JADE HELM: TROOPS TO “OPERATE UNDETECTED AMONGST CIVILIAN POPULATION”

So if you are knot tying and make a hangman's noose you have committed a crime? I would think a weapon is not 100% a weapon unless you use it or threaten/imply to use it. You can use a butter knife as a weapon but until use wield it it is just a butter knife.

 

Back to JADE Helm.... Jade Helm 15, heavily scrutinized military exercise, to open without media access - The Washington Post

 

No ma'am, just tying a true hangman's noose is a hate crime. 13 wraps.
This is a police forum, where THEY debate what to do about a "hangman's noose"

"MENU

Log InRegister
ForumPublic ForumsGeneral Law Enforcement Topics Hangman's Noose....
If this is your first visit be sure to check out the frequently asked questions by clicking here FAQ. You must be registered, logged in and approved before you can post. Posting approval may take a few business days. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. You may have to register.
Page 1 of 212
Thread: Hangman's Noose....
LinkBack
Thread Tools
Display
09-22-2007, 03:38 PM #1
MidCareer 
Forum Member
Join Date
Aug 2006
Location
Indiana
Posts
499
Hangman's Noose....
Ok. This topic was the subject of a HEATED debate after roll call. The fact that some students at a few schools, I think most recently High Point, NC., were putting up nooses as jokes, has angered a lot of people. Here was the topic in my squad room that night:

If someone is caught with a noose, should they be charged with a hate crime or should it be left alone? The debate was nearly 50/50 with officers saying that it's not a crime to have a noose in your possession and some officers were saying that having the noose was just as serious as having an unlicensed firearm in your possession.

Thoughts.......comments?"

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2008/banning-noose
If they can show it you mean it as a threat, you are a criminal, anywhere other than your own property, or where the owner of the property gives permission.

 

Yes. Would YOU want to be labeled a terrorist, with all the penalties that come to bear with that label, for nothing more than a pocket knife found on you at a metal detector?

 

I think you have used the wrong word and do not want to admit that fact. You have changed direction and seem to be in a Dead Buzzard flight path.

 

No sir, I don't believe I have. I don't want a mountain of enforcement laid over a molehill of error.
If you believe I spoke wrongly, spell it out.

 

Look....if you believe that everything you have been told is accurate, truthful, and above board, then they are clearly home grown terrorists.
If you believe that .gov would over react, lie or fudge a few facts, then nothing we know about them is without suspicion.
.gov controls the narrative.
Much (not all) of what these folks said to others, we have said among ourselves. So how much spin would be required to paint us with the same brush?
I, for one, will clearly defend my home. I have stated that plainly. And I might be tempted to use an un common weapon such as electricity, or fire, pepper spray and airbags, or something else that would qualify as a boobie trap (illegal weapon). In the defense of my home.
If I do not trust what my government is doing (as many have stated) then would not I also qualify as a "terrorist" by the same standard, for defending my home by whatever means were open to me?

 

I did and all you want to do is rant.
Have a nice day

 

Rant? Hardly. I have expressed no emotion at all. I simply do not trust my government to play fair. (It hasn't so far)

 

JADE HELM is not new, JADE HELM is at the end of its exercise. We are just now learning about it just before the trap snaps shut.

JADE is an app
Joint Assistant for Deployment and Execution
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_35.pdf
from the document
Quote:
JADE (Joint Assistant for Deployment and Execution) is a knowledge-based mixed-initiative system that supports force deployment planning and management. JADE uses case-based and generative planning methods to support the development
of large-scale, complex deployment plans in minimal time. JADE incorporates the technology of three tools: Prodigy-Analogy (a combined case-based and generative planner developed by Carnegie Mellon University); ForMAT (Force Management and Analysis Tool) that supports case-based force deployment planning developed by BBN Technologies); and PARKA (a highly-indexed knowledge based management system developed by the University of Maryland).
With JADE, a military planner can build a preliminary force deployment plan, including the Time Phased Force Deployment Data (TPFDD) in less than one hour. This speed in plan construction is possible because JADE supports the rapid retrieval and reuse of previous plan elements for use in the development of new plans. In addition, JADE employs an easy to use map-oriented drag and drop interface where force modules (FMs) from previous plans (cases) whose force capabilities and composition match the requirements of the current situation can be dragged from the case library and dropped onto a geographic destination. Plan modification and/or adaption is supported through remindings, e.g., each time that a force module is created or is copied into a plan (TPFDD) the user is automatically reminded of the need for geographical changes. :Unquote:

HELM
“Homeland Eradication of Local Militants”
JADE HELM has been ongoing for awhile. First came the infiltration into key communities and local militias and organizations to assess the risk. Second came the report and later deployment of the needed military equipment to the local sheriffs and police departments. We have seen the procurement of arms, ammunition, food and water in crazy amounts and then those supplies were delivered to key locations.

HERE IS THE TINFOIL PORTION
Connecting the dots…
So, now that we know what JADE HELM is I will fill you in on the why.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Snippet: The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.
This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should he taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:

First, there must be immediate disarmament action:
A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.
Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject to effective international controls:

The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.

Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:

There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.

There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.The full text of the program is contained in an appendix to this pamphlet.

2 FREEDOM FROM WAR

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

Summary
DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:
The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;

The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order; The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;

The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.

TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES
The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form part of the total program.

GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that: As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes; Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;

Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;

Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and

Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.

DISARMAMENT STAGES

The program provides for progressive disarmament steps to take place in three stages and for the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions.

FIRST STAGE
The first stage contains measures which would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage aggressive war. Implementation of this stage would mean that: The nuclear threat would be reduced:

All states would have adhered to a treaty effectively prohibiting tile testing of nuclear weapons. The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons would be stopped and quantities of such materials from past production would be converted to non-weapons uses. States owning nuclear weapons would not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and would not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons would not manufacture them or attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states. A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Strategic delivery vehicles would he reduced:
Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of specified categories and weapons designed to counter such vehicles would be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps; their production would be discontinued or limited; their testing would be limited or halted.

Arms and armed forces would be reduced:
The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.1 million men each (with appropriate levels not exceeding that amount for other militarily significant states); levels of armaments would be correspondingly reduced and their production would be limited.
An Experts Commission would be established to examine and report on the feasibility and means of accomplishing verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of all chemical, biological and radiological weapons.


You can read into it what you will but it doesn't look good to me.

 

I guess ISIS needs to get the message, then they'd give up if they knew they were overwhelmed by a well developed computer doctrine aka modern warfare computer program.

 

Yep....ever has it been so. Peace treaties favour those with power, over those that lack it; and those that lack it, are in no position to dictate the terms of peace.

 

@chelloveck as always, right to the heart of the matter. For a pacifist you are ornery

 

Most warriors are pacifists, right up to the time that they have to apply their craft. Then they do so with the necessary disciplined aggression required to achieve their mission, with the least harm possible to non combatants. That is not to say that warriors don't get some professional satisfaction from doing their job well, and, although most don't welcome combat for its own sake (though obviously some do) , warriors will do their utmost to defend themselves, their comrades in arms, their family, their community, and their country with honour and integrity. It is an ethos that I am happy to subscribe to.

Pacifism is the luxury that some members in society enjoy, because there are warriors who are prepared to don their armour, and wield their weapons, in the defence of their country, regardless of the beliefs of some of their country's citizenry . Pacifism in the 1920's and 1930's in Europe undermined many nation states' ability and will to properly equip, train, and lead their warriors. Those countries paid a terrible price in occupation and enslavement for failing to maintain the capability and will to stand up to aggression.

Warriors generally would prefer peace to war ....but not peace at any price.