quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
in port duty officer on an FFG during summer cruise when I was assigned to the GMG shop.

I was on a DDG (80's). In port the PO of the Watch had a 45 and the Asroc Rover had a 45, 24X7, 2 mags status as you listed (rover went all over the ship and was to check in with the OOD every 1/2 hour.) The Asroc Rover back up was the Security Alert Team of 5. If a security alert was called, those 5 would head to the gun locker and the GMG handed out three more 45's and two 12 ga shotguns (the OOD liked that training.) They headed forward to the Asroc magazine/launcher area. To be an Asroc Rover you had to be in CA Division and qualify with the 45 at the weapons station. To back them up was the BAF Backup Alert Force of 20, I forget what they were all to be armed with - but a GMG got an M14 to the bridge to overlook the magazine/launcher area and one was to be ready in gun locker with the M60 if needed. They let us shoot all of them off the fantail on a Med Cruise.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
On the other hand, why are we selling our military aircraft to these people?

Why are we training their pilots?

(1) Like it or not, they are Strategic Allies. They want weapons to oppose Iran and will get them from somewhere - better they come from us.

(2) Selling aircraft / weapons via FMS (foreign military sales) keeps our military industrial power working and often our aircraft get 'trickle down' benefits, like when the FA-18C/D Hornets received EPE (Enhanced Performance Engines) for free, because a FMS buyer paid for the tech to upgrade the motors. It happens a lot and our military benefits.

(3) Intelligence - we sold them the platforms and train their aircrew, so we know what they have / don't have, who is flying, etc.

And even selling them all this, we could fucking destroy the Saudi Military in short order. Many of their units are only semi-competent because they have expats flying / maintaining / helping.

FMS contract needs revision to state any foreign national convicted of terrorism or a capitol crime will be sent home in a prepaid body bag.

Would not surprise me to find out this guy flunked training and was about to be sent home and decided martyrdom was a better choice

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
in port duty officer on an FFG during summer cruise when I was assigned to the GMG shop.

I was on a DDG (80's). In port the PO of the Watch had a 45 and the Asroc Rover had a 45, 24X7, 2 mags status as you listed (rover went all over the ship and was to check in with the OOD every 1/2 hour.)

It's been years, so it likely was the PO of the Watch with the 1911 as opposed to the Duty Officer.

It was a great summer cruise, with M14s and 1911s to learn about, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by 104RFAST:
Would not surprise me to find out this guy flunked training and was about to be sent home and decided martyrdom was a better choice

It's nearly impossible for them to flunk out, but it's possible I guess.

Back when I went through, 3 event 'Downs' (ie, unsat flights) would typically get you booted from training. You might have a chance if those events were widely separated during different phases, but you were always worried about failure. The 'Downs' came on a thin pink sheet of paper that you hoped to never have in your training jacket.

The Saudis would have visible stacks of pink sheets in their training jackets - like 5, 10, even more throughout their training - but as they were paying good money they would just recycle them. They pretty much kept to themselves and had additional contract tutors to get them through the pipeline - but they were always out on the town, in nice cars, drinking and carrying on.

quote:

Originally posted by GWbiker:

quote:

It has been that way FOREVER. Navy Bases are GUN FREE ZONES for all intents and I venture that most other military installations are very very similar..

So, when did this begin?

Reason I ask, when I did basic training (Summer 1957), each Army barracks had racks of M1 Garand rifles lined up with security chain running the length of the rack. No ammo on site, that was a short distance away in an ammo bunker. Also, we practiced continually with live ammo.

At that time, we had draftees with us, many real fuck ups who wanted no part of the Army, but were stuck there for two years.

And, I don't recall any fatal shootings on a military base at that time.

I enlisted in 1955 and did basic at Ft. Knox. We had the same arrangements for the weapons. M1s in racks in the barracks. That was during basic training when we all carried M1s. Later when we were issued our assigned weapons (like the "grease guns" BARs etc) they were kept in the arms rooms. When we got to our "post basic" unit assignments all weapons were kept secured in the arms rooms. If you lived in the barracks and had a personally owned weapon, it was kept in the arms room.

If you lived in "guarters" or off base you kept personally owned weapons in those quarters.

I kept a hunting rifle and pistol in our quarters, carried the pistol when in the field in addition to my assigned long gun.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
And for the joke of the day:

“There are many reports circulating, but the FBI deals only in facts,” said Rachel L. Rojas, the FBI’s special agent in charge of the Jacksonville Field Office.

Yeah, I saw her doing a press conference on TV the other day. Let's just say she did not inspire me with an overwhelming sense of confidence she is the right person for this job.

She just gave another press conference.
Confirmed suspicion that she is not the right man for the job.

It’s always satisfying to engage in coulda, woulda, shoulda rants about these things, but some things that anyone who wants the “rest of the story” might consider.

We old timers certainly remember how procedures and rules were much different way back. Major changes started after a number of thefts from military armories, mostly National Guard, IIRC, occurred in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Prior to those, weapons weren’t always secured very well. At West Point, for example, fully functional M14 rifles were kept in cadets’ rooms with no additional security; not even a chain through the trigger guards (which could have been defeated easily, as anyone who is familiar with the weapon knows). Based on what my father told me, the same was true in the pre-WWII Army enlisted barracks

But in addition to thefts in the turbulent years, other things started attracting unwelcome attention. In Vietnam policies about having weapons readily available varied among units. Some required them to be locked up if not in use (which led to many complaints about situations that were far more dangerous than the possibility of a local going rogue), but others didn’t. So, what happened? One night during a alcohol-fueled gathering at the unit next to ours, one of the attendees put at least one bullet through the ceiling, and years later a JAG colonel I knew who served in Vietnam told stories of numerous drunken High Noon type shootouts in the company streets.

Much later in Germany, I was called to an incident in which a soldier who had been (falsely, IMO) accused of child molesting decided to draw attention to his grievances by clearing out his barracks with a live hand grenade that he took from the arms room where he’d been assigned after the accusation. Also in Germany I worked three or four cases involving negligent discharges, two of them fatal, not to mention the lost/stolen weapon cases.

It doesn’t take many incidents like that to result in calls for tight controls over weapons, and not only by the fat-assed generals in the Pentagon.

All things considered, active killer events are extremely rare in this county, and that includes on military bases. Incidents involving misuse of military weapons are also rare, but far more common, even with the controls and restrictions that have been in place for decades. If a local commander takes it upon himself to loosen the restrictions that are mandated by higher headquarters, that could easily be a career-ending decision.

Do I like the present policies? No, but I do understand why they exist.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
She just gave another press conference.
Confirmed suspicion that she is not the right man for the job.

She's awful, second presser was worst than the first.

If you are not a Muslim, a follower of Muhammed, and then a true believer/Muslim/Faithful Follower of Muhammed tells you that he is your friend...
are you going to believe him, and act accordingly?

quote:

Do I like the present policies? No, but I do understand why they exist.

Yes, I understand.
But... terrorism has reached our shores, and has penetrated our military bases.
It might be time to re-think things.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
It might be time to re-think things.

Just to be clear: You don't have to convince me.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
If you are not a Muslim, a follower of Muhammed, and then a true believer/Muslim/Faithful Follower of Muhammed tells you that he is your friend...
are you going to believe him, and act accordingly?

No. A "true believer" of Islam is not permitted to have friends outside the cult.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
If here on a student visa, could legally purchase one no doubt.

Is that really the case? I've never researched that topic before. If true, shouldn't 'this' be banned under US law?

I would think that anyone who is in the USA legally is entitled to all rights protected under the Constitution (except for voting of course) citizen or not.

I don’t know about that, I am a born citizen, a legal resident of the state of SD, a retired police officer, I can own and carry a firearm, CCW permit holder in SD, AZ and Utah, have had many background checks done on me, yet since I can not give a physical address of where I reside I can not purchase a firearm.

quote:

Originally posted by Ozarkwoods:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

I would think that anyone who is in the USA legally is entitled to all rights protected under the Constitution (except for voting of course) citizen or not.

I don’t know about that, I am a born citizen, a legal resident of the state of SD, a retired police officer, I can own and carry a firearm, CCW permit holder in SD, AZ and Utah, have had many background checks done on me, yet since I can not give a physical address of where I reside I can not purchase a firearm.

Well, that sounds like a technicality.

That website is a giant hot mess and a pain to cut and paste, but here's the meat of it.

Fox and Friends host Pete Hegseth is 'BANNED from Twitter' after sharing anti-American 'manifesto' of Pensacola shooter Mohammed Alshamrani
By Lauren Fruen For Dailymail.com
15:40 EST 08 Dec 2019 , updated 16:42 EST 08 Dec 2019


The TV journalist, 39, posted screenshots Sunday which showed his tweet, calling the actions of the gunman 'Islamist terror', was 'no longer available'. He followed up with a picture of his appeal regarding the decision.

Saudi military student Alshamrani, 21, killed three people and injured 12 when he opened fire at Navy Station Pensacola on Friday.

Hegseth shared a grab from the shooter's Twitter account Saturday, writing: 'Here's the (now blocked) tweet from Saudi Islamist Mohammed Alshamrani, who murder 3 brave Americans in Florida.

'The coward posted it just hours before his terrorist attack. This is Islamist terror. No reason to ever mince words. Saudi Arabia must be held to account.'

Alshamrani's social media, which was taken down subsequent to the attack, appeared to show a variety of anti-Israel postings and a quote from deceased al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

'I'm not against you for just being American, I don't hate you because [of] your freedoms, I hate you because every day you [are] supporting, funding and committing crimes not only against Muslims, but also humanity.'

It was sharing a screengrab of this post that Hegseth said led to his ban on Twitter.

He wrote on Instagram Sunday: 'I was BANNED from @twitter — because I posted a screen shot of the terrorist from Florida tweeting his Islamist motivations.

The now-deactivated Twitter account purportedly belonging to Alshamrani included:

- A variety of anti-Israel postings and a quote from deceased al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden

- A lengthy manifesto posted at 4:39am Friday, less than two hours the shooting. The manifesto read in part:

'I'm against evil, and America as a whole has turned into a nation of evil.

'I'm not against you for just being American, I don't hate you because [of] your freedoms, I hate you because every day you [are] supporting, funding and committing crimes not only against Muslims, but also humanity....


'That’s it, a screen shot of a terrorist in his own words. If they can ban me, they will ban anyone. We need to fight back.

'Heck, I posted the terrorist screen shot on this post too, so stay tune for @instagram banning me too.

'Big tech does the bidding of the Left, especially to include anyone who speaks truth about the threat of radical Islam.'

He later added: 'I’m sure @twitter will heed my “appeal”... #banned.'

Twitter refused to comment on the ban when approached by DailyMail.com. The company announced in May it would be 'addressing the abuse of tech to spread terrorist and extremist content'.

Hegseth has not made any further comments.

The FBI revealed Sunday that the deadly mass shooting will be treated as an act of terrorism and that no arrests have yet been made in the incident.

Special Agent in Charge Rachel Rojas revealed that investigators have not yet been able to determine Alshamrani’s motive after revealing he visited New York City, including the Rockefeller Center, just days before the shooting.

They are working to determine the purpose of the trip.


SAUDI ARABIA'S TERROR LINK
15 of the 19 men associated with the al-Qaeda 9/11 attacks were Saudi citizens. A number of them received their aviation training at bases in the US.

al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, hailed from a prominent Saudi family.

The US investigated some Saudi diplomats and others with Saudi government ties who knew hijackers after they arrived in the US, according to documents that have been declassified.

The Saudi government has repeatedly denied any involvement in the attacks.

The 9/11 Commission report found 'no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded' the attacks that al-Qaeda masterminded, but the commission also noted 'the likelihood' that Saudi government-sponsored charities did.

In 2017, families of 800 victims and 1,500 first responders file a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia accusing the country's officials of aiding hijackers in 9/11 attacks. The lawsuit is ongoing.


Saudi Arabia is the richest and geographically largest Middle Eastern country - and a key US ally.

According to the State Department, Saudi Arabia is the second leading source of imported oil for the United States, providing just under one million barrels per day of oil to the US market

Saudi money is also widely invested in the US, with billions of private cash invested on Wall Street and beyond.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a member of the ruling al-Saud family, has stakes in a huge range of big businesses including Citigroup, 21st Century Fox, and the Plaza Hotel in New York.

Many the country's citizens also come to study at US colleges, with Saudis the fourth-largest source of foreign students, trailing only China, India and South Korea, according to The New York Times.

The US has long had a robust training program for Saudis, with 852 Saudi nationals currently in the country training under the Pentagon's security cooperation agreement.

Saudi Arabia was not one of the seven countries included in President Trump's 2017 'travel ban'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...-twitter_dailymailus

quote:

That website is a giant hot mess and a pain to cut and paste, but here's the meat of it.

Yes it is...

So what was the reason for the suspension? Was he promoting hatred by posting the words of another as it relates to reporting on his article, or was he promoting hatred by painting Islam in a bad light?

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

That website is a giant hot mess and a pain to cut and paste, but here's the meat of it.

Yes it is...

So what was the reason for the suspension? Was he promoting hatred by posting the words of another as it relates to reporting on his article, or was he promoting hatred by painting Islam in a bad light?

I think he tweeted the manifesto or parts of it which Twitter subsequently removed. Pete then posted a screenshot of the deleted tweet I think which got him banned.

ETA:
He wrote on Instagram Sunday: 'I was BANNED from @twitter — because I posted a screen shot of the terrorist from Florida tweeting his Islamist motivations.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
SAUDI ARABIA'S TERROR LINK
15 of the 19 men associated with the al-Qaeda 9/11 attacks were Saudi citizens. A number of them received their aviation training at bases in the US.

Leave it to the Daily Mail, referring civilian flight schools as 'bases' and attempting to draw a parallel connection with this event.