Major mexican border incident

YoteSackbuster

New member
Mexican military in U.S. border standoff
Police say they aided drug smugglers with Humvees, machine guns

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 17, 2007
3:47 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Mexican Army Humvee
Mexican soldiers and civilian smugglers engaged in an armed standoff with nearly 30 American law enforcement officials on the southern U.S. border, according to Texas police and the FBI.

At a spot more than 200 yards inside the U.S., Mexican Army troops set up several mounted machine guns when U.S. Border Patrol agents called for backup Monday, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, Calif., reported.

The paper said Mexican military Humvees were towing what appeared to be thousands of pounds of marijuana across the border into the U.S., according to Chief Deputy Mike Doyal of the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Department.

The incident took place on the Rio Grande near Neely's Crossing, about 50 miles east of El Paso.

"It's been so bred into everyone not to start an international incident with Mexico that it's been going on for years," Doyal told the Daily Bulletin. "When you're up against mounted machine guns, what can you do? Who wants to pull the trigger first? Certainly not us."

(Story continues below)

Confirming the afternoon encounter, FBI spokeswoman Andrea Simmons told the paper, "Bad guys in three vehicles ended up on the border. People with Humvees, who appeared to be with the Mexican Army, were involved with the three vehicles in getting them back across."

Deputies captured one vehicle and found 1,477 pounds of marijuana inside, according to Doyal, who added Mexican soldiers set fire to one of the Humvees stuck in the river.

Such incidents are common, Doyal told the Daily Bulletin. Last November, his deputies were called on to back up agents from the Fort Hancock border patrol station in Texas after confronting more than six fully armed men dressed in Mexican military uniforms.

Armed with machine guns, the men were trying to bring more than three tons of marijuana across the border in military vehicles.

Doyal insisted the federal government must do something about the incursions, pointing out the deputies and border agents are not equipped for combat.

But Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff today played down the reports of Mexican military incursions, suggesting many could have been mistakes or criminals dressed in military garb. Last week, Mexican officials denied their military made any incursions.

The Daily Bulletin reported, however, border agents interviewed over the past year believe the confrontations were with Mexican military personnel.

A story by the paper last year highlighted a Department of Homeland Security document reporting 216 incursions by Mexican soldiers during the previous 10 years.

Chertoff downplayed the reports at that time, as well, calling them "overblown."

But border agents contend otherwise.

"We're sitting ducks," said one who spoke to the Daily Bulletin on condition of anonymity. "The government has our hands tied."

As WND reported in February 2006, an American law enforcement officer and news crew in Hudspeth County, Texas, witnessed an armed incursion into the U.S. by men dressed in Mexican army attire, the second such incident in two weeks.

Mexican officials have said their military is forbidden from traveling within three miles of the border, though U.S. border residents repeatedly have spotted mobile patrols of Mexican military units traversing roads that run directly parallel to the international boundary. Mexico says the armed men crossing into the U.S. are paramilitary forces loyal to drug-smuggling cartels.

Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter and David Drier of California last week asked Chertoff, the House Judiciary Committee, the House Homeland Security Committee and the House International Relations Committee to investigate the incursions.
 
And Bush is still pandering to Mexico, I think he is a traitor. If I were he, I would give the order "shoot first, ask questions later".
 
I would put some US Marines on the border with strick orders to defend our borders from ALL enemies, foriegn and domestic. If that involved shooting and killing, so-be-it.
 
Quote:
And Bush is still pandering to Mexico, I think he is a traitor. If I were he, I would give the order "shoot first, ask questions later".



Greg, I have always enjoyed your posts, pictures and contributions. That being said, we have not seen eye to eye on all things...non the less I think no less of you…it's good to be an American so that we can have differences of opinion.

However, calling the president of the United States a traitor is ridiculous and over stepping the bounds as an American, as far as I am concerned. I still think an American should stand behind his/her president, regardless of whether he/she voted for him or not. Exactly why do you think we are becoming the laughing stock of half the world? All Americans have been doing for the past 4-5 years is bi t ch and moan about Bush, protesting against him, and glad handing his enemies like they are some kind of freaking hero (the witch SHEMAN, i mean sheehan, and that idiot Baldwin brother (Pres. of Venezuela) come to mind)

Coincidently, I find it very ironic, or a sign of the times, that we would not impeach Clinton when he was caught committing adultery and lying to the US citizens; but because of a war, we all wanted to go into in 2001, and the direct results of that war, we are now experiencing high gas prices, our military members and friends are dieing fighting that war, and our economy is in a down turn, it's ALL Bushs fault so lets impeach him!?!?!

Do you not think that Bushs hands are a little bit tied up on the border issues. Every time he has attempted to do something about it, he is met with opposition from congress, including your democratic congressman?

He has directed Marines to the border to help with the security issues, however, it is to little to help. It would take tens of thousands of troops to secure the mexico/us border! Activity has picked up across the border also. One of my leases is 30 miles from the border, 1 hour WNW of Del Rio. The border Patrol, which has been non-existent there in the past, has now contacted us and told us not to leave camp un-armed, never leave keys in the hunting vehicles, always carry a weapon to open a gate, and to contact the sergeant (gave us his number)with any and all activity.

All of this is a direct result of cracking down on the border like never before. However, it is not going to happen over night, and we still have political and economical gains with Mexico. Wasn't it your Clinton (the lying adulterer) that expanded NAFTA?

Sorry, I'll quit ranting now...I was just told to "play nice".
 
Really dumb question: why couldn't we set things up such that IF Border Patrol personnel are: 1) engaged if a firefight; 2) with suspects using Class III weapons against them; 3) and those suspects are on the scene via military or military-type vehicles (ie Humvees); and, 4) those suspects are wearing military or paramilitary tactical uniforms, then:

The Border Patrol personnel may call for US military tactical air support which may engage and dispatch the suspects using lethal force.

To me this just seems a no-brainer...but what do I know, eh?
 
Bush has the ability, without Congress, to stop the invasion. These incidents are an act of war. Allowing in invaders and drugs (which is destroying lives) by the Mexican Military or gangs is approval of these actions. Bush has not sent the Marines, but a few National Guardsmen and they are not allowed to stop the invasion but watch it. Same with the Border Patrol. I have friend down there in BP and he knows what is going on. Bush has not built the "fence" except for a few miles, a bad joke. I will not blindly follow any leader who is a globalist and leading this country on the path to a communist world government. I don't care if it is the President or the mayor of New York. I might add that I have tremendous respect for the position of President, but none for some of its recent occupants. Fortunately, we still have the ability to openly disagree with those in government and my opinion stands.

BTW, "your" Clinton? I don't think so!
 
This whole situation could have been diffused by a single Apache gunship. Then ALL the evidence could have been taken before that idiot Chertoff and been asked, "Is this overblown?" Bush has turned a blind eye toward the border mess and any action so far has been symbolic. Case in point, much was made of the N.G. being deployed to "protect" the border. The dirty little secret is that they were carrying unloaded weapons! That is "compassionate conservativism" defined, or insanity defined, take your pick. While Bush may get high marks from some conservatives for the "war on terror", if he were truly serious about our security then his FIRST action would have been to close the border, round up the invaders, and send them back. Greg, you'd support a Clinton about as soon as I would, which would be never. I fear for the country that my children will live in when I reach the other side. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
You are right Dawg.

Got to thinking more about this thread, if we were support "stand behind" whoever is leading this country because of the position, then one must assume that our Founding Fathers should have supported the King of England instead of creating the Declaration of Independence, then the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So much for things like the 2nd Amendment. If that were the case, then today, only the elite would be here on PM, us peons would not have the right of going wherever to shoot coyotes with any sort of firearm. The Black Rifle guys would not exist. All of our leaders have taken an oath of office to defend the Constitution (you and I) against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The illegals are the enemy, they kill our sons, rape our daughters and poison our culture. To not protect us from this invasion is a violation of their oath and is treason against the American people. Thats the bottom line.
 
Now this President knew about immigration and what it meant to this country.
The year is 1907.....but the speaker knew what he was talking
about.




Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on immigrants and being an AMERICAN
in 1907.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant
who comes here in good faith becomes an American and
assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to
discriminate against any such man because of creed, or
birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man
who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...
and we have room for but one sole loyalty
and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907




Eisenhower had all illegal's rounded up and deported so there's proof that it can be done, we just need someone with some backbone to see it get's taken care of.
 
Quote:
Mexican officials have said their military is forbidden from traveling within three miles of the border, though U.S. border residents repeatedly have spotted mobile patrols of Mexican military units traversing roads that run directly parallel to the international boundary. Mexico says the armed men crossing into the U.S. are paramilitary forces loyal to drug-smuggling cartels.



Good deal, there's no chance of creating an "international border incident" then is there. You have common criminals armed with heavy weapons you counter them with heavier weapons. As Javafour said, "no brainer".
 
Quote:
This whole situation could have been diffused by a single Apache gunship.



/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowingsmilie.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowingsmilie.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif

Why is it always so obvious to us non-politicians?
 
When I first got into law enforcement, I was told that if I found myself in a confrontational situation, and your adversary has a rock, use the night stick. If he/she has a knife, use your sidearm. If he/she has a handgun, use the shotgun with back up on the way.

Quote:
Maybe if we shoot a few of them we'll find out real quick exactly who they are (were)........

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif

I would think that if we had a couple of Marine Recon Snipers deployed as response units and quit this "Mexican Standoff" posturing, that eventually will cost a BP agent or a local LEO their life, we could establish real quick who they were and with good GPS readings on the bodies, there would be no "International Incident" other than getting clearance for the undertakers to return the cadavers....
 
The "Your Clinton" thing was just a light hearted jab...

I never meant that someone should blindly follow the Pres. Just that calling him a "traitor", ie. punishable by death, is, in my opinion, very over board. John Walker Lindh, the "American Muslim Taliban" captured in 2001, comes to mind as a traitor and he should have been put to death after interigation. I have not seen any of Bushs actions falling under the "traitor" umbrella as in against the United States of America. Then again, maybe I am simply blind.

Does Bush not have to get the funds for the fence pushed through congress...in order to get it constructed? The you also have the property owners not wanting it built, the man hours to construct it, the state governments fighting against it, and exactlly who is going to build it? It is not the Border Patrols job, so that leaves the NG, and I am certain that is a job they are all looking forward to.
Coincidently, I did miss type in previous post, I knew it was the NG dispatched, not the Marines, up to late I guess.
This is the first I have heard of the NG carrying around unloaded weapons and not issued any ammo. IF that is the case, it is a joke and a border incident waiting to happen.

A communist world government...this is the first I have heard of this. What proof is there that we are headed towards a communist world government?

While I do not agree with some of Bushs recent decisions, I do think that, over all, he is certainly the better of the two from the Dem and Repub candidates and I would hate to think where we would be if it were Kerry or Gore in office...I personally would like to see a candidate like Reagan or Teddy again...however, it is looking more like the Kalifornia governors race now, with every Tom, [beeep], and Harry with some TV time jumping in the pool.
 
Quote:
And Bush is still pandering to Mexico, I think he is a traitor. If I were he, I would give the order "shoot first, ask questions later".



We all saw the ex-pres of Mexico on TV verifing the meeting of the North American Union! It's coming boys, better be prepared!
 
Quote:
Quote:
This whole situation could have been diffused by a single Apache gunship.



/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowingsmilie.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowingsmilie.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif

Why is it always so obvious to us non-politicians?




Because when you go to Washington you check your balls, your brain, and your spine at the door.
 


Does Bush not have to get the funds for the fence pushed through congress...in order to get it constructed?

I voted for him both times.
That said, I don't know why Bush has to get funds approved for the fence. He said he had mega-bucks to add to the kitty for security when he was trying to get the Criminal Amnesty Act passed. Use That!

As far as calling him a traitor.
While I may or may not agree with Greg about that I certainly can see reasonable cause to think it.
IMO ANYBODY that puts another country ahead of their own is a traitor.
 
All one has to do is look at Bush's support of Johnny Sutton aka Johnny Satan's presecution of th etwo border agents named Ramos and Compean. Bush commutes Scooter Libby's sentence and let's these two agents rot in federal prison.

If that's not bad enough Bush has tried to intervene in the excecution of an illegal mexican alien who killed two little girls in Houston by supporting the Intl. Court of Justice in the Haig. Here is why Bush is a traitor. When he was our governor, he told the same court that "Texas will run Texas". Bush is trying to prevent a legal execution to pander to the mexicans. I want to vomit.

I support the war and the troops, but when Bush puts mexico ahead of American citizens, he's a traitor.
 
I read a blurb on the bottom of O'Reilly the other night about Bush putting toghether a $60 million package for Mexico. Apparently he wants to give it to the corrupt government to aid in the alleged fight against corrupt government and drug traffickers. What a joke. Traitor? No. But you certainly have to wonder about the potential for traitorous intent behind some actions. I just can't believe that someone elected as president really is that stupid. That leaves something else as the motive behind the actions.
 
Back
Top