How is it FPCON levels are raised nationwide, but we take no action against known training camps that raise it?

CPT Alex Lamb — Thu, 14 May 2015 09:12:08 -0400

See here's where Im concerned, and I've raised this.

By hardening our installations, we make our Soldiers vulnerable during peak hours trying to get into the installation. Hundreds. HUNDREDS of Soldiers and civilians trying to get on post but are stuck in dead traffic with ZERO security around them.

I feel like we're missing the point severely and we're putting our Soldiers at risk. Here's the reality, Just because we're not surrounded by sand and rocky mountains, surrounded by our own citizens, and within our own borders does NOT mean we're safe. It's been proven in many other countries.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made May 14 at 2015 9:37 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Thu, 14 May 2015 09:37:23 -0400

Would we have to raise the FPCON if we were to take those training camps out? Take the fight to the enemy and put their asses out of commission!

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2015 10:09 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 May 2015 10:09:32 -0400

Silly Captain, we have to win the hearts and minds of the world by not killing those that kill us or try to kill us

Response by SSG James Doherty made May 14 at 2015 10:19 AM

SSG James Doherty — Thu, 14 May 2015 10:19:14 -0400

Taking action on American soil opens so many legal issues you wouldn't believe it. If you happen to know where one of these camps is though you could always call in a meth house and have the swat knock them out...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2015 11:21 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 May 2015 11:21:00 -0400

Security guard are still checking IDs the same way as they did before the FPCON B was put in place. I thought they'd do a more thorough job.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2015 11:57 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 May 2015 11:57:31 -0400

Instead of raising the FPCON level I propose an open carry policy for all SM on title 10 or title 32 orders. BOOM problem solved, your welcome sir, MERICA!!!

Response by CPT Chris Loomis made May 14 at 2015 12:05 PM

CPT Chris Loomis — Thu, 14 May 2015 12:05:45 -0400

SSG James Doherty I like the way you think!!!!!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2015 12:19 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 May 2015 12:19:23 -0400

I see a lot of posts about soldiers taking it to the enemy on American soil. I get it Gung ho, damn the consequences, today is a good day to die mentallity. I'm an infantryman, been there done that. But think about the second and third term effects of these actions. Soldiers striking targets inside our own country, on our own civilians. Which is against federal laws governing use of the military to police it's own citizens.
In a time when trust for our government and it's policies are at a low, do you really want to engage in activities that would destroy the trust of the American people in you?
To answer the captain's query, historically striking a military target ON a military post is more demeaning to moral. Sure target the soldier at the gate who is sitting in traffic it won't have the effect in full. Plus, I can carry my pistol locked and loaded to the gate, I can't do that on post. I can defend myself with force outside the wire but not inside, and that's what the fpcon is for.