Californian aggressors prevent soldiers from meeting friends and family

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
But they had guns! Don't you know marines carry their guns everywhere with them? Just in case they want to shoot someone.

Eh, I'm still just bored with this. No one is a marine hater. Lame as trolls

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Eh, I'm still just bored with this. No one is a marine hater. Lame as trolls

No, but anyone in the military who has taken a civilian flight back home knows how ridiculous the following excerpt from this story is:

Hilltop Aviation, which was contracted to provide ground services for North American Airlines Flight 1777, had said there were weapons aboard the flight, the passengers had not been screened...

[Kidlicious]

This type of thing happens to people everyday. Just because it happens to marines is no reason to start screaming marine hater.

[Patroklos]

This type of thing happens to people everyday. Just because it happens to marines is no reason to start screaming marine hater.

[Shrapnel12]

I doubt you'd take the same position had it been a group of blacks. BTW, no ones screaming, I'm merely suspicious. Time will tell if I'm right or not.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I didn't allege a conspiracy, MtG. Please keep the strawmen remotely related to the post you pretend to respond to. You are correct in assuming that I did allege soldier hating though as it would be kinda obvious to anyone with a brain who they were. It is also telling that they took the action without consulting the TSA.

No strawmen. It takes more than one individual to make and carry out the necessary decisions, hence if there was any actual soldier hating involved, there would have to be a conspiracy to stick it to said soldiers, since multiple people would have had to do their part...

They didn't need to consult the TSA. They need to abide by TSA regulations, which don't exempt soldiers, marines, congressmen, or anyone else for that matter.

What apparently happened is that there was a lack of communication between multiple parties and the message that these individuals had been pre-screened didn't get down the line. As the article pointed out, another planeload of soldiers/marines/whoever was let out on the concourse.

As far as whether or not anyone would constitute a security risk or not, well, we've already had one court martial for political/jihad-inspired killing of superior officers. The relevant regulations don't grant airline or airport personnel any discretion in deciding who needs to be screened or not.

How is this a whole lot different from putting a Marine reservist on a no-fly list due to powder residue being found on his boots after he returned from his first tour in Iraq?

The fact that I didn't hear about that one for starters. It also would have demanded a different thread title.

Actually, you and quite a few others (Patroklos for one) posted in that one. It was a while back, though. Basic deal is first time back, golly gee, his boots tested positive for explosive traces due to gunpowder residue.
Next time back, returning with part of his unit, he was denied boarding (IIRC, returning to Minneapolis-St. Paul airport) with the rest of his unit, even though he had his military ID, orders, etc. The SNAFU eventually got fixed and he got a later flight.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
I doubt you'd take the same position had it been a group of blacks. BTW, no ones screaming, I'm merely suspicious. Time will tell if I'm right or not.

Yes, I would have the same position.

[Aeson]

Is this really an issue? The article states that another group of military personel who had properly requested the ability to visit were granted the right to do so.

``If this information had been shared in advance,'' she said, ``there would have been a different outcome.'' As evidence of that, Ale-Flint noted that Hilltop had made such arrangements for an earlier North American flight that same day, and the troops were permitted inside the airport.