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

Correction: March 14, 2012
A news alert and a headline on an earlier version of this article mischaracterized the initial reports of the incident at the base in Afghanistan. The Pentagon officials did not refer to the stolen car igniting; they described a flaming man emerging from the stolen car.

www.nytimes.com...



maybe they should have had the troops give up their zippos and matches?

reply to post by Danbones


Good catch Dan,
Very odd. I guess I'll sleep on it.

SIX former Armed Forces chiefs are today calling on George Osborne to reverse his "unjust" pay cut for Britain's war-weary troops in next week's Budget. 11 commentsRelated Stories
PM: Brits want endgame to war
CAMERON says we need to know when Our Boys will be home
The Sun Says UK to quit frontline role next summer American soldier was a ‘thrill killer’ ‘Revenge threat to British troops’ Writing an open letter in The Sun, the top brass say the Chancellor's one per cent cap on wage rises, effectively a cut with inflation taken into account, will shatter the already fragile morale of Our Boys and Girls.

www.thesun.co.uk...

hummmm
pay cuts

reply to post by Danbones


Hmmm
The Plot Thickens.

Its simple.TPTB does not trust american soldiers who are increasingly awakening and seeing through the lies of the TPTB.

I just heard on the radio it was a British base
I am not sure about that yet though

reply to post by Danbones


I just found some information that fits with this.
I would imagine this could by part of conditioning.

No where in the audio are the phrases “United States” or “America” or “Constitution” mentioned.

No where is the idea of defending America first put forward.

In fact, no where in the ad will one hear the terms “USMC” or “United States Marines Corps.”

Very little beyond the picture above on the AID boxes is allowed to infer that the forces pictured are those of the United States under command of the United States.

www.youtube.com...

Be scared my friends, this is how the globalist military is established and begins.

Originally posted by usmc0311
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 guarding 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.

Perhaps my experience is different because I was in Special Forces we only got a couple of VIP's at our compound as it was small and very deep in "Indian Country" . One was an Entertainer and the other a State Department Official but no big name leaders like Panetta. Lot of Generals though - weapons didn't seem to bother them.

That said - as the Commander it was my policy to have all weapons locked and cleared before going in a tent or building, which I think would have been a sufficient move. No one stands/sits around in a briefing with loaded weapons.

In the event someone should make the attempt to lock and load it would be obvious and the PSD for these guys could lock the person down quick. I'm sure for the SecDef his PSD TL had some plants in the audience as well.

I had Afghani nationals in my compound and they carried their weapons as well but no one was locked and loaded unless we knew of a specific threat or impending one. The perimeter is there for a reason.

That said we did still carry the weapons - that way we could react quickly if necessary.

Perhaps the bigger compounds do it differently but my perimeter while secure was small and once breached one could run to the HQ Bunker with a 30 second sprint so we needed to be able to react.

Originally posted by RatoAstuto
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.

Dude, if you were a soldier in charge of dying over there for no other reason than to just be fodder for feeding the afghanstani corrupt government so they can steal billions to give to the Taliban and piss on your corpse, would you trust your government? I already don't.

In fact i am all in favor for an immediate evac of american forces because Afghanistan is another vietnam and our troops know it and so do the civilians. Our boys are dying over there for absoutely nothing and i am tired of seeing our military servicemen's families hearts getting broken because washington thinks it's fun.

If the afghani's want freedom they can bleed for it and die for it on their own just like we did in our Revolution. You teach a people absolutely nothing when you do the job for them and after all is said and done they do not even care, it just "whambam thank you ma'am".

We for damn sure need to stop providing them with weapons they will just turn around and use on us for Allah. I swear its like our government is being run by snakes, because a monkey could do a better job.

reply to post by burntheships


UN Arms Trade Treaty....keep an eye on 2012, especially July. Big negotiations in the works. You may be right about "conditioning" soldiers to accept certain things.

reply to post by queenofswords


Thanks for you comments.
Will do, that is if I survive the coming alien invasion.