_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

I can't say anymore because I am considered a threat.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like there are three new police widows in Pittsburg or anything as of a couple of weeks ago.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

It's not like the extreme left has not ever been seen as a threat, it is also not like this study was not started before the new administration took office. Oh, and, it is not like an extremist militant group of either side won't try to recruit someone who can use weapons.

But hey, lets make a big deal as we take the whole thing the wrong way.

Fuck me for not proof-reading my shit. ;P

Anyway, the report is not saying anything outrageous or anything worth making a big deal out of. And unless you try hard it doesn't even put our veterans in bad light. All it says is that they could be a possible target for recruitment, and that some of them might fall for it.

This was a whacko, those exist everywhere whether your president is black or not. ;P

Sadly, the left will keep bringing this whacko up to keep trying to prove points.

You're in a white power militia? They are doing a threat assessment on people like Timothy McVeigh, not people who enjoy teabagging;>

Under that theory, Gosthok, McVeigh and Nichols were "just wackos."

_________________
Hope is the new black.

But, they were. Regardless of the magnitude of what they did, they were not representative of a bigger threat. Same way the monster who set up and killed the three cops is not.

So, we have this report, and I don't think you can look at that guy and be like, "SEE, ITS HAPPENING!" I'm not saying you are saying that, but I also don't think that this case really relates to the report. We seem to have cases like him quite often regardless of who is our president or what social issues we are going through.

I like it how much easier it is for some people to differentiate right wing extremists from conservatives than terrorists from the followers of Islam. Just ironic really. Of course, no one here would be that intellectually dishonest!

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

People that stockpile weapons might be dangerous, news at 11.

If you look at both sides, things are the same, they just switched around, which is quite amusing to watch.

Not long ago anti-war protesters were criticized by the right, and omg, you can't oppose our President! Not in a time of war! Don't like it get out! Now, the right is doing the same about different issues, and people are acting towards them the same way they acted towards the other side, and they are all, "omgz! We are exercising our 1st Amendment, it is the American thing to dooo!!!"

*rolls eyes*

Anyway Ara, don't forget the negativity that was attached to environmentalists and to "liberals" in general not long ago. The side in power is just doing the same that was done to them while the other side was in power. A bigger reason to stand as close to the middle as possible. Both sides are always wrong. =)

I almost wrote this line and pressed post: "I stockpile weapons."

And a wave of fear washed over me.

For the record, I do not stockpile weapons, it was going to be a joke.

Internet hydra is watching you articulate.

http://books.google.com/books?id=SX4B7p ... ry_s&cad=0

These are the kind of people they are talking about in that report Gosthok. Do you feel this equates to right political activists?

Activists are not the same thing as extremists.

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

Although in the modern parlance, the hyperbole often conflates the two, so I can't blame you (much) for your mistake.

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

Newp. I wasn't trying to equate extremism to political activists of either side, I hope I didn't give that impression in any of my posts. My reply to Ara was a bit of a derail, I also think I misread his tone and message. ;P

And yeah, I know who the report talks about. Only reason I didn't feel Bearne's response was an adequate one to the original post was because I don't see how the incident validates the report, or relates to it. Incidents like that are, sadly, not that rare. When I read the report I feel they are talking about something much more organized than some crazy white supremacist dude planning and carrying out the killing three cops.

I also don't see how it puts veterans in a bad light.

I can't figure out what the big deal is either. Right-wing extremism is just as dangerous as left-wing extremism.

I have a feeling people are getting all caught up thinking that because it says "right"-wing extremism, there must be an attempt to associate general conservative ideology with that brand of extremism, which is a rather silly assumption. You could in theory have all manner of things in common with an extremist of that type, and yet when their ideology ends up including something as significant and game-changing as advocating to murder people en masse, that by itself practically changes the brand of ideology we're talking about. Imagine a conservative who advocates big government - it's a different beast entirely, thus the new branding of "neo-conservatism".

It's just a general warning based on chatter and intelligence reports that a particular brand of extremism is on the rise. Would you rather they not warn us?

The right wing are terrorists. Terror Alert Orange guys! Be afraid to go outside! Now they're angry too.

I don't understand what the big deal here is. Are people all riled up because "military" and "terrorist" were in the the same article or something?

Yes, that is what the big deal is.

Democrats on the left have a recent history of loathing the US Armed Forces. When a report from the administration comes out that singles out "Right-Wing Extremists" and lumps in returning US Forces that leap is not very hard to make.

Even the head of Homeland Security, who's memo made public the claim, said that veterans and those in the military are due an apology.

Then there is this from the WSJ
bold added by me

You don't treat those that are defending your country like this. If you don't like it then you pick up a damned M-16, lace up some boots, and go take their place. These actions are nothing short of telling our service members "thank you for putting your life at risk, but we still hold you in contempt.

"Support the troops but not the war" my ass.

So krby, let's say for a minute that you're a militia dude. Who would you want to work on recruiting to your cause? An overweight 50-something accountant threatening to "Go Galt," or a 20-something just back from his third tour of duty in three years in foreign hell-holes with fresh training in arms and armaments, urban warfare, and counterinsurgency?

I seriously don't know if I read the same report. The report I read basically says that extremists and militia groups are going to be trying to target recent vets. Well, duh. They'd be morons not to.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Yes, but you know how it is. The military is one of those sacred demographics that you're not supposed to talk about. It's like a big real Fight Club. You can't say they do anything, because they're in the big US Fight Club.

As sarcastic as that was, you know it's at least in part true. A report comes out that says they might be the target of something and suddenly it's, "OMG HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT US, WE SAVED YOU IRL FROM TOWELHEADS AND YOU REPAY US BY TALKING ABOUT THINGS NOT REALLY BUT POSSIBLY SORT OF INVOLVING US IN A MANNER OF SPEAKING?!?! SHENANIGANS!!!!"

Just calm down, kids. No one said that soldiers are gonna come back and murder children and kittens. It's ok.

Would those vets not also be a target for left-wing activist groups as well. Say you are an anti-war wacko and you wanted to recruit some people to shake things up, wouldn't you look towards the same source - dissatisfied former members of the US Armed forces?

Our Armed Forces are an amazing quilt of beliefs, backgrounds, races, religions, and personal experiences (and it mostly operates like a single group which is amazingly wonderful). You can find all sorts of highly trained individuals to do nearly anything from those returning from service. If I were a business recruiter I would look to those returning to fill the needs of my company.

Look at the FBI actions (link in my post) and this report. What is the conclusion to see there? Look at the history of those in power now, have they not publicly stated that they loathe the military? Have they not compared our forces to those in Soviet Gulags? Taken by itself this report is just a small blip, but you can not take this report by itself. There is way too much history on their side to let it slide. With all that history this blip becomes a tipping point.

Now, look at it from a soldiers point of view, if you can. They have put their life on the line to defend our country and they see reports like this coming from Homeland Security. This report is saying to that soldier "You are a potential threat". That solder is saying "WTF?!?! I am busting my ass defending you from threats and now you are calling ME a threat?" The association of the military to extremist groups was not needed.

You watch too much Hannity or O'Reilly or listen to too much Rush if you really believe that "They aren't supporting our troops!" nonsense. It was a line and you bought it up.

Where was the outrage when the DHS and its predecessors made the same reports about left-wing extremists, also initiated by the Bush Administration?

"Look at the history of those in power now, have they not publicly stated that they loathe the military? Have they not compared our forces to those in Soviet Gulags?"

WTF?? Specifics??

_________________
Hope is the new black.

/Neesha "Pittsburgh" /Neesha

And that same weekend, a whack job shot 13 other people to death a few miles from where I work before killing himself because -- well, at first it was reported he was a conservative hate-monger, whipped into a frenzy by Glenn Beck and other "haters." Unfortunately for Keth Olbermann, it turned out the guy was a Vietnamese immigrant of Chinese descent, who was pissed because he had trouble speaking English and because he'd lost his job. So he went to the place he'd been taking classes to improve his English,and shot a bunch of innocent people who were taking classes to gain their US citizenship. Did many (any??) of you hear that part of the story?

_________________
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

Yeah I heard the real story. They do this thing on CNN where they don't report shit until they confirm it. Don't watch MSNBC or FOX if you want news, watch them if you want someone else's opinion rammed down your throat.

I am not trolling here when I say that you have some SERIOUS tin-foil hat material going on there.

Ask, and ye shall receive:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/burtis060206.htm



http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/547



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160275,00.html



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... right-mean





Not gonna waste any more of a nice day dicking around on Google. But you wanted evidence, and you got it. Have fun.

_________________
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

Here's the question - did these bad things really happen? Because you can't just cry out hate-mongering and shit if the people in question really DID do some shitty things and folks called them out on it. You don't get to just call everyone "military haters" when they call out some bad soldiers.

Thanks, Bale, but I wasn't asking for instances where people who actually engaged in torture and the wholesale slaughter of innocents got called out as what they are.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Pointing out the seriousness and cruelty of a very select group of people within the military(some of which were charged with crimes by the military itself IIRC in the case of Haditha) is not the same as either comparing the whole of our forces to the Soviet Gulag, nor a suggestion that anyone loathes the military.



Doubtful. Why would a left-wing extremist group actively try and recruit anywhere near as much as a right-wing extremist group from the veteran population when it is right-leaning(and therefore would find even less common ground with them)?



Nowhere is it saying that all soldiers or vets are a potential threat. The suggestion is that there is a very specific portion of the population, that HAPPEN to be vets, that may be a threat. I can't imagine why any good soldier would be dumb enough to think they have been grouped up when the report never suggests anything more than a portion of a group.

By that logic, you should also be upset that the report suggests members of the human race may be a threat, and every human should consider themselves a threat.

As someone who feels very strongly about the homeless issue, I would feel the exact same way if the government had issued a warning that there was an increase in unrest amongst the impoverished and less-well-to-do. In no way does that suggest the entire homeless population is a threat.

Do you get upset every time an APB for a white male(with associated features) is issued by the police? Sure, it's specific and a crime has been committed in that case, but the point is that authorities have found a specific threat that only pertains to a select group of people. It's not an effort to suggest that any large group of the population is guilty or a threat, but rather a method to narrow down a search and be more specific.

Maybe the kind of person who would join such a group deviates from the norm? Like the extremists being labeled 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' deviate from the group they're being attached to?

They do deviate from the norm, but not so much that they wouldn't have beliefs that fall more in common with one group significantly more over another.

I haven't read the boards in a few days, and I gotta say there's still some pretty fucked up, twisted views of the left around here. Keep it up krby and Bale, it's entertaining!

OK, Frib. What would you think if the Homeland Security came out with a report saying teachers that were former Quakers are prime recruiting targets for domestic terrorists and the FBI has launched a nationwide manhunt targeting former Quaker teachers?

How is that report launching a nationwide manhunt against veterans again?

Aside from that being laughably illogical (omg pacifist terrorists! :p ), I don't see anywhere anyone stating this is a "nationwide manhunt targeting former military vets." Even if it was, why would they need a "manhunt?" Aren't there thousands of them, everywhere you look? Doesn't really take a "manhunt" to come up with them, if that were true.

Your language about "manhunts" and the left "loathing the military" is just so fucking ridiculous it's hard to take you seriously. You have GOT to stop listening to Rush, before your mind becomes permanently twisted that way.

Read this article from the Wall Street Journal


Oh, how quickly you forget that your favorite president, Bill Clinton, wrote in his letter to the ROTC Commander of his "Loathing of the military".

Is Rush talking about this? I don't know. I have been so busy at work these past few months that I have not had an opportunity to listen to any political talk radio.

I guess I am not doing a good job of trying to explain my situation here and why I am outraged (and why this is blowing up like it has).

I am conservative. I am not a Republican. I voted for a third party in the last election. I am a former member of the Army. I have owned firearms (I have moved them to my in-laws house because I have children in my house). In Arkansas I was known as a very outspoken supporter of the US Constitution and the rule of law (I have been quoted and written about several times leading anti-tax rallies, anti-government corruption rallies, and other campaigns against those in Arkansas's government that were otherwise wasting the people's money.

The report that Homeland Security presented was targeted at me and people like me. You should know by now that I love this country. I was born on Washington's Birthday (Feb. 22) my daughter is named Reagan and my son Benjamin. I vote, I fly the US Flag, I was a boy scout, my children are now both in scouts. I willfully serve when called for jury duty. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one of my favorite all time movies. For me to be a target as a potential terrorist is as illogical as targeting you, the pacifist. However there IS a government document saying that people JUST LIKE ME are to be watched for potential terrorist activities.

THAT is what pisses me off. Rush or anyone on talk radio did not tell me to say that or put that in my though process. I read the report just like anyone else and that is the conclusion that I came up with.

First, let me quote more of the article that you apparently ignored when you freaked out about the first couple sentences.



If you think you are the target, then I can only draw one of three conclusions.

1) You have joined a white supremist or other extremist organization, and are therefore correct that you have become a target of their investigations.

2) You didn't even read the rest of the article after reading the first two sentences.

3) Your pre-existing bias that the left must "loathe" the military, likely drawn from your own admitted listening to extreme right wing radio sources, has caused you to completely misinterpret the article to fit your own pre-defined worldview.

Which is it?

And when you are done with that, I would like you to justify the word "loathe" when describing the left's view of the military. I'm sure there are a lot of people that find your statement rather offensive. Maybe we don't wear flag pins enough for you?

Where is it targeting you? What the hell are you even talking about?

If we acknowledge that disgruntled veterans are a potential recruitment pool for extremist groups, don't we have a mandate to treat our troops with the support and respect they deserve?

Leo, we must acknowledge that disgruntled former military my join extremist organizations on all sides of the political spectrum. We also must acknowledge that extremist groups from all sides of the political spectrum have the potential to be very dangerous (there was a warning about leftists organizations threatening to pull off cyber attacks against many financial institutions).

Also, unless their personal actions prove otherwise, all current and former service members are due the highest respect and honor for their service.

Frib,
1. Define what is currently an extremist organization. When I was in college I was a YAF'er. I am a Texas citizen. I am a member of the NRA. I had participated in a local "Tea-Party". I am becoming more active in the Libertarian Party. Many of you would consider any of one of those to be extremist.

2. I read the article. They could have completely left out the military connection and just had their target be left and right-wing extremist groups and this whole mess would not have existed.

3. My pre-existing bias is not from "extreme talk radio". Believe whatever you want to believe.

So we're still left wondering what your point is and why you're acting like the government is coming after you.

Am I the only one who thinks "What a fucking idiot" every time they hear about someone they know going to one of these "Tea Parties"?

Krby, I agree, but now it looks like your contempt for the statement is based less on the fact that DHS is looking at veterans and more that it's targeting the right-wing.

1) What's that got to do with the article?

2) How's that "coming to get you"? Most of your argument here just seems to be that you're pissy that anyone is talking about stuff you may or may not do.

I don't think it is at all irrational to feel targetted by our government. Given the policies pursued by the Bush Administration and as yet not disavowed by the Obama administration that infringe on our civil rights (rendition, wire-tapping, etc.), the hype (although I think alot of it is just hype) about the current administration's reexamination of the Brady bill, the media focus on the right-wing version of this 'report' and lack of focus on the left-wing version, to feel targtted when you meet even a couple of the criteria targetted in any report that talks of "terrorists" or "extremists" in today's world is enough to send chills up anyone's spine.

The problem is that today it feels like so many people think that definitions of groups (stereotypes) can be easily applied to individuals within groups. Unfortunately with the state of the economy, xenophobic reactions and clinging to the familiar will probably become more prevalent and, with the lack of trust in government institutions, fear of governmental over-reactions will be one of the by-products.

That is part of it. The automatic assumption that because an individual is pro-gun they must automatically be a right-wing extremist. Or if they are pro-gay rights then they must automatically be a left-wing kook. (By that definition I am an extremist kook)

The fact that the memo only targets "right wing extremist groups" and military involvement is troubling to me. It shows a narrowness of thought and preconceived bias that did not have to be there. I have a feeling that this administration will be more combative against those that it disagrees with than any in my recent memory. (Case in point, this administration sent memos to Democrats that did not support the administration in the "stimulus" package indicating they will play ball or else. Many members of the Arkansas Congressional delegation, Sen Prior, Sen Lincoln, Rep Snyder, and others were listed as those getting memos, all are Democrats) This administration looks like they will do what they can to eliminate anything that is against what they want to do. That is scary to me.

The reason the report is only about right wing extremists is that the left wing extremist report came out a while back.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

clearly a nationwide manhunt!

Tin-foil hat... I seriously don't know how you come to these conclusions.

Because a memo shows that the government has its focus on ONLY right wing extremist groups, and that memo encompasses all of our defense, intelligence, and homeland security agencies. They are exclusively focusing on the subjects of that memo. They aren't doing anything else. Just that. Really.

/sarcasm

_________________

We should trust our government not to politicize important civil liberty and national security issues. We don't have a history of ever doing that. When things come out that hint that it may be going on, we should turn the other cheek because it's definitely NOT going on.

ahh my previous post, while it still stands, was written after having only read the first page of this thread. Krby seems to have gotten at least a little more rational since then.

I still cannot for the life of me figure out how he thinks the government is on a nation-wide manhunt to get him, all backed by a left wing party that loathes the military.

Looks like the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, really is in over her head. In case you missed it she was in "Blame Canada" mode with this (source):



Oops.
Continuing...
Huh?



First the NAFTA blunder now this? Does the Obama administration have a secret plan against Canada?

CTV.ca has the story where she tried to clarify her comments but like a klutz dancing in a barrel of crap she kept getting it all over herself here

Please tell me why experience wasn't required for the election of this president?

Now that's the first thing you (or actually it's usually Joxur) have brought up that actually bothers me a little.

Most of the Mexican border with Texas is highly dangerous for tourists to cross. Government employees are actually forbidden to do so. Last time I was at Fort Bliss there were two robbery homicides in the bridge/tunnel thing heading into Juarez.

The worst you have to worry about at the Canadian border is they'll creep you out with niceness.