Operation-Last-Dance attacks on Texas are part of training for massive gun-roundup operations

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

A local FEMA official has said that the Operation-Last-Dance attacks on Texas are part of training for massive gun-roundup operations. The FEMA official said that this was the official wargame scenario of the special forces attack on Kingsville:

"Martial law has been declared through presidential powers and war powers act, and some citizens have refused to give up their weapons. They have taken over two of the buildings in Kingsville. The police cannot handle it. So you call these guys in. They show up and they zap everybody, take all the weapons, and let the local P.D. clean it up,"

I'm afraid I read through the report too fast and missed the "likely" part in the full text, sorry(!), which means what the official says there was the LIKELY scenario. It notes that the FEMA official, Tomas Sanchez is privy to at least one classified document.

Let me know if you hear about these events in the major media. There was apparently a sentence or two cite in the Washington Post or Times, but I've not confirmed this. How could these top-secret-military actions on civilian communities in the U.S. go uncovered by the media? Assuming for the moment that they are not the Federal Governments PR office.

Link at


-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 18, 1999



This type of exercise has been taking place since 1995 that I am aware of in many cities. This is the first that I am aware of in which live fire was used. Training for urban warfare against American citizens has been taking place for the last 6 to 8 years per a recently retired special forces person. This is the reason some are leaving the military and joining the militias.

The game plan is to relieve us of all of our guns. It will not work and open warfare will result. Makes Switzerland look good dosn't it?

-- Nick (nick@no.mail), February 18, 1999.


I believe there were a couple of write ups in a San Antonio paper this past week.

-- Deborah (media@black.out), February 18, 1999.

"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has complete gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more effective; and the world will follow our lead into the future."--Adolf Hitler, on the occasion of signing Germany's comprehensive "crime" bill,1935.------------------------------------------------------------"our streets will be safer, our police more effective; and the world will follow us across the bridge to the 21st century"--Bill Clinton, on the occasion of signing additional "crime" legislation, August,1996-----------------------------------------------------------" And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcements I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities"--Bill Clinton (3-22-1994) on MTV --------------------------------------------"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." Bill Clinton, USA TODAY, 3-11-1993, page 2a

-- KoFE (whoseordinary?@your.house), February 18, 1999.

Why do the elected oficials ask us to "Trust Them" with our affairs yet they don't trust us to own guns. It is this simple...IF THEY TAKE OUR GUNS WE ARE THROUGH! It is that simple. We now have the choice to own guns or not..but when that choice is made for us it will lead to other , larger problems. Imagine you are a doper criminal and you know the people inside a house no longer has the ability to shoot your sorry ass! Will taking our guns away be the answer to solve the crime problem? Why don't we just treat criminals as such and take their rights away? As for the Black Helecopters...cable or chain in the rotor blades brings them down to your level so you can mini 14 their ass!

-- Bill (EatLead@bullet.com), February 18, 1999.

I much prefer the Swiss rule::

If you are thus and such an age, you WILL have an assault rifle in your closet, and know how to use it.

btw it's a really good asault rifle too. Have had a chance to handle one just don't remember the specs.


-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 18, 1999.

Does anyone know how intense the search would be for guns, if possesion is outlawed? I am currently finishing-off the basement of my house and this would be a great time to build-in a couple of hiding places for guns, should the authorities decide that i am too careless, dangerous, stupid, etc, to have my own weapons.

-- Barney Google (Hideguns@home.ready), February 19, 1999.


VERY interesting quotes. Can you provied more-specific citations, especially for the first two quotes?


-- Rick (concerned@america.com), February 19, 1999.

I was thinking about this in the shower today. If you want to keep your guns, you might want to somehow convince your immediate family members that they're gone - been sold or something - after you hide them when/if a grab looks imminent.

If the gun-grab truck comes to your house, (of course I doubt this will happen, but who knows anymore), the head of the house would probably not be the only one questioned about ownership. If questioned separately, all family-members' stories need to match up.... it would be nicer if the interrogees believed they were telling the truth.

No flames, I ain't armed and don't expect a gun grab-- just thinking thru the possibilities. Leo, how was the buy-back program in Australia executed? What was the gestapo's methodology in retrieving armaments from the Germans?

-- Lisa (lisa@work.today), February 19, 1999.

personally I just hope they continue to practice at this, their current level of tactical ignorance...'cause as long as they do they'll be practicing for the wrong things in the wrong places...

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 19, 1999.

Heard about it on "Point of View". Man by the name of Eric Barger had detailed info. Said that it was indeed a mock operation to confiscate guns from people who would not give them up during a martial law situation because of y2k.

Try his website: http://www.ericbarger.com

-- bbrown (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), February 20, 1999.

Excuse me for saying so, but it would be unconstitutional if any level of OUR government attempted to confiscate OUR arms. It's right there in the Bill of Rights. OUR government can't do this, for WE ARE OUR government -- OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE, FOR the PEOPLE.

If arms are confiscated, it won't be by OUR government, but by a force that has covertly co-opted OUR government. That force would be plainly ILLEGITIMATE, as it does not uphold OUR Constitution. This force will not be allowed to succeed. Any municipal police force that violates the Constitution has also been covertly co-opted and is ILLEGITIMATE, as they are bound as OUR hired servants, to obey and uphold The Law of The Land, OUR Constitution.

The people who have taken the oaths of office in OUR country have SWORN to uphold the Constitution. The men and women who fought and died for this country did so for LIBERTY and FREEDOM as specified and guaranteed in OUR Constitution. There can be no LIBERTY or FREEDOM of any length without the right to own and bear arms. Every dictator, despot, or tyrant that ever crawled out of his putrid hole knew this and we know this, too.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), February 20, 1999.

All true Nathan. However, during a state of national emergency or martial law the constitution is suspended for at least six months when the congress can then overrule the president's declaration. They will have six months to take our guns. The vultures will not go hungry.

-- bbrown (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), February 20, 1999.


With hope you don't take this as insult or flame:

I think it is naive to believe that if we slip into the slime of Marital Law that we will ever see the Congress vote on anyting again. (That is without first seeing a LOT of blood shed and having fortune smile on the forces behind the Constitution.

God help an preserve us all that these horrible events may never come to pass.

But more important than us, may God proserve and protect the Constitution of these Unites States of America

-- Greybear, beater of drum, get used to it.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 20, 1999.

Spoke with a person very much on the inside of this type of training situation. They stated that if they were doing this practice run you can bet it means something..they weren't out "just doing it".

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), February 20, 1999.

Greybear, No insult taken. Good men can and do disagree.

This latest rape charge will keep him from forming enough allies to pull off a coup even if there is martial law. I only see martial law if the electric goes out and stays out. If it comes back on before thirty days martial law will be removed. If it stays off for longer than thirty days we'll have more than martial law to worry about...it's called chaos.

-- bbrown (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), February 20, 1999.


Where in The Constitution does it say that The Constitution may be suspended in times of "emergency", whatever that is. A declaration of martial law is with this condition is, itself, unconstitutional.

In fact, during times of true duress, we require the protections of The Constitution even more so. What group of demons came up with this? Logic turned on its head.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), February 20, 1999.

Rule #1 of unconventional warfare: irregulars do not allow themselves to be fixed (pinned down). In order to avoid being fixed irregulars do NOT attempt to hold territory - they strike at specific targets quickly, without warning, and then melt away again before the oppressor can respond effectively.

here's the gag: EVERYBODY WITH ANY BACKGROUND IN UW KNOWS THAT RULE...including the folks who planned that little exercise. What that means is that the folks who planned the exercise knew that the situation was unrealistic - any group of resistance fighters would avoid being fixed/pinned in a couple of buildings, but did it anyway - 'twould seem to me most likely they did it as a warning...


-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 20, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ