Connecting the dots - Are we on the brink of calamity?

[Mofra]

Is the US projection of power primarily military? Some have argued they are still holding one Ace.

World commodities are still priced predominately in USD terms which afford the US enormous power - it's no secret that Saddam's threat to price oil in EU terms accelerated the US decision to attack under the weak excuse of WMDs.
A huge portion of the world's population spend upwards of 80% of their daily income on food - the same commodities priced in USD terms, and the largest driver of USD fluctuations is still US fiscal policy. A manufactured spike in USD would have huge implications for 100s of millions - a manufactured 10% increase in food prices could be borne by Western citizens spending 10-12% of their income on food, but what about the huge numbers of rural poor in regimes hostile to the US?

I don't want to flag wave for America, but the assumption they will meekly surrender their status as the world's superpower is a gross misrepresentation.

 

[Long Live HFC]

iv) The Dept of Homeland Security (created after 9/11) has put in a purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (enough for a twenty-year hot war on American soil) and several thousand armoured personnel carriers. For domestic use. They appear to be planning for civil unrest and martial law. The following video shows what took place when Watertown was 'locked down' (another term for what was effectively martial law) after the Boston Bombings.

not really that sexy.

A range of conspiracy theories have arisen over the past year alleging that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is taking steps to hire a new squad of law enforcement officers and acquire an arsenal of riot gear, pepper spray-spewing guns and as many as 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, as part of a specific plan to quash dissent, monitor public events, and infiltrate peaceful protest groups.
But the DHS denies such claims, saying it has indeed posted solicitations for security and gear contractors but only as part of normal operations or to augment existing programs, and that the conspiracies being floated by certain reporters and bloggers are baseless.
The department’s Federal Protective Service posted an Oct. 10 solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities website seeking a company to fulfill an $75 million to $80 million contract to provide qualified people to serve about 400,000 hours as Protective Service Officers (PSOs) in upstate New York.
The agency said the newly contracted officers would be used to guard “IRS building(s) during tax season” and other federal sites, and to provide security during “public demonstration(s)” and “civil disturbances, or other unanticipated events on an as-needed basis.” PSOs have been used in the past to monitor protesters and guard federal buildings.

These reports are false. The referenced Federal Protective Service (FPS) acquisition request for Protective Security Officers will replace an existing contract due to expire November 2014, which provides security and screening within federal facilities throughout upstate New York,” DHS spokesman S.Y. Lee said in the statement. “This routine acquisition planning is not in response to, or anticipation of, any potential situation.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/homeland-sec...billion-rounds-ammo-pepper-ball-gun-riot-gear

so, basically just new contracts for stuff they already do (or perhaps a little bit more of). ho hum.

 

[Partridge]

http://www.ibtimes.com/homeland-sec...billion-rounds-ammo-pepper-ball-gun-riot-gear

so, basically just new contracts for stuff they already do (or perhaps a little bit more of). ho hum.

I think the problem is people think the cops should be dispensing hugs to criminals instead.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Ha! I think the problem is claimants often have very little real-world experience on the things that they comment on.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Long Live HFC Where in that link do they deny that they are purchasing over one billion rounds of ammunition? Where do the deny that this is enough for a twenty-year hot war on American soil (based on ammunition use in Iraq)? Where do they deny the purchase of thousands of APCs for domestic use?

I note that you do not appear to have posted much (at all?) on any football threads since November of last year. You seem to spend your time spreading disinformation via erroneous arguments in threads like this one. You are a shill.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Long Live HFC Where in that link do they deny that they are purchasing over one billion rounds of ammunition?

The point of my post wasn't to refute the 1.6 billion claim. If I had wanted to do that specifically, I would have posted the figures released by the GAO, like this:

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) annual ammunition purchases have declined since fiscal year 2009 and are comparable in number to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) ammunition purchases. In fiscal year 2013, DHS purchased 84 million rounds of ammunition, which is less than DHS’s ammunition purchases over the past 5 fiscal years, as shown in the figure below. DHS component officials said the decline in ammunition purchases in fiscal year 2013 was primarily a result of budget constraints, which meant reducing the number of training classes, and drawing on their ammunition inventories. From fiscal years 2008 through 2013, DHS purchased an average of 109 million rounds of ammunition for training, qualification, and operational needs, according to DHS data. DHS’s ammunition purchases over the 6-year period equates to an average of 1,200 rounds purchased per firearm-carrying agent or officer per year. Over the past 3 fiscal years (2011-2013), DHS purchased an average of 1,000 rounds per firearm-carrying agent or officer and selected DOJ components purchased 1,300 rounds per firearm-carrying agent or officer.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-119

I'll be happy to explain the nature of the GAO if you need. There is also a graph available on request showing the planned purchases in 2014 if you'd like me to find it.

Where do the deny that this is enough for a twenty-year hot war on American soil (based on ammunition use in Iraq)?

as above, but again I wasn't looking to refute the numbers. If I'd wanted to do that I would have posted something more like this:

Federal solicitations to buy the bullets are known as "strategic sourcing contracts," which help the government get a low price for a big purchase, says Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga. The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

Dixon said one of the contracts would allow Homeland Security to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years for its training facilities. The rounds are used for basic and advanced law enforcement training for federal law enforcement agencies under the department's umbrella. The facilities also offer firearms training to tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officers. More than 90 federal agencies and 70,000 agents and officers used the department's training center last year.

The rest of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition would be purchased by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal government's second largest criminal investigative agency.

[DHS Secretary Janet] Napolitano said the numbers have been exaggerated. She said the contracts that have been reported represent an option to buy up to a certain limit over five years, and are not a one-time mass purchase.
She said buying that way allows the department to save as much as 80 percent on the cost of each round.

She also said it’s not surprising the number of rounds per law enforcement agent in her department may be high because some of them have to re-qualify with their weapons several times a year.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp

Where do they deny the purchase of thousands of APCs for domestic use?

They don't, so if I were to contend that point, I would refer to the above snopes link which includes:

A March 2013 claim that the Department of Homeland Security had "purchased 2,700 tanks" for use in the U.S. was based on a year-old (i.e., March 2012) notice posted on the DHS web site announcing that a contractor had been engaged to install new chassis on a number of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles (not "tanks") that were being returned from deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although similar vehicles have been used by DHS (and local police forces) for functions such as carrying Rapid Response Teams to disaster sites, the DHS did not "purchase" the MRAP vehicles referenced in that announcement

I note that you do not appear to have posted much (at all?) on any football threads

I don't really talk footy much except with my mates. All I really care about is the Hawks, and watching them smash pretenders like north. I hadn't posted much at all til I noticed the the kooks forum.

since November of last year.

cute, a stalker. for ones that loudly claim the virtues of free speech or safety from government surveillance, they sure do like to find out all about you. one time this yank was asking which state of Oz i lived in so he could research which laws he might be able to sue me under, ha!

You seem to spend your time spreading disinformation via erroneous arguments in threads like this one. You are a shill.

does it really matter whether im a shill or not? everyone can see in this post alone how i utterly destroyed your "gut feelings" on the very first topic i bothered to explain. the information and rationale speaks for itself, regardless of my spooky origins.

or perhaps you'd like to go cry to the mods again like brad scott did when the roof was left open. lol.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Your links contradict one another and verify my earlier claim that the DHS put in a purchase order for over one billion rounds of ammunition. You have also failed to refute the fact that this constitutes enough ammunition for a twenty-year hot war on American soil. You have also failed to refute the fact that the DHS has purchased thousands of APCs. These were my claims and you have failed to refute any - in fact your own links verify them.

Care to comment on the millions of hollow-point rounds purchased by the DHS? Rounds which cannot be used my the military due to international treaties?

No. You are here to spread disinformation. I hope for your sake you are being paid by an agency because if you do this in your spare time as a regular civilian then even I do not have a psychological explanation for your actions.

I would suggest that you will be doing your motives a disservice if you continue to spread disinformation on this forum as it will only awaken the doubters out there as to the depth of intel infiltration on internet forums.

I recommend all readers of this thread look into 'long live hfc's' posting history.

 

[Long Live HFC]

each of your points was clearly and obviously refuted and anyone (else) can see that easily.

if you honestly think the NSA et al care so much about your embarrassing lack of nous re political theory that they would pay someone to argue with you on an obscure footy forum, then your ego must be all-encompassing.

 

[WinmarToLockett]

iv) The Dept of Homeland Security (created after 9/11) has put in a purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (enough for a twenty-year hot war on American soil) and several thousand armoured personnel carriers. For domestic use.

The link you posted suggested that only part of the 1.6 billion $ order is for ammunition banned in international wars. So how do you draw the conclusion the ammunition is for domestic use?

And given your suggestion that the US have lied about their motives behind invading other countries, what makes you think they'd be honest in abiding by the international laws governing what type of ammunition can be used in war? Maybe they're planning on ******* up Syria with the ammunition instead?

Genuinely interested in your response here, but I think the conclusions you are drawing from the one link I did check are fanciful.

 

[medusala]

The US doesn't want to fight Iran.

The US just wants a division of power in the ME, last thing they want is to have them united under one leadership whether it be Persian or Saudi.

The Chinese are developing a navy that will be able to compete with the USA within 10 years and thus the USA dominance, the USA by contrast is having to reduce its because of a terrible economy

I would have thought it will take quite a bit longer than that. How many aircraft carriers do they have now? One bought from the Russians and one or two being built? IIRC on absolute spending the US is still miles in front.

 

[MaddAdam]

The US just wants a division of power in the ME, last thing they want is to have them united under one leadership whether it be Persian or Saudi.

Yep, this is why the US is happy to let the Sunni/Shia sectarian fight play out endlessly.

Syria is perfect for them - keeps all the Sunni jihadis focused there and ties up Iran indefinetly.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

The link you posted suggested that only part of the 1.6 billion $ order is for ammunition banned in international wars. So how do you draw the conclusion the ammunition is for domestic use?

I only stated the hollow-point rounds are banned in war; I never suggested the rest couldn't (in theory) be used in war.

The inference that the ammunition is planned for domestic use is drawn from the fact that the DHS is a domestic 'law enforcement' apparatus (it was created in response to the 9/11 event). This isn't just my inference but the inference of the Forbes writer cited.

I highly recommend you do your own research on everything I've posted. I've found further information on this particular issue in American Free Press, the New American, and the Examiner, as well as primary evidence from the 'Federal Business Opportunities' agency (where the purchase order has been listed).

My pieces at the beginning of this thread are only meant to be brief summaries of what is going on. Rest assured that I have spent countless hours fact-checking everything I post. There is still likely to be the odd minor error (MaddAdam has cited an apparent slip-up in my geography which I am in the process of verifying and rectifying) but when I say that the DHS has purchased enough ammo for a twenty-year hot war on American soil, be sure that I too was skeptical of such a claim until I did plenty of research on it myself.

And that is the key thing: to do your own research. It is amazing how much information is out there, even on reputable news sites, that will make you question what the hell is going on. It is only when you put the pieces together that the big picture comes into focus. This is the amazing power of the mainstream media: even when they disseminate startling revelations such as the purchase order in question, so long as they quickly skip to the next item of 'news' and give no further context, the average viewer at home will think they are informed when really the bigger picture is being intentionally kept from them.

Unless we do our own research, we cannot expect to be informed. And an informed public is essential to a functioning democracy. Ergo if we rely on the MSM we are utterly ****ed, as individuals, as a nation and as a society.

 

[WinmarToLockett]

The inference that the ammunition is planned for domestic use is drawn from the fact that the DHS is a domestic 'law enforcement' apparatus (it was created in response to the 9/11 event).

The DHS will have no problem protecting American soil off-shore if that's what the government demands. Regardless of who paid the invoice for the ammunition any suggestion of how the US will use it is speculation.

 

[MaddAdam]

You know, I have been on the Netz and forums since 98 and stories about mass government ammunition purchases and the preperation of FEMA camps amnd the like ahead of impending martial law etc have always been there.

The thing you have to remember is the collapse came. 2008. Thye financial system was really days, even hours, away from disintergrating. And martial law wasn't declared. Instead, the system was saved.

Why?

Because you can't make money off martial law.

There's a country at the moment that has organised itself along the lines you seem to think the Americans want ... North Korea. And it is a pitiful starving place.

The US plutocracy doesn't want that. It wants to keep making cash.

The NSA stuff is what is important, that kind of "soft control" and monitoring.

Not jack booted thugs rounding soccer Moms into FEMA camps.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Who said anything about FEMA camps? A fascinating theory but not one I have found enough evidence to support. And trust me, I have looked. I'm not saying the FEMA camp theory is impossible; I'm just pointing out that it has not even been mentioned in this thread until you came along.

As for the financial system almost collapsing a few years ago, I agree with you that we were only moments away from that collapse taking place. Since then the feds have printed money like it is going out of fashion, bought untold amounts of dodgy debt from the private sector, further plunged the US into debt, and the only apparent benefit of this 'quantitative easing' seems to have gone to the wealthiest decimal point of American society. This is all explained here better than I could possibly hope to.

Do you think we have seen the end of the financial quagmire we've been in for six years? Do you think that the US is going to have an economic recovery before the next inevitable crash? Do you think the Chinese shadow banking sector will successfully navigate the credit crunch which awaits it?

As for TPTB not wanting a financial collapse, I'm not so sure. When the time is right I think it will be in their interests to have such a crash. It will provide the pretext for further consolidation of power, the way that so many crashes have in the past.

 

[MaddAdam]

The Chinese credit crunch is going to be very interesting, agreed.

 

[The Speaker]

Whilst it may not lead to civil war it will hopefully lead to the rise of a third political force in the USA.

A third political force would change little.

The US needs a political reboot from the top down.

 

[The_Reaper]

The US doesn't want to fight Iran. The US wants Iran to stop supplying China with energy.

For a while it looked like "the stick" was the way to do that. Now they are going the carrot.

I'm sure the Russians will now be very happy to make up for any energy deficit. Probably by trading in the rouble as well.

I'm also heard talk that the Russians will respond to any major sanctions by demanding that any oil and gas it exports be purchased in something that isn't the US Dollar.

 

[MaddAdam]

I'm sure the Russians will now be very happy to make up for any energy deficit. Probably by trading in the rouble as well.

I'm also heard talk that the Russians will respond to any major sanctions by demanding that any oil and gas it exports be purchased in something that isn't the US Dollar.

That's why there will be no major sanctions.

The Russians are being allowed to take Crimea.

 

[clogged]

I recommend all readers of this thread look into 'long live hfc's' posting history.

I looked, don't to have to go back too far to find footy related content.

What did he get the day off for?

 

[clogged]

Tartus is in Syria. Iran has no Mediterranean coast.

I skipped that post because I don't see Middle East being a trigger for a world war, but that's a pretty glaring error.

 

[MaddAdam]

I skipped that post because I don't see Middle East being a trigger for a world war, but that's a pretty glaring error.

I think Mitt Romney made the same mistake in the presidential campaign.

 

[The_Reaper]

I looked, don't to have to go back too far to find footy related content.

What did he get the day off for?

I'd assume he is an alias

 

[Smiling Buddha]

I skipped that post because I don't see Middle East being a trigger for a world war, but that's a pretty glaring error.

The error been amended and I thank MaddAdam for the correction. I don't think it any changes the overall point I am making - if anything, Russia's reliance on Syria for access to the Mediterranean only adds weight to the theory that Russia will respond militarily if and when Western forces finally launch an official invasion.

 

[skipper kelly]

I'm convinced. Now what do I do? Do I bunker up?