OT: Tools of Modern Terror

[Ed Huntress]

There's a good story in the NY Times today: "Tools of Modern Terror:
How the AK-47 and AR-15 Evolved Into Rifles of Choice for Mass
Killers"

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/ak-47-mass-shootings.html

It's really well done. You're gonna love it. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Steve Walker]

Quote:

Governments have done little to stop the spread of this class of
weapons. Often, as in the case of the United States, they have
contributed to it. Acts of crime, terror and oppression with
Kalashnikovs and AR-15 descendants, endured by civilians under withering
fire, have been hard-wired into our times. There is no end in sight.

Unquote.

This guy's an ass. "this class of weapons". Hell, just about any semi
auto will do the same amount of damage. As a matter of fact, most
hunting rifles pack more knock down power than either of these. .30-06,
.30-30, .308, the list goes on and on. But these don't "look" like
assault rifles. I wonder how many of the mass killings with so-called
"assault rifles" were done with rifles that had been converted to full
auto, thereby qualifying as true assault rifles?

But, the author probably got paid pretty well for this article.

[Larry Jaques]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 20:46:05 -0400, Steve Walker <Im...@home.com>
wrote:

>On 8/25/2016 1:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> There's a good story in the NY Times today: "Tools of Modern Terror:
>> How the AK-47 and AR-15 Evolved Into Rifles of Choice for Mass
>> Killers"
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/ak-47-mass-shootings.html
>>
>> It's really well done. You're gonna love it. d8-)

Fidiots. AKs are loved by soldiers and sane people alike because
they're damned good weapons which can be dropped into a muddy field
and picked right back up and shot, without any problems. Also, most
mass shooters use -handguns-, so lose the yet-again-false statements.
You libtards (OldWeirdEd), I swear...

>Quote:
>
>Governments have done little to stop the spread of this class of
>weapons. Often, as in the case of the United States, they have
>contributed to it. Acts of crime, terror and oppression with
>Kalashnikovs and AR-15 descendants, endured by civilians under withering
>fire, have been hard-wired into our times. There is no end in sight.
>
>Unquote.
>
>This guy's an ass. "this class of weapons". Hell, just about any semi
>auto will do the same amount of damage. As a matter of fact, most
>hunting rifles pack more knock down power than either of these. .30-06,
>.30-30, .308, the list goes on and on. But these don't "look" like
>assault rifles. I wonder how many of the mass killings with so-called
>"assault rifles" were done with rifles that had been converted to full
>auto, thereby qualifying as true assault rifles?

What's sad is the fact that more people have been killed every year by
clubs and rocks than by rifles of any kind. (see 2nd link)

http://tinyurl.com/jjhcghf 2013: of 8,464 firearms, only 351 rifles
used, and that's including all rifles, not just "AssHalt weapons".

>But, the author probably got paid pretty well for this article.

No doubt. He probably wouldn't have been paid if he'd come out in
favor of guns. <sigh>

http://www.assaultweapon.info/ A good read.

--
The great thing about getting older is that
you don't lose all the other ages you've been.
-- Madeleine L'Engle

[The Mighty Ant]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 19:22:58 -0700, Larry Jaques
<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 20:46:05 -0400, Steve Walker <Im...@home.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 8/25/2016 1:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> There's a good story in the NY Times today: "Tools of Modern Terror:
>>> How the AK-47 and AR-15 Evolved Into Rifles of Choice for Mass
>>> Killers"
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/ak-47-mass-shootings.html
>>>
>>> It's really well done. You're gonna love it. d8-)
>
>Fidiots. AKs are loved by soldiers and sane people alike because
>they're damned good weapons which can be dropped into a muddy field
>and picked right back up and shot, without any problems. Also, most
>mass shooters use -handguns-, so lose the yet-again-false statements.
>You libtards (OldWeirdEd), I swear...
>

And what world do you live in?

The vast bulk of AK-47's that are actually being used weren't
carefully selected by discriminate buyers they were handed out as
freebies by "the boss", "Join up with us and we give you a gun".

It is only in the U.S. that the knowledgeable buyer carefully selects
the most perfect AK as his new penis extension.

--
and a good day to you Sir,

The Mighty Ant

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 20:46:05 -0400, Steve Walker <Im...@home.com>
wrote:

>On 8/25/2016 1:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> There's a good story in the NY Times today: "Tools of Modern Terror:
>> How the AK-47 and AR-15 Evolved Into Rifles of Choice for Mass
>> Killers"
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/ak-47-mass-shootings.html
>>
>> It's really well done. You're gonna love it. d8-)
>>
>
>Quote:
>
>Governments have done little to stop the spread of this class of
>weapons. Often, as in the case of the United States, they have
>contributed to it. Acts of crime, terror and oppression with
>Kalashnikovs and AR-15 descendants, endured by civilians under withering
>fire, have been hard-wired into our times. There is no end in sight.
>
>Unquote.

Which of course is, factually, exactly right.

>
>This guy's an ass. "this class of weapons". Hell, just about any semi
>auto will do the same amount of damage.

But they don't. Mass killers aren't using Remington Woodmasters.
That's the whole point of the article.

> As a matter of fact, most
>hunting rifles pack more knock down power than either of these. .30-06,
>.30-30, .308, the list goes on and on.

Duh...that's why they described AK-47 ammo as "mid-power." They got it
technically right, which makes the article quite a cut above typical
mass-media articles about guns.

> But these don't "look" like
>assault rifles.

In the US, that's probably part of the reason they aren't used. Mass
killers, whether simple nutcases or terrorists, want that mean, nasty,
military look -- something like you see on the covers of _American
Rifleman_ these days. Mass killings of civilians are best done with
the same guns that armies use today to lay down withiring small-arms
fire.

It's part of their shtick. After a few beers, most ordinary people who
buy those guns probably will tell you that they buy them for the same
reason. They want to look kick-ass.

Outside of the US, it's the sheer ubiquity of those guns that's the
other driving factor. There are literally tens of millions of AK-47s
on the world markets. That's another important part of the story
covered in the article.

> I wonder how many of the mass killings with so-called
>"assault rifles" were done with rifles that had been converted to full
>auto, thereby qualifying as true assault rifles?

You could look it up. I think the answer is one -- the converted
Mini-14 that was involved in the shootout with the FBI in 1986.

>
>But, the author probably got paid pretty well for this article.

Probably not, even though it was very good.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 19:22:58 -0700, Larry Jaques
<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 20:46:05 -0400, Steve Walker <Im...@home.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 8/25/2016 1:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> There's a good story in the NY Times today: "Tools of Modern Terror:
>>> How the AK-47 and AR-15 Evolved Into Rifles of Choice for Mass
>>> Killers"
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/ak-47-mass-shootings.html
>>>
>>> It's really well done. You're gonna love it. d8-)
>
>Fidiots. AKs are loved by soldiers and sane people alike because
>they're damned good weapons which can be dropped into a muddy field
>and picked right back up and shot, without any problems.

Something tells me that, despite all your big talk, you haven't
actually done much hunting or other shooting.

Any hunter or target shooter who drops his gun in a muddy field and
then picks it up and shoots it is someone you don't want to go
shooting with again.

--
Ed Huntress

[John B.]

Ed, you quite obviously don't know much about guns.

After all one doesn't buy an AK-47 to go traipsing around in muddy
fields. No! They are what is called in the hand phone world "augmented
reality". One can sit there, in air conditioned comfort, in front of
the TV, fondling it and visualizing oneself as "Master of the
Universe".

I believe that psychologists refer to them as "penis enhancements"

--
cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:03:06 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
wrote:

And on the AR-15, they can always push the bolt with the "forward
assist." It's like a hand job with your thumb...

--
Ed Huntress

[John B.]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 13:50:03 -0400, Ed Huntress

The first AR-15's or M-16's, I don't remember what they were called,
issued to the A.F. didn't have the bolt closer, now called by the
much more elegant term of "Forward Assist". The first time we
qualified with the new "guns" the Range People gave careful
instructions "just pull the bolt carrier back and let go of it!" And
invariably about half the guys on the line pulled the bolt carrier
back and carefully eased it forward whereupon it didn't close :-)
The "bolt closer" seemed a great renovation at the time :-)

But, of course, we weren't enthralled with all this bang-bang stuff.
It was just another thing to get through before we went back to fixing
airplanes :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:55:20 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>

>The first AR-15's or M-16's, I don't remember what they were called,...
>issued to the A.F.

The first ones issued to the A.F. were called AR-15s. That's probably
what you had.

>... didn't have the bolt closer, now called by the

>much more elegant term of "Forward Assist". The first time we
>qualified with the new "guns" the Range People gave careful
>instructions "just pull the bolt carrier back and let go of it!" And
>invariably about half the guys on the line pulled the bolt carrier
>back and carefully eased it forward whereupon it didn't close :-)

<g> I've heard about that. The first ones I encountered were
expensive, slicked-up civilian AR-15s used in DCM competition. They
had the "forward assist." My wisecrack at the time was that it might
be useful if your gun got fouled after mowing down all of your
competitors.

>The "bolt closer" seemed a great renovation at the time :-)

Apparently they eventually fixed the things that created a need for it
in the first place, but it's still on the guns. To me, it's an
artifact of the fact that a gas-operated semiauto rifle may be a great
military gun, but it's a p.o.s. as a civilian gun.

I like the "forward assist" on a Remington 700 a lot better. It's
called a bolt lever. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[John B.]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 07:57:25 -0400, Ed Huntress

Ah yes, the hand powered, semi-automatic, rifle, with the innovative
extractor :-)

But lets face it, absolutely no good as a combat weapon. I recently
read that in Vietnam 50,000 rounds were expended per enemy casualty.
Given the 700's usual 5 round magazine and a rate of, oh say 20 rounds
a minute, disregarding reloading, we are looking at 40 hours per
casualty :-)

Given the $15.00/hour that I read Trump is promising everyone that is
about $600 per head.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:13:41 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>

Gas-operated semiauto -- good combat firearm. Bolt-action -- good
civilian firearm.

BTW, not to derail the main thought, but my cousin was a sniper in the
Marines, in Laos (and a gymnast who could climb trees like a monkey
<g>). He shot a Remington Model 700 in 7.62 NATO in that war.

In the late '80s and early '90s, when I was active in DCM shooting, I
fought hard against the AR ban in NJ. The only people I knew who owned
them were some National Match-caliber shooters in my club. They put a
lot of money into them to make them perform at the long ranges, and I
thought the ban was absurd overreach by the anti-gun crowd. What kind
of a nut would use them to commit a crime?

When the AR-15 sales took off with the general population, I almost
fell out of my chair. Why the hell? I know the gun to a moderate
degree. I shot other club members' guns in DCM shoots. They were kind
of fun, but I couldn't imagine why anyone would want one unless he was
engaged in service-rifle competition. For civilian uses, they're
expensive toys, and not particularly good at anything.

But they do look baaaad.... They look good with a digger hat and camo,
and a big knife on your belt. And if you're ever attacked by a herd of
rabid groundhogs, they're just the right medicine. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins]

"John B." <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in message
news:ghv6sbtd822h7c6ut...@4ax.com...

Actually the Remington 700 was a favored sniper rifle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_rifle
"The original M40 was a military type-classified version of the
Remington 700; it was factory-made, and had a one-piece wooden stock."

[John B.]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:57:09 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:13:41 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
>wrote:
>

>>But lets face it, absolutely no good as a combat weapon. I recently
>>read that in Vietnam 50,000 rounds were expended per enemy casualty.
>>Given the 700's usual 5 round magazine and a rate of, oh say 20 rounds
>>a minute, disregarding reloading, we are looking at 40 hours per
>>casualty :-)
>>
>>Given the $15.00/hour that I read Trump is promising everyone that is
>>about $600 per head.
>
>Gas-operated semiauto -- good combat firearm. Bolt-action -- good
>civilian firearm.
>
>BTW, not to derail the main thought, but my cousin was a sniper in the
>Marines, in Laos (and a gymnast who could climb trees like a monkey
><g>). He shot a Remington Model 700 in 7.62 NATO in that war.

In Laos? With the CIA's private army?
I wasn't aware that any uniformed U.S. troops were ever stationed in
Laos.

>In the late '80s and early '90s, when I was active in DCM shooting, I
>fought hard against the AR ban in NJ. The only people I knew who owned
>them were some National Match-caliber shooters in my club. They put a
>lot of money into them to make them perform at the long ranges, and I
>thought the ban was absurd overreach by the anti-gun crowd. What kind
>of a nut would use them to commit a crime?
>
>When the AR-15 sales took off with the general population, I almost
>fell out of my chair. Why the hell? I know the gun to a moderate
>degree. I shot other club members' guns in DCM shoots. They were kind
>of fun, but I couldn't imagine why anyone would want one unless he was
>engaged in service-rifle competition. For civilian uses, they're
>expensive toys, and not particularly good at anything.
>
>But they do look baaaad.... They look good with a digger hat and camo,
>and a big knife on your belt. And if you're ever attacked by a herd of
>rabid groundhogs, they're just the right medicine. d8-)

Since I've only fired during AR-15 in qualifying I think the furthest
range I fired at was probably 50 yards and as I remember it the
accuracy wasn't exactly stupefying :-) But as I was on the pistol team
I knew the range guys and after qualifying was over they let me fire
it full automatic. I remember that I thought it fired way too fast as
any sort of 2 - 3 round burst took a lot of concentration, but the fun
stuff was literally disintegrating a concrete block at full automatic.

Sort of a fun gun; is someone else was buying the ammunition :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:40:40 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>

wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:57:09 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:13:41 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But lets face it, absolutely no good as a combat weapon. I recently
>>>read that in Vietnam 50,000 rounds were expended per enemy casualty.
>>>Given the 700's usual 5 round magazine and a rate of, oh say 20 rounds
>>>a minute, disregarding reloading, we are looking at 40 hours per
>>>casualty :-)
>>>
>>>Given the $15.00/hour that I read Trump is promising everyone that is
>>>about $600 per head.
>>
>>Gas-operated semiauto -- good combat firearm. Bolt-action -- good
>>civilian firearm.
>>
>>BTW, not to derail the main thought, but my cousin was a sniper in the
>>Marines, in Laos (and a gymnast who could climb trees like a monkey
>><g>). He shot a Remington Model 700 in 7.62 NATO in that war.
>
>In Laos? With the CIA's private army?

1st Marine Div. He was shot out of a tree and sent home for R&R to
recover. He stayed with my parents while I was in college. I came home
once when he was there, I think it was 1970, and we were watching the
news together, when Melvin Laird (then Sec. of Defense) came on and
said in some committee hearing, that there were no American combat
forces in Laos. My cousin turned to me and said, "That's where I was
shot out of a tree."

>I wasn't aware that any uniformed U.S. troops were ever stationed in
>Laos.

Marines. Denied by the U.S. government. Laird spun it all around, but
it was all phony.

My cousin went back to Laos after recovering. A month or so later, he
was grenaded out of a tree. He lived through that one, too, and then
got hit by a car while walking across a road in Boca Raton, Fla. a
couple of years later, and died . I suspect he was drunk at the time.
He never really recovered from the war. I heard he was a very
successful sniper. He worked mostly at night, with a starlight scope.
He told me his job was to shoot the tall guy at the head or the back
of patrols. That would be the Chinese advisor.

He said he preferred shooting at night because he didn't like seeing
their faces when he shot, and the starlight scopes didn't have great
resolution.

[John B.]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:08:41 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:40:40 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
>wrote:

>>>BTW, not to derail the main thought, but my cousin was a sniper in the
>>>Marines, in Laos (and a gymnast who could climb trees like a monkey
>>><g>). He shot a Remington Model 700 in 7.62 NATO in that war.
>>
>>In Laos? With the CIA's private army?
>
>1st Marine Div. He was shot out of a tree and sent home for R&R to
>recover. He stayed with my parents while I was in college. I came home
>once when he was there, I think it was 1970, and we were watching the
>news together, when Melvin Laird (then Sec. of Defense) came on and
>said in some committee hearing, that there were no American combat
>forces in Laos. My cousin turned to me and said, "That's where I was
>shot out of a tree."
>
>>I wasn't aware that any uniformed U.S. troops were ever stationed in
>>Laos.
>
>Marines. Denied by the U.S. government. Laird spun it all around, but
>it was all phony.
>

Along about 1965 - 66 President Johnson stated that "No U.S. military
helicopters are stationed in Thailand". Which was, I believe was
factually true. Of course we had a number of helicopters from our
helicopter squadron at Nha Trang, Vietnam, on "Temporary Duty" at Udon
RTAFB which is only a few miles south of the Mekong River. But of
course there is a difference between "Permanently Stationed" and
"temporary duty" :-)

But I doubt that any country tells the whole truth, whether in war or
peace. It was widely reported in both the News Papers and radio that
on 10 December 1941 Colin Kelly had sunk the Japanese cruiser Natori
by diving his B-17 into the ship and had been posthumous awarded the
Nation's highest military award, the Medal of Honor.
The implication was, of course, that 2 days after the U.S. Pacific
fleet was nearly totally destroyed that the U.S. had successfully
struck back against the Yellow Peril.

Subsequently of course the details have changed.

One of the advantages of being in the Military is free ammunition :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Jim Wilkins]

"John B." <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in message

news:cc47sbhb57191j69r...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:57:09 -0400, Ed Huntress
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>

>>....

>>BTW, not to derail the main thought, but my cousin was a sniper in
>>the
>>Marines, in Laos (and a gymnast who could climb trees like a monkey
>><g>). He shot a Remington Model 700 in 7.62 NATO in that war.
>
> In Laos? With the CIA's private army?
> I wasn't aware that any uniformed U.S. troops were ever stationed in
> Laos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lima_Site_85
http://limasite85.us/

Walmart heir John Walton served with SOG in Laos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Walton

--jsw

[Jim Wilkins]

"John B." <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in message

news:n6s7sb95879ht0ilf...@4ax.com...

Free food, free housing, free medical, free gas, free ammo, free
targets.

It would be the Marxist dream of "from each according to his ability,
to each according to his need", except that the government gets to
define your abilities very high, and your needs very low, to their own
advantage.

--jsw

[Jim Wilkins]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nq14f9$q1i$1...@dont-email.me...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_sites_of_the_Laotian_Civil_War

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:13:41 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
- hide quoted text -

>read that in Vietnam 50,000 rounds were expended per enemy casualty ...

Versus what ratio for the thirty-odd-six AK-47 users? Its like saying MiG-21s beat F-4 Phantom II's in air combat.
(you have to have a frame of reference for every comparison, right?)

[Garrett Fulton]

Marines were in Laos in '70. Our CH-46 squadron flew into Laos numerous times. HMM-262. I was a gunner and we knew we were going into Laos when you were told to put M60's on the gun mounts instead of the Browning .50 machine guns. The .50 was too heavy to hump out if you got shot down.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Garrett Fulton" <lbfu...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:c167a3e6-3d96-4363...@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 9:40:45 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:57:09 -0400, Ed Huntress
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

> ....

Marines were in Laos in '70. Our CH-46 squadron flew into Laos
numerous times. HMM-262. I was a gunner and we knew we were going
into Laos when you were told to put M60's on the gun mounts instead of
the Browning .50 machine guns. The .50 was too heavy to hump out if
you got shot down.

==================================

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tieng
"...by 1966 Long Cheng was one of the largest US installations on
foreign soil, becoming one of the busiest airports in the world."
"At the height of its significance in the late 1960s, the "secret
city" of Long Tieng maintained a population of 40,000 inhabitants,
making it the second largest city in Laos at the time, although it
never appeared on maps throughout this period."

[John B.]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:57:21 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
<murat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"John B." <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in message
>news:cc47sbhb57191j69r...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:57:09 -0400, Ed Huntress
>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>....
>>>BTW, not to derail the main thought, but my cousin was a sniper in
>>>the
>>>Marines, in Laos (and a gymnast who could climb trees like a monkey
>>><g>). He shot a Remington Model 700 in 7.62 NATO in that war.
>>
>> In Laos? With the CIA's private army?
>> I wasn't aware that any uniformed U.S. troops were ever stationed in
>> Laos.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lima_Site_85
>http://limasite85.us/

Lima Site 85 was a CIA army" site not a U.S. Military site although
there was apparently a TACAN site there.

>Walmart heir John Walton served with SOG in Laos:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Walton

Yes a Special Forces "A" Team. They were all over the place. A good
friend spent some time interdicting the so called "Ho Chi Minh Trail
and other odd places.

But, these guys were not stationed in the country, as I believe I
originally mentioned.

>--jsw
>
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

No free gas :-)

>
>It would be the Marxist dream of "from each according to his ability,
>to each according to his need", except that the government gets to
>define your abilities very high, and your needs very low, to their own
>advantage.
>

Actually, the needs were taken care of quite satisfactorily. They gave
you all your clothes and they laundered them free. Lodgings were sort
for communal, for the lower ranks, At Randolph AFB I slept in a room
with about 100 other guys. As I remember the food at permanent
installations was pretty good . Medical care was good and totally
free. What more could one want?

And, if one had visions of actually being a Bad Ass M-16 Toter all one
had to do was volunteer.... and, of course pass some fairly rigorous
physical and mental tests :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I believe the original comment was
permanently stationed in Laos".
--
cheers,

John B.

[Jim Wilkins]

"John B." <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in message

news:8ej9sb156u68qkbtd...@4ax.com...

No one could be stationed at nonexistent sites, because if they were,
a leak of any personnel data would have revealed those places. The
reason you had only an APO mailing address was to conceal troop
deployments.

[John B.]

I would have to question the claim of "busiest airports in the world"
though. The Wiki references some sort of tour group. The Long Tieng
runway was 4,133 ft. while Udorn RTAFB the closest air base in
Thailand has 10,000 ft. Chicago, during the 1860's was handling in
neighborhood of 1,600,000 passengers annually.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Jim Wilkins]

"John B." <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in message

news:emk9sb9ln480ref2u...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:25:52 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
> <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Free food, free housing, free medical, free gas, free ammo, free
>>targets.
>
> No free gas :-)

It was free if I wanted to draw a military vehicle for a trip, but
then I couldn't stay overnight in a Gasthaus in some little village
that hadn't seen too many Americans.

Tax-free gas for my VW cost $0.18 a gallon for up to 200(?) liters a
month for a small car, twice as much for a big American car. We could
sell unused ration coupons and towards the end of the month only VW
owners had any left. I needed more once, to visit Switzerland.

The pumps had signs on them reminding the buyers that 3/4 of the price
was tax.

--jsw

[Jim Wilkins]

"John B." <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in message

news:b2m9sb5nn6f516u8j...@4ax.com...

Wouldn't know, was elsewhere at the time, Gott sei dank. Maybe they
meant sortie rate.

--jsw

[Michael A. Terrell]

John B. wrote:
>
> I would have to question the claim of "busiest airports in the world"
> though. The Wiki references some sort of tour group. The Long Tieng
> runway was 4,133 ft. while Udorn RTAFB the closest air base in
> Thailand has 10,000 ft. Chicago, during the 1860's was handling in

^^^^^^ ????

> neighborhood of 1,600,000 passengers annually.
>


--

Subject: Spelling Lesson

The last four letters in American.........I Can
The last four letters in Republican.......I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats

End of lesson. Test to follow in November, 2016

Remember, November is to be set aside as rodent extermination month.

[John B.]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 20:56:58 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

Strange. I didn't know that an APO address was to conceal Troop
deployments....

Given that the U.S. Department of Defense publishes a complete listing
of every APO in the world and its physical location. It is called a
Military Post Office Location(MPOLL) and the copy I have is stamped
"Approved for Public Release, Distribution unlimited".
--
cheers,

John B.

[Larry Jaques]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 01:43:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Subject: Spelling Lesson
>
>The last four letters in American.........I Can
>The last four letters in Republican.......I Can
>The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
>
>End of lesson. Test to follow in November, 2016
>
>Remember, November is to be set aside as rodent extermination month.

<g>

--
While we have the gift of life, it seems to me that only tragedy
is to allow part of us to die - whether it is our spirit, our
creativity, or our glorious uniqueness.
-- Gilda Radner

[Jim Wilkins]

"John B." <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in message

news:h2pasb9j4sfnhu0dq...@4ax.com...

The base locations can't be kept secret but a sudden, massive movement
of troops into say Korea or Poland or Kuwait is. That's why foreign
agents record the flights in and out of military bases.

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151021/1028885698/russia-assad-secret-flight-revealed.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/20/four-uk-plane-spotters-hope-for-fine-admitting-trespassing

You can track planes yourself:
http://www.rtl-sdr.com/monitoring-fbi-surveillance-aircraft-with-ads-b-and-an-rtl-sdr/

The declassified story of ULTRA/ENIGMA is a fascinating revelation of
the incredible amount of effort put into technical espionage. ULTRA is
largely what gave us computers.

This describes the traditional practices:
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Called-Intrepid-Incredible-Narrative/dp/159921170X

--wc2mp