This video winds up looking like Anytown, U.S.A. --- and it's the $850 million new template for training against urban warfare from us disgruntled proles.

US Army Builds 'Fake City' in Virginia to Practice Military Occupation

I wonder if that is an extension of Hogans Alley at QUantico Va where the FBI (an some select LE organizations) used to train...I went thru that in the mid 80's at it was a regular town, with a bank, school, post office and (frame) houses, rubber tires filled with sand for bullet backdrop.but in those days it was training for real life situations like hostage taking bank robbers etc. lots of Shoot/don't shoot targets for judgement pistol shooting...now they probably have the 'shoot' targets with Glenn Beck's likeness on 'em.

That looks really cool actually. I've read that the fake embassy in there might be the local counties tallest building!

The military has been building mock cities for years but this any town USA is pretty disturbing. After the military conducting training on American streets and Obama exempting foreign law enforcement from our constitution things are looking pretty scary.

I guess they decided that building the towns out of cinderblock, as the used to do, was unrealistic. And of course, you can see the problem of building the training town to resemble a town in any foreign country.How soon before the press started clamoring about the US planning an invasion of that country; as people here are about the military planning occupation forces.

Quote from: ranger4life on February 17, 2014, 08:54:04 PM
The military has been building mock cities for years but this any town USA is pretty disturbing. After the military conducting training on American streets and Obama exempting foreign law enforcement from our constitution things are looking pretty scary.

Yes, not good. Anyone that went to Viet Nam back in 63 as an adviser seen what the communists did to the locals. It wasn't pretty .

Quote from: mdgiles on February 18, 2014, 06:49:21 AM
I guess they decided that building the towns out of cinderblock, as the used to do, was unrealistic. And of course, you can see the problem of building the training town to resemble a town in any foreign country.How soon before the press started clamoring about the US planning an invasion of that country; as people here are about the military planning occupation forces.

We used to at least make an attempt to make the mock-ups resemble what the soldiers would encounter.

Whether middle east towns and structures, or villages and huts, etc.

This is either a mock-up of America, or a very poor attempt at PC training that will get our guys killed, rather than "insult" somebody.

Maybe it's seen as a long term investment? It wasn't long ago we were training to fight Russians and Asians, now we are trade partners. Not cost efficient to build a new 300 acre city every time we go to war with a different culture.

Perhaps it's better to keep it neutral and not have to change it when we're fighting Mexican drug cartels in border towns, quelling some genocide in Africa, or invading the Philippines? Who knows what the future holds!

If the course is focused purely on tactical things as opposed to dealing with the local customs, then clearing an American office building might not be so different than clearing one in Mexico City, Manilla, or Tehran. It's all doors, hallways, windows, and such.

Quote from: lindcamp on February 18, 2014, 07:46:11 AM
Maybe it's seen as a long term investment? It wasn't long ago we were training to fight Russians and Asians, now we are trade partners. Not cost efficient to build a new 300 acre city every time we go to war with a different culture.

Perhaps it's better to keep it neutral and not have to change it when we're fighting Mexican drug cartels in border towns, quelling some genocide in Africa, or invading the Philippines? Who knows what the future holds!

If the course is focused purely on tactical things as opposed to dealing with the local customs, then clearing an American office building might not be so different than clearing one in Mexico City, Manilla, or Tehran. It's all doors, hallways, windows, and such.

I'd love to give the Military leadership the benefit of the doubt, but I can't.

Since when have we ever fought a war that looked like a modern day American city?
Do you not find it odd our Military, a Military that's been moving technologically towards drones and bots, is training it's soldiers to be comfortable fighting in an American urban environment , just a wee bit disconcerting?

What nation in the world looks like that and is a threat to us at the moment?
I can only think of one, America. We, the people are a threat to the Marxist in the WH.
Makes one wonder if this is why he has been purging the leadership of the Military.

Quote from: mdgiles on February 18, 2014, 06:49:21 AM
I guess they decided that building the towns out of cinderblock, as the used to do, was unrealistic. And of course, you can see the problem of building the training town to resemble a town in any foreign country.How soon before the press started clamoring about the US planning an invasion of that country; as people here are about the military planning occupation forces.

But they're NOT upset that the occupied country could be here? Hoo hah, whose side are they on?

I think all of our answers are true plus others we haven't thought of.

This is a multipurpose facility.

This trains a military response to a large terrorist attack on an American city. Imagine the Boston Bomber but scaled up to 50 bombs.

This trains generic, non localized, urban fighting. The skills here can be applied in any foreign land.

Libya, Syria, Egypt, and other countries had sudden unexpected uprising. Social media allows these things to be organized very quickly. Those countries handled them very poorly. This can train a more efficient (take that however you want it) response.

This trains humanitarian response to a large medical disaster. (Bird flu quarantine)

This trains against the unlikely conventional attack on American soil.

This section of the military has a large annual budget. If they don't use it all, it will be reduced next year, so they built a city. (Half joking here, half serious)

Quote from: lindcamp on February 18, 2014, 09:28:46 AM
I think all of our answers are true plus others we haven't thought of.

This is a multipurpose facility.

This trains a military response to a large terrorist attack on an American city. Imagine the Boston Bomber but scaled up to 50 bombs.

This trains generic, non localized, urban fighting. The skills here can be applied in any foreign land.

Libya, Syria, Egypt, and other countries had sudden unexpected uprising. Social media allows these things to be organized very quickly. Those countries handled them very poorly. This can train a more efficient (take that however you want it) response.

This trains humanitarian response to a large medical disaster. (Bird flu quarantine)

This trains against the unlikely conventional attack on American soil.

This section of the military has a large annual budget. If they don't use it all, it will be reduced next year, so they built a city. (Half joking here, half serious)

Think "Standing Armies" and ask yourself, do you trust this Govt?

QuoteThe Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/#ixzz2thEv4lwD

But don't stop there, read this and see if it changes your mind.
There is a problem with the link, so I'll post it in it's entirety here.

Special Army Unit Ready to be Deployed on American Soil Just Before Nov. Elections

In October of this year, one month prior to the November midterm elections, a special army unit known as 'Consequence Management Response Force' will be ready for deployment on American soil if so ordered by the President.

Longstreath).

The special force, which is the new name being given to the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, has been training at Fort Stewart, Georgia and is composed of 80,000 troops.

According to the Army Times,

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

The key phrase is 'may be called upon to help with civil unrest.'

This afternoon a local radio talk show host reported that he had been in contact with a member of the military. This military source stated that the armed forces have been alerted to the strong possibility that civil unrest may occur in the United States this summer, prior to the midterm elections of 2010.

The source described this as 'our long, hot summer of discontent' that could be eerily reminiscent of the summer of 1968 when riots broke out in many of our largest cities.

However, the summer of 2010 could well be much worse due to the players involved. In 1968 the major players were war protesters. This time, the outrage simmering beneath the surface of American society involves a broad cross-section of the heartland, and most of them are heavily armed.

It is highly unlikely that these citizens would ever initiate armed conflict of any kind. In their view, gun rights are for self-defense--and for defense against tyrannical government, which our Founders regarded as the most dangerous force on earth.

However, it has become clear that other groups may well initiate violence in order to start an 'incident' that would give Obama and a rogue Congress a reason to implement martial law, confiscate the citizens' guns, enforce curfews, and suspend all future elections until such time as it is deemed 'safe' to proceed with human liberty as encapsulated in the right to vote.

Tea Party members, for example, have been warned in recent days that members of Andy Stern's SEIU union and members of the organization formerly known as ACORN plan to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings in order to incite some sort of incident that could result in armed conflict.

In addition, all indications point to a humiliating defeat for the Democrats and Obama in November. Not only will the House in all likelihood transfer to Republican control, but it is increasingly possible for the Democrats to lose the Senate as well.

And there are Leftwing groups in this country that would use whatever means necessary to prevent that from happening.

ACORN has already gone underground, changing its name so as to fly beneath the radar screen. How many people will the group register to vote illegally?

And with Obama's plan to naturalize between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens, a brand new voter base for the Democrats will be in place prior to November.

Add to this the growing unrest over continued high unemployment, the coming spike in interest rates and inflation, and the still-boiling outrage over the manner in which Obama and the Democrats shoved ObamaCare down the throats of the citizens, and all of the ingredients are present for a major F-5 tornado to sweep across the heartland.

To what extent would soldiers use deadly force during such 'civil unrest' should the Consequence Management Response Team be utilized? During the anti-war riots of the 1960s they killed student protesters. What about now?

The military source cited by the radio host today was asked this very question. He would merely say that the culture of the U.S. military is changing--half support Obama and the other half are dead-set against him.

His conclusion? There is no way to know for sure if they would obey an order to open fire on ordinary citizens.

Update: The Cato Institute published this warning when the program was launched in its first phase in 2008 (the program has been updated and expanded since 2008). The Founders insisted that standing armies were never to be used against American citizens on our own soil, no matter what violations of this principle have occurred in the years following. In the spirit of the Patriots and of real journalists government must be questioned constantly and held to intense scrutiny in order to preserve liberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORTHCOM

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be Wary of Using Military as Police

mainstream media has finally gotten around to reporting that the Pentagon has assigned active-duty troops to a homeland defense mission, a historical first. On Oct. 1, the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team, freshly redeployed from Iraq, began a year-long assignment as a domestic "chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive Consequence Management Response Force," or CCMRF ("Sea-Smurf"). The 1st BCT is the first of three CCMRF teams, who will comprise 15,000-20,000 soldiers, according to the Army. The other two will come from the Army National Guard or reserves.

Neither the terrorist threat nor the hazards of bad weather require rethinking our traditional reluctance to use standing armies at home. We need not fear a coup, but we should worry about misusing our busy military for civilian tasks and developing an tendency to rely on the troops to answer every scare.

Initial reports were that the 1st BCT might be used to deal with civil unrest and crowd control, missions that would be in severe tension with the Posse Comitatus Act, the longstanding federal statute that restricts the president's ability to use the U.S. military as a domestic police force. In September, the Army Times described the unit's training as "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," including beanbag bullets, Tasers and traffic roadblocks.

That report, along with the Bush administration's claim that the Constitution allows that president to use forces as he sees fit, no matter what Congress forbids, created well-founded fears that the CCMRFs first attack would be on Posse Comitatus. Yet Pentagon spokespeople deny that forces will be used for law enforcement purposes. And one suspects that the Bush administration's monarchial view of executive power will be out of fashion come January.

That shouldn't placate us. The real trouble is what is legal, not what isn't. Even when it doesn't lead to collateral damage, the use of standing armies at home can, to quote Jefferson, "overawe the public sentiment," and acclimate Americans to a militarized home front inconsistent with democratic life.

Neither the terrorist threat nor the hazards of bad weather require rethinking our traditional reluctance to use standing armies at home.

In the panicked days following 9/11, Bush administration officials repeatedly suggested that only armed soldiers could defeat the domestic terror threat. When thousands of troops patrolled the streets in preparation for the 2002 Winter Olympics, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld noted approvingly that "the largest theater for the United States is not Afghanistan today. It is, in fact, Salt Lake City and the environs."

To guard against hijackers, then-Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta proposed putting Delta Force operatives on domestic flights, collecting frequent-flier miles instead of pursuing al Qaida in Afghanistan. Today, along with the "war on drugs," we contemplate using our military to fight hurricanes, floods, immigrants, Mumbai-style attacks, and more, as if it's the national Swiss army knife.

But there is no good argument that domestic militarization is necessary to keep us safe. Civilian officers have been successfully keeping the peace and responding to disasters for a century or so, occasionally supplemented by National Guardsmen under the command of their state governors. Every state's National Guard force is now equipped to cope with attacks using unconventional weapons. Their ranks will be bolstered as the war in Iraq winds down.

The regular military is wonderful for destroying enemy troop formations or bombing their command centers, but not for finding hidden killers like terrorists. Intelligence and old-fashioned police work are our most potent counter-terrorism tools. Neither does Hurricane Katrina justify a domestic army. The problem there was the mismanagement of the National Guard and local first responders, not their lack of capacity.

Moreover, using troops at home undermines military readiness. When soldiers are forced into the role of police officers, their war-fighting skills degrade, according to a 2003 General Accounting Office report that looked at some of the homeland security missions the military carried out after 9/11. The GAO also found that, naturally, such missions also put a serious strain on a military already heavily committed abroad.

Yet creeping militarization continues, and few in the media or Congress object. The militarized future to fear isn't one that ends in a dictatorship or martial law. Our troops' commitment to civilian rule prevents that. The danger we face is one in which the public embraces the notion that civilian institutions are weak and messy, and that when you want the job done, you call in the boys in green. That approach will make us no safer — only less free.

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power. Benjamin H. Friedman is research fellow in defense and homeland security studies at the Cato Institute and a PhD candidate in political science at the Massachusetts

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a5e_1271537185#5B163lygqyWxErip.99

Quote from: Solar on February 18, 2014, 08:03:56 AM
I'd love to give the Military leadership the benefit of the doubt, but I can't.

Since when have we ever fought a war that looked like a modern day American city?
Do you not find it odd our Military, a Military that's been moving technologically towards drones and bots, is training it's soldiers to be comfortable fighting in an American urban environment , just a wee bit disconcerting?

What nation in the world looks like that and is a threat to us at the moment?
I can only think of one, America. We, the people are a threat to the Marxist in the WH.
Makes one wonder if this is why he has been purging the leadership of the Military.

I foresee an annoying outcome just like our liberal friends are now saying about Obamacare.

"Why didn't you try harder to correct us and fix our mistake ?  That makes it your fault".

Too bad it's a little bit more permanent if they've been just as stupid about Obama on this topic, as they've been on all others.

Let's hope the violence is limited to GI's and generals, and police / sheriffs fighting back against the Obama plants.  And not any more widespread.

Quote from: Solar on February 18, 2014, 08:03:56 AM
I'd love to give the Military leadership the benefit of the doubt, but I can't.

Since when have we ever fought a war that looked like a modern day American city?
Do you not find it odd our Military, a Military that's been moving technologically towards drones and bots, is training it's soldiers to be comfortable fighting in an American urban environment , just a wee bit disconcerting?

What nation in the world looks like that and is a threat to us at the moment?
I can only think of one, America. We, the people are a threat to the Marxist in the WH.
Makes one wonder if this is why he has been purging the leadership of the Military.

I found the picture of the little church especially disconcerting.  I believe that the government is not in a war with Al Qaeda, but in a war against Christians.  It is reaching the point that we cannot have any symbols which indicate we are Christians on our clothing, in our schools, in our military, etc.  Yet, the military recently announced that Muslims could wear beards, turbans and scarves.  Of course this town is built to train soldiers to occupy American cities when the Grand Caliph institutes Martial Law to prevent the next elections.

Quote from: Charliemyboy on February 18, 2014, 02:28:44 PM
I found the picture of the little church especially disconcerting.  I believe that the government is not in a war with Al Qaeda, but in a war against Christians.  It is reaching the point that we cannot have any symbols which indicate we are Christians on our clothing, in our schools, in our military, etc.  Yet, the military recently announced that Muslims could wear beards, turbans and scarves.  Of course this town is built to train soldiers to occupy American cities when the Grand Caliph institutes Martial Law to prevent the next elections.

Why go through all the trouble of keeping Americans dependent on the state in order to secure votes, if he's just gonna use our Muslim-commie army to prevent the elections?