reply to post by GoldenRuled
My 1st impression is hoax by the gov. I will refrain from that until the whole truth is known in 20 yrs when it's aired on the History
Why do you suppose this?
There are plenty of people in the military who are, ironically enough, very opposed to the way our government currently operates. Most in the
military are closer to Libertarians in terms of ideals, and feel the National government has far too much power and authority.
Most in the military, however, would rather not turn their back yard into a war zone unless absolutely unavoidable. We'd rather solve the problems
we see by using the system the way it was designed as opposed to shooting the place up.
But then you have people like this - who exist in all walks of life - who don't really think about what they are doing. That's not to say they
didn't make an interesting plan. The problem is that they didn't really think through how their plan was going to accomplish their goals.
Which is partly why many of us in the military would rather avoid a 'shooting revolution.' People like this are not all that difficult to come by.
What purpose does blowing up a dam serve but to destroy? It only seems to do a disservice to the people they espouse to be giving the government back
It sounds more like they came up with random plans for how to kill people, gathered them all together, and decided to label it as a "power to the
I'll take a moment to snipe at the Army: Their recruitment standards have always been the lowest among all branches.
reply to post by schuyler
Four hapless low-level soldiers actually thought they could shoot up Savannah, bomb a dam in Washington, and assissanate the President in one
In all honesty, they'd be better off just sticking with the assassination plan. A small four man team like that is the type of thing that make
personnel security detachments very nervous.
Large groups leave a large intel and logistics footprint that is easy to pick up on ahead of time. Single assailants often find it difficult to
bypass standard security and are often in an unhealthy mental state at the time (which tends to compromise the assailant). Small teams, however, can
keep a low profile while remaining organized and adopting plans that would be difficult or impossible for single operatives.
And with what? Garden variety single shot semi-automatic weapons you can buy at Wal-Mart.
That's actually all you'd need.
The reason we use automatic and burst fire weapons in the military is for tactical situations where you are firing on reflex. Burst and automatic
fire generates a decent pattern and also works to counter some body armors.
There are a few other situations where it has a mild advantage over semi-automatic weapons... but for the most part, you can more effectively engage
most targets with semi-auto weapons. Automatic (and even burst) translates to wasted ammo.
And you really don't begin to appreciate the value of ammunition until you pack around the weight of a mere 120 rounds and experience how quickly you
can go through it in simple range exercises. Take tactical scenarios where your accuracy is less than ideal and you're multi-tapping targets to make
sure they don't get back up and shoot you (rather spend the extra three bullets to make sure as opposed to receive one more bullet than you thought
would come your way) - and 30 lbs of ammo begins to look like a two minute firefight real quick.
Don't get me wrong - automatic has its purposes - but it's really only useful in squads that can afford manpower assigned specifically to
suppression roles. Most of the time, even if automatic would come in handy - it's better in the long run to conserve the ammo and maneuver to gain
These guys would screw up a 7-11 robbery attempt.
Wouldn't matter what equipment they had at their disposal - they'd probably screw up whatever their plan was.