 


What strikes me as off though is that they were only disarmed
in the tent with the Secretary Of Defense.

Do you think this has anything to do with the prior shooting?
What do you think is meant by "someone got itchy" ?



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentThundersGF
 


Yes, would agree with you it seems that there is possibly some uneasy
vibes going on from the incident. I was reading the comments
below in the article, lots of men weighing in on how unusual this was.

btw, nice to meet you SilentThundersGF!



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Im summerizing from the comments on hanittys website
forums.hannity.com...
brackets are my editorial
from what Im reading there are
it was a a surprise visit
unconfirmed reports a "stolen car" blew up on the tarmac"
(how do they know it was stolen?)
(if it was a surprise how did "they" know to prepare a hillary for him?)

they were in the tent armed and asked by general, not Panneta's staff, to deposit their weapons out side the tent
It was to appears the unarmed afghani troops viewing the speech

(if it was a surprise I'm thinking they may do this normally the troops didn't know they were going to have Panneta give a speech when they went into the tent)


edit on 15-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Yes, from what I read on the comments below on the other article here
not so much understanding troops. I guess that is what threw me.

www.theblaze.com...

And then aside, they leave the tent, and pick up arms.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
still why report the disarming as news and not focus on the content of the speech?
when as UMC says its normal with a vip?



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

this just doesn't make any sense at all
like the underwear bomber....
a suicide bomber... no bomb... he gets past the guards, and gates....
INSIDE THE BASE?
he is being treated for burns ( not water boarded?)
a catering truck late to the party maybe?


An individual inside the vehicle is receiving medical care for burns, sources say.

The camp went into immediate lockdown and an investigation has been launched.

An Afghani is believed to have made the deliberate attempt on Mr Panetta after he broke through defences and drove a vehicle towards his aircraft.

He then went past the perimeter surrounded by armed security and large concrete block guards.

Disaster was only averted when the truck caught fire and crashed into a ditch on the runway close to where Mr Panetta's jet had landed or was set to land.

First reports suggest there was no explosives device inside the vehicle.

But it is thought the car was heading towards a welcoming committee for Mr Panetta.

However it then burst into flames — possibly after being shot at — and the alleged perpetrator was arrested by security teams.

An ISAF spokesperson said: "We are aware of an incident today at Camp Bastion where a vehicle caught on fire. The driver of the vehicle is being medically treated.

"We are currently investigating to determine more facts of this incident.

"At no point was anyone on the aircraft at danger from this incident."

The visit was unannounced and shrouded in secrecy until he safely touched down

www.thesun.co.uk...
edit on 15-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


This is the part that stands out to me...


I wanted to have the Marines look just like their Afghan partners,”




Its all strange.

And yes, after that, they disarm the soldiers then I guess Mr. Panetta was
afraid of both sides of the tent. Well, then he is right, war is hell.
edit on 15-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join