July 29, 2009
NY Times Botches Complaint Against NC Jihadists
Lets see if you can catch the false and repeated refrain from the newspaper of record:
The three men, along with four others, are charged with stockpiling automatic weapons and traveling abroad numerous times to participate in jihadist movements. There is no indication in the indictment that they were planning attacks in the United States, though prosecutors said they had practiced military tactics this summer in a rural county close to Virginia.
...
Federal officials in Washington said that the men charged on Monday were not seen as serious terrorist threats to the United States or American interests abroad, and that there were no indications of ties to Al Qaeda or other militant groups. But the officials said there was concern that they were amassing a sizable number of automatic weapons, given Mr. Boyd’s record as a foreign fighter.
If you guessed that there weren't any automatic weapons involved in this case, you guessed right.
As noted in some detail yesterday, the indictment cites the exact firearms owned by Daniel Boyd, and not a single one of them was an automatic weapon. The weapons cited in the indictment were 8 intermediate-caliber semi-automatic rifles, 2 semi-automatic battle rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver.
So much for those multiple layers of fact checkers...
Something really seems strange about this one! For one thing, Boyd the Elder, has possible CIA connections, and is said to have fought against the Russians in Afghanistan.
Second, it is said that he went on "recruiting" trips to the Middle East to find Jihadists, bring them back to the U.S., train them to kill and then send them back to Iraq or whereever? Does this makes sense to anyone?
Anyone... Buehler... Buehler...
Posted by: Wolfman George at July 29, 2009 05:21 PMjust out of professional curiosity, what is a "battle rifle"?
Posted by: redc1c4 at July 30, 2009 01:18 AMTypically weapons such as the M1 Garand, the M14, the FN FAL and similar are known as "battle rifles." They are full sized, semi auto weapons firing a medium caliber round - in the first example, .30-06, the other two NATO 7.62x51mm.
The term Battle Rifle was adopted to differentiate from Assault Rifle, which despite whatever bizarre definition the media adopts (generally "guns we don't like") is widely accepted in military circles to be a shorter, select fire weapon chambered in lighter calibers. The two most widely used calibers are NATO 5.56mm and Warsaw Pact 7.62x39mm.
Incidentally, the two latter rounds, typically associated with assault rifles, are obviously less powerful in bullet weight, muzzle velocity, and impact energy. Something to bear in mind when a breathless reporter talks about "high powered" ammunition.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 30, 2009 05:03 AMA Battle Rifle is a full-size rifle designed for military use that fires a full powered round and is used in military service.
An Assault rifle is a select fire rifle that fires a round intermediate in power to a pistol round and a full powered round. It was designed primarily for use in the assault portion of the offense (in military strategy), though is used now during all phases of both the offense and defense. It's lineage starts with the STG-44.
An Assault weapon is a false definition thunked up by politicians to describe rifles that look scary.
Posted by: Matt at August 2, 2009 10:03 AMBattle rifle? No such thing. I have never heard the term until it came up on this site. So, is a 1903 Springfield a battle rifle? Nonsense. Let's get the terminology correct. They are just semi-automatic rifles.
Posted by: Federale at August 2, 2009 03:50 PMFederale, the M1903 is not a semi automatic rifle. It is, by U.S. military and NATO verbage classified as a bolt action rifle (though it was at one point classified as a battle rifle). The M14 is a battle rifle, the M1 Garand is a battle rifle, the FN FAL is a battle rifle.
Some countries within NATO only classify a rifle as a battle rifle if it is select fire. The U.S. makes no distinction.
